Proof there is a God

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yes I do recall what you said, but that has little to do with the question.
Let me put it another way; Why dont you believe in God?

I do not believe in something that is just made up by some humans to control other humans.

If you keep avoiding to give a description/definition, in this thread, I can only assume you are in denial.

Then you would be wrong. I repeat mythical character what is so difficult to grasp... You can question my until the cows come home but you wont have an answer until you accept what I have said...

You are in denial, meaning your in defence mode on this subject.
Your current state of mind dictates that you will not allow a divine foot in the door, no matter what.
I doubt your denial has ever been tested this much, which is why you're desperately trying to defend it

Do really think that? You dont get it.
My friend so much like you.
I told him I planned to eat better and exercise.
He says "You are doing that because you are scared of dying"
Er no I want to be a better me.
"No thats what you say but you are really scared of dying"
He was/is scared of dying and I know this because he talked about dying, after life, light at tbe end of the tunnel such it was obsessional.
He thought I thought how he thought and was just wrong. But how rude and you do similar.
You have no ability to understa d each of us has a different reality and you think your reality fits all.
You are wrong just wrong there is no way to vet thru to you. Not everyone thinks the way you do.
I dont care what you think about God etc but please do not tell me what I think that is wrong on many levels... Cant you grasp that.

Glad you got that off your chest?

That was for your benefit.

What reasonable concept of reality have you presented thus far?

Do you comprehend anything at all. Mythical character ring a bell?

Thank you for the definition was it something you thought up or did it come from a scripture.

On the positive Jan I think we are getting somewhere if you can just learn to understand others may not think like you and as such if you reject their ideas because they dont suit what want them to think you will chose wrong answers.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

If you keep avoiding to give a description/definition, in this thread, I can only assume you are in denial.

As shown, and as Alex has also pinted out, fallacious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Write4U,

Galilei once declared:
The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written.
It is written in mathematical language and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word.

Doesn't this mean the universe contains information that cannot be read without comprehension ability.

What, other than a mind can write information?

If it is humanly impossible to even comprehend a single word, and the information is written in the universe for us to comprehend, then how could we have invented mathematics?
It would mean that the information was not meant for human comprehension, and as such we would be perfectly happy in our natural ignorant state of being. Do you see lions and tigers trying to comprehend the universe?

By the way, you can ponder on the scriptures also being information from the source. Remember scriptures have only been written down in the last 3.5 thousand years or so (by so called experts). But they have been passed down aurally from time immemorial. Which is why every society has an notion of God (monotheist God), even the animist aboriginal tribes. It is innate. Mate.

Because you did.

But I didn't though. I know the truth of the matter. You don't.
Simply accepting the situation how you see fit, despite the truth, is probably what got you in the denying God business.

They don't exist outside of human minds, but values are recognized by many other species. And more importantly, being Causal to physical change and the result of that change..

Could humans and animals exist without numbers?
Even primitive tribes have their unique ways of using numbers.
What make you think man invented them?

You are the one playing games.

I don't need to do anything but withstand the insults and false accusations. Eventually you break.
The essence has to come through.

No, I call that Potential or the Implicate Order. See David Bohm.

You can call it what you like mate. It is within the capability of God.
You should read some vedic literature, in all seriousness. You'd see what I mean.

Your movie is not playable in my area.

Of course, that's why we have different names for different things, because names describe the definition of a thing, see:

That's not what I meant. The essence never changes.
Calling God, mathematics, is still God with a name of your choosing.

Does any of the above prove a God, a name with a specific definition. No, it merely shows that we have explained most (but not all) naturally occurring phenomena in separate areas (disciplines) of Science.

Science can't explain God.

This limitation was recognized by David Bohm, who proposed that we should also look at the "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", an hierarchical natural order of mathematical functions which have the potential to be expressed as a probabilistic value for physical reality, including the evolution of self-aware organisms who can imagine an omniscient existence.

But this does not prove that the Wholeness needs to be sentient for it to function as it does.

Well isn't that convenient. Consciousness can arise out of gross matter.
No explanation just, it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be here (I suspect).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do not believe in something that is just made up by some humans to control other humans.

I didn't ask you to believe in it.
How do you know God was invented by humans to control other humans?

Then you would be wrong. I repeat mythical character what is so difficult to grasp... You can question my until the cows come home but you wont have an answer until you accept what I have said...

You just sound like your frightened to go into detail. This is why I can't take anything you say seriously.

Do really think that? You dont get it.
My friend so much like you.
I told him I planned to eat better and exercise.
He says "You are doing that because you are scared of dying"
Er no I want to be a better me.
"No thats what you say but you are really scared of dying"
He was/is scared of dying and I know this because he talked about dying, after life, light at tbe end of the tunnel such it was obsessional.
He thought I thought how he thought and was just wrong. But how rude and you do similar.
You have no ability to understa d each of us has a different reality and you think your reality fits all.
You are wrong just wrong there is no way to vet thru to you. Not everyone thinks the way you do.
I dont care what you think about God etc but please do not tell me what I think that is wrong on many levels... Cant you grasp that.

I am just words on a page to you. You don't know me. You knew your friend. There's a big difference.
I'm asking you a simple question, and you are now drawing attention to yourself, and not in a positive sense.

I am not interested in your thoughts, because all that does is slow down the process. I am interested in essence. That is what God is. Essence. Whether you believe He exists or not.
I don't have to be a theist to grasp that. I only need to read scriptures, and I will comprehend it from that. Do you get it? I don't want your opinion, I want to know how you define or describe this entitiy. Be it real or fictional.

That was for your benefit.

You don't need to. Really.
I'm here for discussion.

Thank you for the definition was it something you thought up or did it come from a scripture.

It was from a scripture (I told you it was impression free).
Do you think that is a good description of God?

On the positive Jan I think we are getting somewhere if you can just learn to understand others may not think like you and as such if you reject their ideas because they dont suit what want them to think you will chose wrong answers.

I'm talking to you. My conversation with the others (great film, love Kidman) is not this conversation.

I am going to assume you recall nothing so I will answer again.
God is a mythical character. That is my answer... I dont visualise Morgan Freeman in a white suit, I dont see any visualisation. I dont think of anything you simply dont get that someone does not have a vision of nothing. Thats the problem you can not think how another human thinks.

Why did you utter his name, or know that he wore a white suit in a film, if you don't viualise him.
You've just made a silly point. Why?

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry Jan you are not making sence you obviously have become giddy from going around in circles.
Anyways proceed with your discussion when you want my reply why dont you answer on my behalf that way you can cut out the middle man and get the answers you want.
I will look in from time to time to read what you say I have said.
I have to go I have to watch some paint dry.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry Jan you are not making sence you obviously have become giddy from going around in circles.

I think it's a case of you not wanting to participate in this discussion.
Earlier you equated God with Santa Clause. If that isn't a type of definition or description, I don't know what is.

I had hoped you'd remembered, and stop with the games. But you had to go there.

But not to worry, I'm getting bored now.

I recommend "The Others" with Nicole Kidman. Much more entertaining than watching paint dry.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry Jan I suffer severe pain from time to time and I can be a little cranky.
Please go on.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

This discussion isn't worth distressing ourselves over. So take some time out, relax, and we'll carry on when you're ready.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

Secondly please realise there are some whatching you and waiting for you to say something profound

If people are waiting for Jan to say something profound, they are going to have to wait forever.

I mean, look at this thread. Jan barged into it at around post #500 and took it over, becoming the center and focus of everyone else's attention, and that's continued for something like 800 posts since then.

Nobody is any closer to reaching any conclusions than they were 800 posts ago, no progress of any kind has been made. Things have just been going around and around and around endlessly in circles. If you look at the countless threads in which Jan becomes the center of everyone's attention, that always happens. It's the game Jan plays.

Jan's game is a weird caricature of Socrates' method in the Meno, keep poking and prodding and asking questions while constantly hinting that there's something important that Jan wants other people to realize for themselves, but never getting any closer to revealing precisely what it is. That way Jan gets to pose as the wise teacher, the guru even, without ever needing to have anything to teach.

Jan has never straightforwardly clarified what his/her own beliefs are or given us any idea of why he/she holds them, apart from all of it having something to do with "scripture" (Jan doesn't like to specify which scriptures he/she is talking about or even explain what 'scriptures' supposedly are and how they can be distinguished from other religious writings). Apparently Jan thinks that by definition all 'scriptures' teach the same thing, that they all contain 'information' about "God", even the writings of polytheistic traditions where the many individual gods are imagined and interpreted by Jan to be various aspects of the one single "God" that Jan believes in.

There are obviously theological beliefs implicit in all that about the nature of 'scripture', about how it should be interpreted, about what the role of divinity is in it, and about what 'scripture' reveals about God. But Jan doesn't want to reveal what theological tradition he/she derived these ideas from or whether Jan simply imagined them for him/herself independently of tradition. Jan just objects that any question about the sources of his/her ideas is "irrelevant" and continues playing the game.

Here's how Jan imagines him/herself:

Jan wants to be the nimble dancer, dancing atop the heads of the atheist serpents, prodding and provoking them while revealing their deepest insecurities and weaknesses. Perhaps Jan wants to be the one to bring them to realization of the God-Consciousness that Jan believes is already present within them (if only they weren't 'afraid' to realize it). Then Jan dances away whenever anyone turns the tables and asks Jan a question that cuts a little too close to home, so as to remain untouchable, revealing nothing.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's the game Jan plays.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are complicit.

If there is no further progress on the subject (such as questions never being addressed) then it behoves us to conclude that the case has not been made, stop posting and move on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I mean, look at this thread. Jan barged into it at around post #500 and took it over, becoming the center and focus of everyone else's attention, and that's continued for something like 800 posts since then.

I haven't taken anything over. People may not like me, but I think they find my style of discussion, interesting, challenging, and different to the norm.

I think they are bored with your grey, dull, and boring approach to religious discourse. You are without substance. A parrot who likes to think you are the bearer of real information.

Nobody is any closer to reaching any conclusions than they were 800 posts ago, no progress of any kind has been made. Things have just been going around and around and around endlessly in circles. If you look at the countless threads in which Jan becomes the center of everyone's attention, that always happens. It's the game Jan plays.

Yes they are, Write4U is on the breakthrough of God realization, and Alex simply needs to not be so shy in answering the important questions, that will be helpful in allowing him to see where I'm coming from.

You think it's easy trying to prove God's existence to people whose dials are set to God doesn't exist no matter what? You try it. Just for fun (if that's possible)

Jan's game is a weird caricature of Socrates' method in the Meno, keep poking and prodding and asking questions while constantly hinting that there's something important that Jan wants other people to realize for themselves, but never getting any closer to revealing precisely what it is. That way Jan gets to pose as the wise teacher, the guru even, without ever needing to have anything to teach.

I have to ask questions to keep track of the consistency of what folk put across.
The problem is you don't ask me enough questions, you think you have it sussed because you think belief in God is for morons, and weak people who perhaps didn't attend too many science or philosophy classes.

Jan has never straightforwardly clarified what his/her own beliefs are or given us any idea of why he/she holds them, apart from all of it having something to do with "scripture" (Jan doesn't like to specify which scriptures he/she is talking about or even explain what 'scriptures' supposedly are and how they can be distinguished from other religious writings).

You still haven't answered why it is important that I share, what I regard as personal information, especially with someone as rude, disrespectful as you.

Here's how Jan imagines him/herself:

You're so out of order.
I bet this is the naughtiest thing you've done in a long while.

Jan wants to be the nimble dancer, dancing atop the heads of the atheist serpents, prodding and provoking them while revealing their deepest insecurities and weaknesses.

No. Jan wants to bring some balance to the character of theist v atheist debates.
Atheist assume the high ground, by tricking the theist into thinking they lack intelligence.
It doesn't matter when atheists say stupid things, like the crap you're talking about now.
But when the theist decides to go on the offensive they get the philosophy hand book beaten over their heads.
Over time most theists become timid and grovel-ly.
Yashua wasn't timid, or grovel-ly. No learned soul is.
So why should we adopt this silly attitude, especially to the ignorance of modern atheists.

IT'S A TRICK. DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Most atheists do not know what they are talking about, past the historical aspect of Christianity. And they don't like it when someone questions them to point where the sheen is all but rubbed off their contrived notion of what God is. And Yazata here is a classic example of someone who doesn't really have a clue about what is God, outside of what he/she reads in books.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Unfortunately, the rest of us are complicit.

If there is no further progress on the subject (such as questions never being addressed) then it behoves us to conclude that the case has not been made, stop posting and move on.

Have you addressed all of my questions?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I haven't taken anything over. People may not like me, but I think they find my style of discussion, interesting, challenging, and different to the norm.

Don't flatter yourself, Jan. They mostly find your style obnoxious, arrogant, frustrating, evasive and ultimately circular.

Yes they are, Write4U is on the breakthrough of God realization...

No he's not: you're merely not listening to what he's saying and you're trying to force anything and everything that you think sounds like your God as being God. It's not. One aspect that someone considers to exist while excluding other aspects is different to something that has that one aspect plus those other aspects. Do you not understand this? Or do you simply refuse to accept it?

...and Alex simply needs to not be so shy in answering the important questions, that will be helpful in allowing him to see where I'm coming from.

I think he has a fairly good idea of that already.

You think it's easy trying to prove God's existence to people whose dials are set to God doesn't exist no matter what?

You think it's possible to prove God at all? Or only to those that already believe in God's existence? Those that are already on the cycle of believing to believe? Who already accept the first premise of the syllogism: God is the creator of everything that exists; we exist; therefore God exists?

I have to ask questions to keep track of the consistency of what folk put across.

Oh, the irony! You, the most inconsistent poster on this forum, you feel the need to ask questions to keep track of other people's consistence???

The problem is you don't ask me enough questions, you think you have it sussed because you think belief in God is for morons, and weak people who perhaps didn't attend too many science or philosophy classes.

People ask you questions all the time, and you just either ignore them or squirm until you have avoided answering them.

No. Jan wants to bring some balance to the character of theist v atheist debates.

Your "balance" brings threads into the mire, Jan. You don't apply a balance, you apply as much crud as you can find and keep pouring it on until the entire thing is drowned in it, and any semblance of a serious discussion drowns in the detritus.

Atheist assume the high ground, by tricking the theist into thinking they lack intelligence.

Neither atheist nor theist necessarily lack intelligence, but their arguments might. And it is their arguments that are reviewed, dissected, analysed and rebutted. Why should either side assume intelligence from the other where none is otherwise displayed?

It doesn't matter when atheists say stupid things, like the crap you're talking about now.

If you think an atheist says a stupid thing then rebut it with a counter-argument. Unfortunately your MO is simply to say "you're wrong".

But when the theist decides to go on the offensive they get the philosophy hand book beaten over their heads.
Over time most theists become timid and grovel-ly.
Yashua wasn't timid, or grovel-ly. No learned soul is.
So why should we adopt this silly attitude, especially to the ignorance of modern atheists.

All you have to do, Jan... all anyone has to do is come to the table with an actual intent to discuss, and to do so with respect and a modicum of intelligence. But you don't - you slather the thread in as much manure as you can simply, it seems, to break up the discussion.

IT'S A TRICK. DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Most atheists do not know what they are talking about, past the historical aspect of Christianity.

They know that what they have read and heard is insufficient for them to believe that such a God exists. What more do you expect? If you want others to listen to you then ffs learn how to communicate in a respectful manner that engenders fruitful communication, not this bile of arrogance that you come out which Yazata rightly identifies as being like you want to be considered a guru. Gurus surely engender and foster discussion - they don't evade and avoid and ultimately destroy discussion.

And they don't like it when someone questions them to point where the sheen is all but rubbed off their contrived notion of what God is.

Is that what you think you're doing?

And Yazata here is a classic example of someone who doesn't really have a clue about what is God, outside of what he/she reads in books.

And your notion of God comes from... oh, yes, books.
Irony, Jan. Irony.

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you addressed all of my questions?

jan.

What makes you think I haven't addressed your questions?

 

[BdS]

You think it's possible to prove God at all?

You think it's possible to disprove God at all?
Lets see your proof, got any?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What makes you think I haven't addressed your questions?

I don't recall saying you haven't.
Have you?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

You think it's possible to disprove God at all?

No, I don't think that all. Why would you think I would?
But let me ask you: would you believe in something that you don't think can be proven simply because you can't disprove it?

Lets see your proof, got any?

For the non-existence of something that is unscientific???
The burden of proof lies in those making a claim. I am neither claiming God exists nor that God does not exist (I'm an agnostic atheist) - hence I have no burden of proof in this regard.

 

[exchemist]

If people are waiting for Jan to say something profound, they are going to have to wait forever.

I mean, look at this thread. Jan barged into it at around post #500 and took it over, becoming the center and focus of everyone else's attention, and that's continued for something like 800 posts since then.

Nobody is any closer to reaching any conclusions than they were 800 posts ago, no progress of any kind has been made. Things have just been going around and around and around endlessly in circles. If you look at the countless threads in which Jan becomes the center of everyone's attention, that always happens. It's the game Jan plays.

Jan's game is a weird caricature of Socrates' method in the Meno, keep poking and prodding and asking questions while constantly hinting that there's something important that Jan wants other people to realize for themselves, but never getting any closer to revealing precisely what it is. That way Jan gets to pose as the wise teacher, the guru even, without ever needing to have anything to teach.

Jan has never straightforwardly clarified what his/her own beliefs are or given us any idea of why he/she holds them, apart from all of it having something to do with "scripture" (Jan doesn't like to specify which scriptures he/she is talking about or even explain what 'scriptures' supposedly are and how they can be distinguished from other religious writings). Apparently Jan thinks that by definition all 'scriptures' teach the same thing, that they all contain 'information' about "God", even the writings of polytheistic traditions where the many individual gods are imagined and interpreted by Jan to be various aspects of the one single "God" that Jan believes in.

There are obviously theological beliefs implicit in all that about the nature of 'scripture', about how it should be interpreted, about what the role of divinity is in it, and about what 'scripture' reveals about God. But Jan doesn't want to reveal what theological tradition he/she derived these ideas from or whether Jan simply imagined them for him/herself independently of tradition. Jan just objects that any question about the sources of his/her ideas is "irrelevant" and continues playing the game.

Here's how Jan imagines him/herself:

Jan wants to be the nimble dancer, dancing atop the heads of the atheist serpents, prodding and provoking them while revealing their deepest insecurities and weaknesses. Perhaps Jan wants to be the one to bring them to realization of the God-Consciousness that Jan believes is already present within them (if only they weren't 'afraid' to realize it). Then Jan dances away whenever anyone turns the tables and asks Jan a question that cuts a little too close to home, so as to remain untouchable, revealing nothing.

This characterisation of Jan and his style is absolutely spot-on.

Jan is in fact the perfect embodiment of the reasons for being suspicious of the motives and psychology of evangelicals in general. With him as an advocate for belief, embracing atheism seems really quite attractive.

 

[Yazata]

Jan is in fact the perfect embodiment of the reasons for being suspicious of the motives and psychology of evangelicals in general.

Except that I don't think that Jan is an 'evangelical', certainly not in the Christian sense. Jan's religious ideas seem to be more interesting and far more unconventional than that, at least judging from the fleeting and fragmentary glimpses that Jan allows others to have of them. (Jan much prefers to be ceaselessly prodding the atheists to... I don't know.)

 

[exchemist]

Except that I don't think that Jan is an 'evangelical', certainly not in the Christian sense. Jan's religious ideas seem to be more interesting and far more unconventional than that, at least judging from the fleeting and fragmentary glimpses that Jan allows others to have of them. (Jan much prefers to be ceaselessly prodding the atheists to... I don't know.)

I think he is. I don't mean in the Christian sense necessarily, though he reminds me strongly of some ghastly Protestant evangelicals I have come across. But he (with insufferable smugness) thinks everyone believes in God if they only allow themselves to, and he fancies himself as the one who asks the probing questions that lead people to recognise this. Whereas in fact the effect he has is to exasperate people beyond endurance by his own spineless refusal to take an intellectual position of any kind.

But I should stop - this thread doesn't exist for being rude about people, even if they deserve it.