Proof there is a God

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

Good morning most honorable forum members.
Good morning Jan.
Thank you for the entertainment reading this thread is exciting as there is a promise that the hero is about to be crushed but then escapes.. Can we regard you as the hero Jan, the champion of ancient personal opinion, armed with nothing but sckills in martial writting.
This is how we should see you... No?
Good on you for providing such sport.

I quoted the above because it appeals to me as a wonderful thought and I wish it could be true but the evidence tells us a very different story.
Of course when examining the scriptures, the recorded personal opinion of an ancient author, we find the story and the reality can differ.
I fail to see the perfection as indicated in the quote in our real and cruel world.
Why is there this recurring disconnect between the perfection of the God of your scriptures, the recorded personal opinion of ancient authors, and the perpetual suffering of humans and animals and indeed the planet... Why is this Jan?

With all the discussion so far you seem intent on avoiding offerring proof of something, other than proof that you are avoiding proof of anything.

Jan as I have said I find you very entertaining and sckilled in avoidance and wonder what it is that you believe in... I can understand you may not want to share anything of substance and are happy re enacting the battle riding your chariot through the armies of athiests with your make believe charioteer advising you via the scripture setting out the imaginary battle made up by our original ancient author.

But Jan it is make believe. Do you know that or has the battle left you in a state of seige hopelessly defending the undefendable, abandonded by reason with your inteligence dulled to the point where your imagination rejects reality and substitues make believe as the world you live in...

Get out of your chair go outside and look around shake of the darkness of delusion and the false imaginings concocted centuries ago by unfortunate superstitious ancient authors making up non existent characters to explain cosmology, with no data, with no facts, with no evidence that their ramblings had any relation to anything other than manifestation of nonsensical superstition.

If you wish to continue being the hero of this story that is ok, in fact I welcome your entertainment value but dont be surprised if your readers regard you not as an honest brave hero but as a dishonest clown bathing in nonesence made up many centuries ago.

Keep going Jan I am betting this thread will set a record for length and lack of content.
And notwithstanding all I have said Jan I really do like you and respect you and thank you for giving me something to read each day and take my mind off my real world.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

I fail to see the perfection as indicated in the quote in our real and cruel world.

This triggered a reflection in my mind
Perhaps tangently related to the OP.

Term and concept
The form of the word long fluctuated in various languages. The English language had the alternates, "perfection" and the Biblical "perfectness."[2]


Aristotle.

The word "perfection" derives from the Latin "perfectio", and "perfect" — from "perfectus." These expressions in turn come from "perficio" — "to finish", "to bring to an end." "Perfectio(n)" thus literally means "a finishing", and "perfect(us)" — "finished", much as in grammatical parlance ("perfect").[

I see the Universe as far from perfect and in constant change. One might conclude that the only *state of perfection* is *nothing*, But obviously the Universe exists and is in an state of *dynamical imperfection* and an *unfolding* of implied probabilities (potential) becoming reality.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Excellent observation Write4.
I have spent some time considering the condition we call nothing and I conclude there can be no such thing or state.
If one seeks it in the Universe it can not be found because there is always something and I don't mean that there is always God present.
So one can ask if nothing is perfect and nothing is an incorrect description of what will always be something perfection does not exist.
If perfection does not exist Jan's ancient superstitions fail.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

This triggered a reflection in my mind
Perhaps tangently related to the OP.

I see the Universe as far from perfect and in constant change. One might conclude that the only *state of perfection* is *nothing*, But obviously the Universe exists and is in an state of *dynamical imperfection* and an *unfolding* of implied probabilities (potential) becoming reality.

That's probably true. The only state of perfection is nothing, which makes it unstable. Nothing would be required for it to break down into the something we have now. The universe is more like an eroding pile of dirt than a miraculous creation.

 

[Sarkus]

That's probably true. The only state of perfection is nothing...

That must make this the perfect thread about the proof of God.

 

[Baldeee]

It's basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a frosting of Hinduism.

In part it would seem so.
However the KCA does not start with the definition of God.
It works up to it from premises that it hopes everyone agrees with.
Jan, on the other hand, seems to want a definition of God up front, and not only that he is pushing a definition that includes within it the necessity of its existence.
As such Jan's argument, whatever his protestations to the contrary, will simply revert to a definition that necessitates the existence of God as defined.
Add to that the unfalsifiability of the definition and you have what might appear on the surface to be a water-tight argument for the existence of God but in essence is void of any value as it can not be compared to the actuality.
It is through that comparison and subsequent identification that one "proves" the existence of something pre-defined.

The KCA is different in that it starts with small concepts we might agree with, and then leads logically from those to the concept of an initial creator of our universe, which is then labelled God.
Some take it further and try to argue that what is labelled God has certain attributes.
But this is done through logical deduction from what we agree/observe about our world, not through definition of God up front.

Jan, however, simply wants us to accept his definition of God (even if just for discussion) which if accepted necessitates the existence of that God,
I,e, if you accept the definition then you must accept that God exists, without there needing to be other arguments.
God would be accepted as existing simply due to the definition.
This is not proof.
This is merely a demonstration that the definition is simply the product of a belief, and the cause of that belief.
In essence it is both the cause and effect of a cycle of needing to believe in order to believe.

You'll also note that even when we accept the definition for purposes of furthering the discussion, Jan does not progress the matter.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Stating your belief is not an argument.

Fair enough, we should stick to proper definitions.
Within the definition of God is that God is unchanging.

Then what's the cause of God?

There is no cause of God, if God is unchanging.
We know that change occurs due to time acting upon matter, so if Brahman is unchanging it is because it is not under the influence of time
because it is not material.

Then what else? Animals? Aliens? It seems a bit suspicious that your concept of God includes intelligence when intelligence is only found among evolved beings

The definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
All life is intelligent according to their capacity. Knowledge is already present, whether we acquire it in full or not.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet if reality is preceded by "potential" then Brahman is not reality but "potential".
You can't simply define words to your satisfaction and ignore what everyone else means by the term.

Potential is within reality. Brahman, by definition, has the potential to build worlds.

You need to reconcile your claim that Brahman is both "reality" and has nothing before, with Write4U / others' notion of reality as being preceded by "potential".
Otherwise you're just circling with little/no progress.

Potential, like I said, is within reality, we perceive reality and can harness it.

You have clearly defined God as necessary - and as such there is nothing to move to as it is already on the table.
Personally I would argue that you can not define something as necessary if you then wish to prove it exists: you have to define it by that which it can be recognised, and "necessary" is not such an attribute.
Proof by definition of being necessary is of itself worthless.

I have defined God (as Brahman), if you see within that, necessity, don't complain to me that I have defined God as necessary.
There is something within that definition that prompts you to think God is necessary. Perhaps you should just go with it.

Your argument drips from the definition and the words you otherwise use... such as "How can Brahman NOT exist?"

That is a question, not an argument.
Can you answer it?

Then I recommend you tailor your arguments to avoid doing just that.

No arguments has been put forward as yet. Not until we agree upon a definition.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, however, simply wants us to accept his definition of God (even if just for discussion) which if accepted necessitates the existence of that God,
I,e, if you accept the definition then you must accept that God exists, without there needing to be other arguments.
God would be accepted as existing simply due to the definition.
This is not proof.

You're very perceptive Baldeee.
You're beginning to comprehend what God is.
It may not be proof as yet, but give it time.

You'll also note that even when we accept the definition for purposes of furthering the discussion, Jan does not progress the matter.

If you actually accept it for the purpose of this discussion, than you have everything that follows.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is merely a demonstration that the definition is simply the product of a belief, and the cause of that belief.
In essence it is both the cause and effect of a cycle of needing to believe in order to believe.

Unless one thinks otherwise, everything had a beginning. This explains the origins of that beginning. It is no less plausible than the idea that everything came out of nothing. But it has more explanatory power.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Potential is within reality. Brahman, by definition, has the potential to build worlds.
...
Potential, like I said, is within reality, we perceive reality and can harness it.

This doesn't reconcile with Write4U's notion that potential process reality.
How are you going to demonstrate that you are correct?

I have defined God (as Brahman), if you see within that, necessity, don't complain to me that I have defined God as necessary.

Jan, just because you don't explicitly write it does not mean that it is not inherent within what you write.
If this is the definition you wish to go with then please show how this definition exists in actuality.
This is, after all, what we are waiting for you to do.

There is something within that definition that prompts you to think God is necessary. Perhaps you should just go with it.

What prompts me is an ability to understand logical implications from what you write.
Please don't hide behind the fact that you have not explicitly written those implications.
If I write: Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; then I don't need to explicitly write that Socrates is mortal for this to be inherent in what I have written.
Similarly, since you have defined God as that which precedes all else, this inherently makes God necessary per the definition.
You have provided that definition.
That definition has inherent necessity implicit within it.
So you now have to show that the definition applies to something in actuality.

That is a question, not an argument.

Indeed it was phrased as a question but again, do not hide behind merely the words you write but acknowledge the intent and tone of your words.
Within the intent is your argument: that God is necessary as per the definition.

Can you answer it?

Your definition has yet to be shown to apply to anything in actuality.

No arguments has been put forward as yet. Not until we agree upon a definition.

As has been explained to you, you do not need to wait for us to agree upon the definition of that which you wish to prove.
You supply the definition.
Then you prove that what you have defined actually exists.
It does not need our agreement of that definition.
So please do not stall for this reason.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Good morning most honorable forum members.
Good morning Jan.
Thank you for the entertainment reading this thread is exciting as there is a promise that the hero is about to be crushed but then escapes.. Can we regard you as the hero Jan, the champion of ancient personal opinion, armed with nothing but sckills in martial writting.
This is how we should see you... No?
Good on you for providing such sport.

Hi Alex. You are free to see me as you like. I guess ''hero'' is better than some of the other opinions, although just as inaccurate.
But I'm glad you're enjoying it, and I appreciate that you're not taking this so seriously, that you become emotional. After all it is just forum.

I quoted the above because it appeals to me as a wonderful thought and I wish it could be true but the evidence tells us a very different story.
Of course when examining the scriptures, the recorded personal opinion of an ancient author, we find the story and the reality can differ.

How do you know that scriptures are personal opinions of authors? If that were the case then those particular authors were thinking exactly the same thing.
You said that scriptures differ from each other, and you're right. I'm sure if you put the word ''science'' into google, you would not get a definition that was worded the same.
But the definition would mean the same thing. Also if you are explaining science to a child, or someone who is not familiar with its meaning, it would be worded differently to someone who is more knowledgeable. IOW the meaning doesn't differ, but the explanations may differ according to who the information is being directed to.

With all the discussion so far you seem intent on avoiding offerring proof of something, other than proof that you are avoiding proof of anything.

Nobody said it was going to be easy. Remember I am simply trying to rise to the challenge of the thread title (I'm not quite sure what the op was about).
Proof may come once we agree on the, or, a definition that defines the God theists believe in, and atheists don't.

I can understand you may not want to share anything of substance and are happy re enacting the battle riding your chariot through the armies of athiests with your make believe charioteer advising you via the scripture setting out the imaginary battle made up by our original ancient author.

I take it this is a reference to the Bhagavad Gita? I'm glad you had a look at it.
When I first got it, I couldn't comprehend the point of it...

A battle, on a battlefield?
God, a charioteer?
All these different types of yoga?
That's not what God is about, surely?

...it made absolutely no sense to me. So I get your sentiment.

But Jan it is make believe. Do you know that or has the battle left you in a state of seige hopelessly defending the undefendable, abandonded by reason with your inteligence dulled to the point where your imagination rejects reality and substitues make believe as the world you live in...

The beauty of it is. If you think it is make belief, you can still get the same understanding as if you thought it was real.
It works on so many level it's ridiculous (slang).

If there is no God (you position I assume), and reality as we perceive it is the only reality, then my imagination is also a part of that reality. What ever I perceive through my imagination must also be part of reality as I wouldn't be able to produce any imagery that wasn't part of reality. Would I?
In some units of reality God exists, and in some God doesn't exist. Both are reality, as they are both the product of reality. Right?

So in one sense you have one which equals the positing of something, and zero which is the absence of that something. So we're back to ones and zero's.
Both exist, but one actually exists, whereas zero only exists in the absence of one.

Get out of your chair go outside and look around shake of the darkness of delusion and the false imaginings concocted centuries ago by unfortunate superstitious ancient authors making up non existent characters to explain cosmology, with no data, with no facts, with no evidence that their ramblings had any relation to anything other than manifestation of nonsensical superstition.

IOW become an atheist? But in my imaginings God exists, this is reality, as is yours that God doesn't exist. Why should I abandon my reality for yours?

If you wish to continue being the hero of this story that is ok, in fact I welcome your entertainment value but dont be surprised if your readers regard you not as an honest brave hero but as a dishonest clown bathing in nonesence made up many centuries ago.

Keep going Jan I am betting this thread will set a record for length and lack of content.
And notwithstanding all I have said Jan I really do like you and respect you and thank you for giving me something to read each day and take my mind off my real world.

I'm beginning to understand you a little more, and I believe you are genuine.
I also think you are playing dumb, a good way to steer clear from wholeheartedly taking part in the discussion. Saying that though, I do like and respect the aspect of your character and personality that you declare through your writings.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

You're very perceptive Baldeee.
You're beginning to comprehend what God is.
It may not be proof as yet, but give it time.

If all you intend to state is that God is everything / reality / all there is or some such version, then you are merely arguing that "reality is reality" or "reality is" or something equally as valueless.

If you actually accept it for the purpose of this discussion, than you have everything that follows.

So if we accept your definition then your argument is indeed a case of appealing to the necessity inherent within the definition?
Within the definition you effectively state/claim that everything was preceded by and comes from God, and thus God is necessary.
This is why your definition is not accepted as true, Jan.
Because it requires belief/acceptance of things that are unproven.
You wish us to accept a definition that effectively whitewashes over the need for that belief.
But yes, if we accept that definition as true then we would accept that such a God exists, even though the concept of God thus defined is valueless.
And in understanding that this is your argument it highlights that you require belief in order to believe.
And your belief in God is only as sound as the applicability of the definition to something in reality, an applicability you have yet to show.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If all you intend to state is that God is everything / reality / all there is or some such version, then you are merely arguing that "reality is reality" or "reality is" or something equally as valueless.

I'm stating a definition, now if that is what you get from that definition, then it is the definition that entails the implication.
That I get the same thing, is no indication that I am offering tha as a statement, only that we agree on the same thing.

So if we accept your definition then your argument is indeed a case of appealing to the necessity inherent within the definition?
Within the definition you effectively state/claim that everything was preceded by and comes from God, and thus God is necessary.
This is why your definition is not accepted as true, Jan.
Because it requires belief/acceptance of things that are unproven.

Do you agree that whatever caused us to be here, is necessary for us to be here, and is the cause of everything?

You wish us to accept a definition that effectively whitewashes over the need for that belief.

Because it's not necessarily about belief. You don't have to accept that as God, so you don't have to believe in God.
That is the zero in the equation. But you should accept the definition, because it explains the origins of our existence, which does not stray
from scientific understanding.

But yes, if we accept that definition as true then we would accept that such a God exists, even though the concept of God thus defined is valueless.

So all explanations of origins, including the Big Bang are valueless by this logic?
The definition purely alludes to origins.

And in understanding that this is your argument it highlights that you require belief in order to believe.
And your belief in God is only as sound as the applicability of the definition to something in reality, an applicability you have yet to show.

You don't have to believe that Brahman is God, to accept that Brahman exists.
Write4U as far as I can tell, would accept Brahman as Potential. If that is the case I suspect it is due to the definition. This shows that the definition is religion free, even God free (if you don't believe in God), but most of all it connects with our view of reality, our ability to perceive reality, and scientific notions of reality.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How do you know that scriptures are personal opinions of authors? If that were the case then those particular authors were thinking exactly the same thing.

It would seem reasonable that anything other than a text book or similar would contain anything other than personal opinion Jan.
And there are so few original thoughts when one is presented others may follow.
The scriptures are most ancient, written in times when superstition was more a standard than it is today. Is this fact not sufficient to question their validity.
Scriptures can offer codes for humans to live by but why should we think any author has a personal insite into a god its meaning or existence. Their time in history would suggest they had less ability to determine how the Universe was created, and today we still dont know how it was created as science only deals with the evolution of the Universe and offers no method for creation, and in the absence of any data nevertheless the ancients made up stories which on any definition came from their imagination.
Theses authors can not be held up as relying on fact and only presented their opinions.
Ancient authors presented the world as flat, supported by piers resting on theback of a tortice swiming through heaven.
Sounds wonderful and a ancient folk took that idea as representing reality.
Today we know things to be very different.
I submit the scriptures, as wonderful as you may find them Jan can not be relied upon to suggest God is anything more than superstition manufactured in the mind of a human.
Man creates Gods.. Gods do not create men.

Proof may come once we agree on the, or, a definition that defines the God theists believe in, and atheists don't.

No Jan I must disagree although I am loath to do so.
The only proof of a God or Gods must come from it or them.
Humans have no idea and make stuff up that probably has no bearing on anything at all.
What would this proof be... I have no idea because unlike others I would not presume to define the divine if it indeed exists.. Surely it must be wrong to do so if the devine exists.
Little humans setting out who God is, what he does and does not do... How presumptious, how futile how rude... And yet you Jan a d others like you hold up scriptures as the words of God.. That is a faulse claim that is an unsupported claim I would think even your God would regard such attempts as insulting and dishonest.
Claiming to know God.. Name dropping at its worst.

I take it this is a reference to the Bhagavad Gita? I'm glad you had a look at it.
When I first got it, I couldn't comprehend the point of it...

A battle, on a battlefield?
God, a charioteer?
All these different types of yoga?
That's not what God is about, surely?

...it made absolutely no sense to me. So I get your sentiment.

I get it Jan.
I understand that it is an adventure in litrature.
I also understand Alice in Wonderland is an adventure in litrature.
To elevate either story to more is un necessary.

If there is no God (you position I assume), and reality as we perceive it is the only reality, then my imagination is also a part of that reality. What ever I perceive through my imagination must also be part of reality. I wouldn't to produce any imagery that wasn't part of reality. Would I. In some units of reality God exists, and in some God doesn't exist. Both are reality, as they are both the product of reality. Right?

Jan you are somewhat correct in so far as reality can only be viewed as "mind dependant" although there are some who insist that reality is "mind independant". So your reality is your personal "thing" and so you can claim a ything you imagine as real.
There is a point however where we can collectively form a view upon what exists and what does not.
So I submit that although to you God is real within your reality it seems that collectively we do not find God indeed can be said to exist.
So you can entertain a reality centering upon a mythical character but you will never be able to show that such mythical character exists to the satisfaction of an assembly of casual eye witnesses.
Only God appearing to said assembly will show or prove existence... How will they know its God? Well lets assume a God will find a way to make his appearance credible.

So in one sense you have one which equals the positing of something, and zero which is the absence of that something. So we're back to ones and zero's.
Both exist, but one actually exists, whereas zero only exists in the absence of one.

Not really Jan.
You are really not making sence here. I know it seems like you have found a meaningful analogy but no you have not...
Numbers are numbers and given its application zero is indeed a number, its use in maths is no different to the use of 1 or 57 or any number. All are players in a game and the game is maths.

IOW become an atheist? But in my imaginings God exists, this is reality, as is yours that God doesn't exist. Why should I abandon my reality for yours?

That is a good question Jan and I feel I should not answer you directly.
So let me relate my experience.
I am a born again athiest.
There came a point where I determinded that religion and all it represented was a condition that let inteligent people to abdicate responsibility of thinking about information presented to them.
I realised to think meant that I would not be entitled to rely on superstition and blame or praise a God for my situation in the world.
My choice is to use my intelligence and not to believe the crap society and culture presented as the norm.
I found freedom in the realization it was all up to me.
I finally accepted the precious gift of owning personal responsibility.
Now if you can not use your inteligence to work out that an ancient author made up stuff presumably from ignorance and he knows more than you can work out in more enlightend times that is your call.
You seem intelligent and yet your imagination dulls you to the obvious, you think only an ancient can form a view or write a piece of litrature containing useful rules yet see that litrature as indicating something that no one can know or understand unless the devine stands before humans.
Its like smoking Jan.. You cant imagine life without a smoke but when you kick the habbit you wonder whatever you saw in it and regard all smokers as fools missing out on a wonderful life free of their crutch the puff.

I'm beginning to understand you a little more, and I believe you are genuine.
I also think you are playing dumb, a good way to steer clear from wholeheartedly taking part in the discussion. Saying that though, I do like and respect the aspect of your character and personality that you declare through your writings.

Jan I told you I will play the wounded bird stratagy sometimes.
I avoid the rules of grammer mainly because that was once my work... Law.
And I once was the guy who drafted the court orders from the judges notes.
I try to communicate using the simplest words I can in the hope more folk will understand me.
I find some folk who use "big words" pretentious and hence I try to do opposite.
This may seem that I am dumb but I do not need to impress folk to feel good about myself.
I am confident and so I dont need to prove myself to others to make me feel better about myself.
I hope you get it.

I think seeking to elevate these discussions to seem intelectual is silly really so I probably fall back on playing the fool to bring things back to where I feel they should be.
Getting deep about anything I regard as pretentious so I avoid depth.. I have my feet on the ground to use the vernacular.

So Jan I say I enjoy reading here and I enjoy rattling on... I am bored you might say.... So I entertain myself talking to strangers on the net about subjects that dont interest me.. Strange really.
And Jan thank you for your kind words I will regard you still as the hero of this story.

Anyways Jan if I can ever help just ask...

Alex

 

[Baldeee]

I'm stating a definition, now if that is what you get from that definition, then it is the definition that entails the implication.
That I get the same thing, is no indication that I am offering tha as a statement, only that we agree on the same thing.

If the statement you offer has a logically valid implication then you are indeed offering that implication as well.
Because it is logically valid means that if you accept the premises as given then you must accept the implication.
So please, enough hiding.
Just because you don't explicitly state it does not mean that you haven't said it.

Do you agree that whatever caused us to be here, is necessary for us to be here, and is the cause of everything?

No.
I do not know what ultimately cause us.
Whatever it was that caused us, if indeed we were caused, would by definition be necessary for us to be here if we could not be here any other way.
But that does not mean that it is necessary for everything else to also be here.

Because it's not necessarily about belief. You don't have to accept that as God, so you don't have to believe in God.

It is about belief if one is to accept it as God, belief in the implicit claims within the definition.

That is the zero in the equation.

Eh?

But you should accept the definition, because it explains the origins of our existence, which does not stray from scientific understanding.

It has no explanatory power whatsoever outside of belief.
It is void of any value.
It has no more worth than "we all come from somewhere".

So all explanations of origins, including the Big Bang are valueless by this logic?

The Big Bang itself, from time t > 0 onward, that has value.
The rest, what happened before the Big Bang, yes - of little value other than stretching the imagination.

The definition purely alludes to origins.

I know.
Can you prove that the definition applies to something in actuality?
Or do you think it should be merely accepted?

You don't have to believe that Brahman is God, to accept that Brahman exists.

Nor do I have to accept that Brahman exists in the first instance, whether one equates it to God or not.

Write4U as far as I can tell, would accept Brahman as Potential. If that is the case I suspect it is due to the definition. This shows that the definition is religion free, even God free (if you don't believe in God), but most of all it connects with our view of reality, our ability to perceive reality, and scientific notions of reality.

It seems valueless with regard all three areas.
To give it value one must seemingly place belief not just in the definition applying to something in (or all of) actuality, but in other matters that you bolt on to it for just the purpose of providing it value.

 

[PhysBang]

Fair enough, we should stick to proper definitions.
Within the definition of God is that God is unchanging.

OK, so you have a clear, but lame definition.

The definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

OK, so we know that your god can not be intelligent.

All life is intelligent according to their capacity.

OK, so we know that your god cannot be alive.

Given that, so far, we have found nothing unchanging and have no evidence for anything unchanging, it seems that there is no reason to believe in your god.

 

[PhysBang]

IOW become an atheist? But in my imaginings God exists, this is reality, as is yours that God doesn't exist. Why should I abandon my reality for yours?

Here's the problem: dishonest evangelists like yourself do not stop with the freedom of personal imaginings. I know that you are not well acquainted with the Hindu tradition, but you must know that they had a caste system, right? That kind of thing is where much religious reasoning leads, especially the kind of reasoning like yours that thinks that it is OK to deceive people in order to try to get them to accept a religious position.

 

[spidergoat]

The definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Sounds like change to me.

 

[Billy T]

Sounds like change to me.

Yes. Jan's latest definition of god as "unchanging" means god can not be intelligent / learning "knowledge and skills" - his definition of "intelligent." God needs to be changing as the universe is.

That is consistent with my view, that the creator must be a "dumb designer," not an "intelligent designer" (if any creator other than evolution exist). Only a very dumb designer would make a nerve sensing things in a graffias’s cheek go all the way down that long neck, pass under the collar bone, then ascend back up the neck for its signals to enter the brain. - a path 30 to 40 times longer (with more delay) than it needs to be.