prove to me that god is real

[cato]

I just explained it....

you are a idiot if you do something you don't want to do, based solely on the word of an unprovable religion. likewise you would be an idiot to change your life based solely on something in a dream, provided you didn't want to change your life.

you are free to accept anything you want as reality, dream, religion, talking dog, voices in your head, ect. the problem arises when your decisions adversely effect others. however, it is a sign of mental problems to change ones life according to what a dog says. likewise, one should question one's mental health if they are changing their life according to a feeling they get from "god".

 

[KennyJC]

If theist are defined to have faith in the existence of God, what do you define the 'believe' of atheist in the nonexistence of God?

Theists don't just believe in God though, do they? They believe in a God that shares the motives of men who wrote a collection of books 2,000 years ago.

The odds that a) God exists and b) Shares the motives of such men of an organised faith, are non existent.

 

[LiveInFaith]

There is some point missing.
The believe of God existence never stops theists to think on anything they could think of. Theist dont listen to dogs barks.

 

[LiveInFaith]

Theists don't just believe in God though, do they? They believe in a God that shares the motives of men who wrote a collection of books 2,000 years ago.

The odds that a) God exists and b) Shares the motives of such men of an organised faith, are non existent.

Then this should go to another question : "Was Prophet revealed by God?". There is no way to discuss as long as the existence of God still in dispute.

 

[cato]

So far, neither theist nor atheist can arrive into final conclusion of the existence and nonexistence of God.

to show something exists, one needs only to produce a single instance of it. to prove something does not exist, one must be able to look at every point in the universe simultaneously (impossible). therefore, it is accepted that the burden of proof is on those who claim existence, not those who do not claim existence.

If theist are defined to have faith in the existence of God, what do you define the 'believe' of atheist in the nonexistence of God?

you mean "belief", instead of "believe?"

the whole sentence makes little to no sense. however, I will answer what I think you are trying to ask.

Atheists are not a cohesive group. however, most don't believe in non-existence; rather, like myself, simply do not believe in existence. the idea of modern religions being correct is laughable when looked at objectively. therefore, many atheists simply abstain from belief, as the burden of proof is on the theists, not atheists.

however, atheists take an active role against the actions of religious groups when their rights are being violated. the active anti-religious role of said atheists is often taken as an attack upon religion, when it is really just a defense against it.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

you are free to accept anything you want as reality, dream, religion, talking dog, voices in your head, ect. the problem arises when your decisions adversely effect others. however, it is a sign of mental problems to change ones life according to what a dog says. likewise, one should question one's mental health if they are changing their life according to a feeling they get from "god".

I believe that God speaks through changing our perceptions. The more open we are to this happening, the more ready we are. According to "A Course in Miracles", a miracle is a "shift in perception"....

T-1.III.7. Miracles arise from a mind that is ready for them. By being united this mind goes out to everyone, even without the awareness of the miracle worker himself. [...] As an expression of what you truly are, the miracle places the mind in a state of grace. The mind then naturally welcomes the Host within and the stranger without. When you bring in the stranger, he becomes your brother.

T-3.III.2. All your difficulties stem from the fact that you do not recognize yourself, your brother or God. To recognize means to "know again," implying that you knew before. You can see in many ways because perception involves interpretation, and this means that it is not whole or consistent. The miracle, being a way of perceiving, is not knowledge. It is the right answer to a question, but you do not question when you know. Questioning illusions is the first step in undoing them. The miracle, or the right answer, corrects them.

As for taking advice from dogs, ones of few words are the best as they generally speak either from the heart or the rear end.

 

[SnakeLord]

Would I be an idiot because trusting the existence of those unprrovable things?

Yes you would be an idiot - exactly the same as believing in the existence of hairy invisible leprechauns would make you "an idiot" - without having any evidence to suggest their existence, (forget "proof" - that's for alcohol and mathematicians).

 

[cato]

I believe that God speaks through changing our perceptions. The more open we are to this happening, the more ready we are. According to "A Course in Miracles", a miracle is a "shift in perception"....

I wrote a long, insulting, paragraph about that statement, but what would be the point. if you don't want to believe in the human mind, or in reasoning, thats fine, just do step on anyones toes.

 

[DeeCee]

According to "A Course in Miracles"

LoL

A tome which carries much gravitas no doubt.

Dee Cee

 

[cato]

hence the reason I didn't respond to it. =]

 

[John Mark E]

John,
Ahh good, a Christian who realizes that the A&E story must be true otherwise the whole Jesus storyline would be a sham. It was their original disobediant actions that condemned the whole of mankind to death and created the need for a savior. If they didn't really exist then there would be no basis for Christianity, right?

Not exactly...

Another belief of mine is that God is perfect. God's perfection cannot be associated with imperfection. Yet, He still wants a personal relationship with His creation; as seen when God would visit Adam and Eve before their initial sin. God said "Be ye holy, for I am Holy." This is so we can continue in this relationship. Yet, He also said, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I know that I am not perfect and I've never known anyone who can honestly claim that they have never sinned. This includes little, white lies, just the same as lust, envy, and murder. The bible states that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." Now normally, we wouldn't think that bucking the system a bit would be all that bad, but God sees no difference between sins.

I know that, based on even this small amount, that I would have no hope to see Heaven as I am. The Bible does state that "For by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin" but that does not mean that we all are not still responsible for our own actions. So regardless of Adam and Eve, and what they did wrong, the need for a Savior would still exsist, because I'm not perfect.

Still, the Bible tells the way that God designed for us to still be able to come into His perfect presence. The OT tells that if we trust and accept the only perfect sacrifice, the one He offered, that He would see that perfect life, when looking at us. And THAT is the basis for the "Jesus storyline", as you put it.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I wrote a long, insulting, paragraph about that statement, but what would be the point. if you don't want to believe in the human mind, or in reasoning, thats fine, just do step on anyones toes.

I missed your long insulting paragraph cato! Perhaps you'd reprint it or link to it. If God is the "ground of our being" (Eckhardt), the origin of consciousness, it makes perfect sense! I can't quite see how this must entail "not believing in the human mind or it's reasoning"? Please explain?

According to "A Course in Miracles"
LoL
A tome which carries much gravitas no doubt.

It's a very intriguing text... Not least because it was written down by a jewish atheist psychologist!

Have you read it, or are you passing opinion based on ignorance?

 

[cato]

If God is the "ground of our being" (Eckhardt), the origin of consciousness, it makes perfect sense! I can't quite see how this must entail "not believing in the human mind or it's reasoning"? Please explain?

if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption of a ridiculous god, then any nonsense can follow.

you have been trapped by the idea that anything is logical under this god of yours. you must only make one assumption, and everything else is fine and dandy. much like those fly traps that have a small entrance which must be crossed. once the fly has found its way in, the walls contain it very well.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption of a ridiculous god, then any nonsense can follow.

LOL, if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is no God, then any nonsense can follow.

you have been trapped by the idea that anything is logical under this god of yours. you must only make one assumption, and everything else is fine and dandy. much like those fly traps that have a small entrance which must be crossed. once the fly has found its way in, the walls contain it very well.

Sounds more like atheism to me! Once you decide that the known material universe is all there is, your wordview entraps you within it's walls.... life is reduced to a competitive struggle to exist in a purposeless void.

My worldview has no such limits, I see eternity in our very nature, purpose in our existence and love as our birthright. I wouldn't swap with you thank-you!

 

[cato]

you are such a moron.

LOL, if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is no God, then any nonsense can follow.

as I have said in previous posts, I don't believe in non existence, I simply do not believe in the existence of a god.

I keep my mind open do all possibilities. however, I do require some proof or rationality.

Sounds more like atheism to me! Once you decide that the known material universe is all there is, your wordview entraps you within it's walls.... life is reduced to a competitive struggle to exist in a purposeless void.

once again, get it through your head. I, as with many atheists, rule no possibility out, but do require verifiable proof of somethings existence.

you have a messed up idea of what it means to be an atheist. its simply freedom to look objectively at all possibilities. the universe is a wonderful, beautiful place. I don't need some religion to point that out to me.

 

[Sarkus]

LOL, if you make the one illogical, unproven, preposterous assumption that you know there is no God, then any nonsense can follow.

I wouldn't say "illogical" in either this rebuttal or the original statement. God is logically possible - as is any number of things that don't necessarily need to exist - but to believe in the existence of the God is irrational due to the lack of evidence.

Sounds more like atheism to me! Once you decide that the known material universe is all there is, your wordview entraps you within it's walls.... life is reduced to a competitive struggle to exist in a purposeless void.

LOL!
You still seem sold on the idea that atheism is a definitive viewpoint that can not be changed, and also tends toward the view of Strong Atheism as opposed to the more common, IMO, Weak variety.

All it would take to change most atheists' stance would be some evidence of the existence of God.

My worldview has no such limits, I see eternity in our very nature, purpose in our existence and love as our birthright.

This is not incompatible with atheism.
But you might well be as irrational as a theist, as there is no evidence of "purpose" or "birthright" - other than what we bestow upon ourselves.

 

[TW Scott]

I wouldn't say "illogical" in either this rebuttal or the original statement. God is logically possible - as is any number of things that don't necessarily need to exist - but to believe in the existence of the God is irrational due to the lack of evidence.

Explain why it is irrational. You have admited that God could possibly exist. The universe is infinite or nearly so, right? Then why can't God be out there where we have not seen yet? Sure it's hip to say God does not exist, and several people try to be scientific in their explanation of their belief in God nonexistance. They seem to forget that (A) man knows didly squat and (B) science can only explain what man has observed and sometimes not even all of that.

 

[Sarkus]

Explain why it is irrational. You have admited that God could possibly exist. The universe is infinite or nearly so, right? Then why can't God be out there where we have not seen yet? Sure it's hip to say God does not exist, and several people try to be scientific in their explanation of their belief in God nonexistance. They seem to forget that (A) man knows didly squat and (B) science can only explain what man has observed and sometimes not even all of that.

It is irrational to believe that something exists when there is no evidence.
It doesn't matter what that something is - if there is no evidence for its existence then it is irrational to believe that it does exist.

But that is not the same thing as saying that it does NOT exist.
It is equally irrational to say for certain that the something definitely does NOT exist.

Nor is it saying that what might or might not exist is illogical.

It is irrational to believe in the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) - as no evidence exists.
It is irrational to believe in fairies, pixies, elves etc.

 

[TW Scott]

It is irrational to believe that something exists when there is no evidence.

But there is evidence anecdoctal, circumstantial, and possibly tainted, but evidence just the same. Sure it is doubtful it would make it through court let alone a scientific trial, but when asking for any evidence it suffices.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

you are such a moron.

Insults are the desperate last resort of a defensive but defeated mind! If you had any good arguments left, you would use them instead! You give yourself away too easily cato...

as I have said in previous posts, I don't believe in non existence, I simply do not believe in the existence of a god. I keep my mind open do all possibilities. however, I do require some proof or rationality.

Yeah, well as I've said in previous posts, the evidence that God exists comes from subjective experience. You need to really want to find out, it takes Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". As any 'moron' knows, there is no objective proof of God.

once again, get it through your head. I, as with many atheists, rule no possibility out, but do require verifiable proof of somethings existence. you have a messed up idea of what it means to be an atheist. its simply freedom to look objectively at all possibilities. the universe is a wonderful, beautiful place. I don't need some religion to point that out to me.

You don't have to be an atheist to do that! I too have the freedom to look objectively at all the possibilities to make sense of the universe. My experience so far leads me to believe that reality is more than just the objective physical universe. Atheism (weak or strong) denies that.

But you might well be as irrational as a theist, as there is no evidence of "purpose" or "birthright" - other than what we bestow upon ourselves.

I think 'non-rational' is a more accurate expression Sarkus. Theism doesn't contradict reason, it is just not derived from reason alone.

The atheist worldview limits our birthright to genetics and circumstance, and our purpose to whatever we make meaningful before we die.

The theist worldview of a loving God, holds that our birthright is to be unconditionally loved and our purpose is to love unconditionally. These are inherent in the worldview. The 'evidence' for this worldview is not objective facts, but subjective experience, and based on trust. As we progress and that trust is not betrayed, so the evidence from experience accumulates. However, we cannot ever share it directly with anyone else. This is the problem of qualia!

So, to keep asking for 'evidence' is a bit futile! Religion isn't science!!!