Or, an insanity thing, not on purpose.
well, seeing as how you're ignorant of it, what's the point of conjecture?
Or, an insanity thing, not on purpose.
well, seeing as how you're ignorant of it, what's the point of conjecture?
When you burst into every thread beating your chest that god is real, that you've seen him and spoken with him, what else is one to assume other than you're lying?
you could assume i'm telling the truth.
you could assume i'm telling the truth.
but better yet, assume nothing.
i would argue that god has had influence in those things to let you see things from unique perspective...How? How can we make sure that we are utilized by God, but not from something else such as subconsciousness, natural or social insticts/background, personal experience, learned things, etc.
i think thats a long term question as anyone can 'fake' god in the short term..but if you know the person for a long time you can generally tell..How can we differentiate God among other utilizers?
this question is loaded..My question is, when we eliminate the measured proof (objective one), how can we group the rest (subjective ones). Because you might believe in God, and someone else could believe in God, and someone else could also believe in God, it goes like that. What is the common factor, power, concept that you all believe in.
IMO it is the same god in all these religions,each one has a piece of the 'who is god' puzzle, just because i believe god is 'this' way, does not mean your belief that god is 'that' way is wrong..we would have to discuss the differences to see if there is a common denominator,to discover a better picture of 'who god is'In other words, how can you be sure that you are all believing in same God? My guess is, if you all imagine the same model (could be Christian God, could be Muslim Allah, could be ancient Greek Zeus), it is more likely that the members of the same group (in this case "same religion") will imagine the same model of God.
i think that would be an accurate statementSo religion becomes the common measurement of different subjectives (followers). Is that so?
this is subjective to each believer..And moreover, for a believer, there is no qualitative difference between objective (measured) proof and subjective (emotional) proof. They have same importance and value in a believer's eyes. Is that the case?
when god puts something in your path he doesn't usually advertise that it is him doing it..when that object in your path causes you to make decisions that help him with his plan(don't ask me what that plan is..) he is utilizing you,Does this statement contradict your above "god can still utilize you whether you believe in him or not.."? If it doesn't, how?
if there were a predefined set of rules/requirements for proof of god..do you think we would be having this conversation?..would believers have such a tough time convincing anyone that god exists...would believer even need to convince anyone that god exists if there were proofs?What I am asking is this: What are the elementary rules, minimum requirements, the logic of "proof" in order to come to a conclusion that God exists?
i don't view him as a controller..he is there waiting for me to ask him for his advice,when i do he will give that advice(usually through someone or some situation) it is still my choice to use that advice or not..i can choose to dismiss it as 'one' mans opinion..or i can choose to utilize such advice..You might have guessed that I wouldn't be satisfied with the argument of "everything is so complex, therefore God exists". The reason that I will not buy this is that there are many systems (natural -life, atoms- or manmade -internet-) out there working without a specific controller or particular creator. Or at least I can see that they are working without a supreme controller. Randomness, interdependencies, environmental effects, time, heredity and evolution can handle any of these system without a regulator. So what type of proof mechanism can tell me that I am wrong? Because as you mentioned above, "God can (by the way; "can" or "does?") still utilize me whether I believe in him or not..", so I would like to run a sort of proving mechanism into my thinking (or my emotions if you like), so I can detect or realize God's existence. So what is it? What is the logical mechanism behind this proof?
i would argue that god has had influence in those things to let you see things from unique perspective...
i have a tough time believing any one man knows what god wants..
IMO it is the same god in all these religions,each one has a piece of the 'who is god' puzzle, just because i believe god is 'this' way, does not mean your belief that god is 'that' way is wrong..
we would have to discuss the differences to see if there is a common denominator,to discover a better picture of 'who god is'
when god puts something in your path he doesn't usually advertise that it is him doing it..when that object in your path causes you to make decisions that help him with his plan(don't ask me what that plan is..) he is utilizing you
would believer even need to convince anyone that god exists if there were proofs?
if god were proven,how would that affect the choices we make?
didn't he give us the ability to choose?
he is there waiting for me to ask him for his advice,when i do he will give that advice
When you burst into every thread beating your chest that god is real, that you've seen him and spoken with him, what else is one to assume other than you're lying?
I don't doubt that you have "personal experience with God", whatever that may mean. Many people say they know God.
But my question is: On the grounds of what do you think that others should believe you or at least take your statements seriously?
But, you aren't.
yes i am. you and earth will see. it's just a matter of time...
You're out of time.
No string along songs.
yes i am. you and earth will see. it's just a matter of time...
baftan;
i would like to answer you, if you did exist, but since i have no proof for your existence, then you don't exist, and there's no need to answer you.
don't reply unless you're ready for a beating. O'nonexistent one..
If you check out my sentence you will see that there are commas between "creationists, religious, and believers". I know religious is an adjective and I should have added some noun after that such as "people" for example, and I passed that. Because in the end I see some common denominator between those who practice or "experience" these conditions. Believing in something can not be proven outside of the him/her mind.1) 'creationist' is not synonymous with 'religious believer'
2) I think the options you present are off. Some people base their beliefs on their experience. The religion is working for them in some way and fits their experiences. Proof is only an issue if they are trying to convince someone else they TOO should believe. A religious person making the claim that you ALSO should believe then should provide reasons. But even there I see most proselytisers advocating that the potential convert or believer PARTICIPATE in some practice or another - come to church, join a ceremony, begin meditating, meet the trained representative, etc. - rather than engaging in efforts to prove the existence of God.
The existence of personal experience is one thing, and to say that everything else is created by a lucid dream is something else. Instead of this I recommend you to watch this short talk on hallucinations.'Prove to me one can lucid dream?'
'No, I want you to prove to me that you can lucid dream.'
Reminds me of the wackos who stand on street corners hoisting signs that read, "The End is Nigh"
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
an OP written by nobody, is nothing, do you sit trying to read and understand a group of alphabet cards lying on the ground?I hope you do not construct your belief according to the voices you hear. Forget about if I exist or not, consider you accidentally come up with my post, and consider I do not exist anymore, because that doesn't make any difference in terms of the existence of OP.
"forgetting that god exists"..
What god?
excuse me, am i talking to somebody?