Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

What we have here is this.

Science offers a few ideas for the beginning of things and possible explanations surrounding the Big Bang. Science does not say it has the answer. It only offers some theories that are based on maths, chemistry, physics and other related studies.

Deists say that there must be a prime cause. To a deist, something came from nothing, and the only way to explain how is via a deity. Where the deity got matter and energy from is unanswerable.

So, while both sides cannot explain how or where energy and matter came from, one side offers empirically based theories while the other side offers magic.

Well, NO, you are INCORRECT.

That's your definition of GOD.

Jesus, the man, historically reported in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, clearly states GOD is inside human being, outside human being, above so below.

In other words, Nature IS frigging GOD. It's as simple as THAT AS ALWAYS HAS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, AS LONG AS NATURE EXISTS.

I am just a TRUE APOSTLE OF JESUS, IN THIS REGARD, WITH comprehensive knowledge of most other religions too, where the TRUTH remains the same, as Nature as the Higher Power, AS GOD, and simply the fact that human being is a watered down 'worm', in comparison to what REAL HUMAN STRENGTH CAN BE with the higher power of Mother Nature TRUE MANIFEST IN HUMAN BEING Nature, as a free GIFT AS IS, MORE FULLY EMPLOYED AND PRACTICED in numerous intelligences that most human beings today, never touch, in metaphor or reality.

YOGI FOLKS, LIKE THE REPORTED JESUS, can steam heat off of robes in icy waters, AND CONTROL THEIR BRAIN WAVES LIKE ME, as they have control over their autonomic nervous system through relative free will, and BIO-FEEDBACK, OF COURSE, LIKE ME.

THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE HIGHER POWER OF NATURE IN HUMAN, MORE THOROUGHLY PURSUED, FOUND, AND PRACTICED AS REAL SUPERMEN AND WOMEN, as human beings, through relative FREE WILL.

It's much more than a long word in the dictionary that describes other words, describing REAL LIFE HUMAN MIRACLES, in comparison to what the average 'human worm' can do, WITH OR WITHOUT BIG SHELLS OF WORDS THAT are just mental masturbation, in true effect and AFFECT, online, OR EVEN OFFLINE, in most cases.

AND THAT's OKAY, as meaningless pastimes, are a way to pass the time, too.

I prefer real life miracles in flesh and blood, cause THAT'S SUPER KOOL, JUST LIKE THE REAL JESUS, AS REPORTED, SAYS.

ANYWAY, here's the documented evidence, as reported in the GOSPEL of Thomas, all about the Pantheist Yogi Leaning dude, Jesus.

AND YOU can keep talking about a Supreme FAIRY TALE, all you want, as a form of Mental Masturbation, while I continue to evidence a REAL GOD, I CAN IRREFUTABLY PROVE, AS A FREE HIGHER POWER OF GOD IN HUMAN BEING THAT IS TRUTH, PROVEN, AT LEAST, BY ME, in real life STUFF.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

GOD IS the TRUTH AND THE LIGHThe All Seeing EYE, AS metaphor.

EVEN Madonna is smart enough to figure that one out.

It doesn't even take a step in A school room OR WALK TO THE ALTER, to TRULY KNOW AND EXPERIENCE THE ONE TRUE GOD OF NATURE.

IN FACT, BOTH ARE MAJOR ROADBLOCKS TO HUMAN NATURE MORE FULLY REALIZED, WITH THE GOD OF NATURE.

TRULY nothing else matters, in what IS TRUE REALITY.

ANY questions..

Fantastic conjectures that defy and contradict all known, testable, measureable Natural Laws and phenomena are not science except that science says that such conjectures are scientifically impossible. Possible and impossible are mutually exclusive. That the impossible is a "scientific" answer to anything is absurd.

The science of logic (metaphysical stuff) systematically precludes that absurdity can be an answer to anything. Science does not require that metaphysics does not exist or that it is beyond all knowledge and understanding. (Knowledge and understanding are metaphysical stuffs too... quite incomprehensible to anyone who assumes that reason and logic are only anything that suits their egotistical convenience).

The "theory" of evolution is self-contradictory on every level. It is not a contender in the scientific quest for understanding reality.

*pulls out the athiest magic wand to make god disappear and fade away*

Well, that's pretty much what the reported Gnostic Gospel Jesus did, err.. tried to do; however, not the time and place obviously to effect or truly affect the elimination of the fake anthropomorphic GOD in the sky and return to the GOD OF NATURE, as truly FREE IN TRUTH OF HUMAN NATURE.

But at least, the myth that other people, per Roman Emperor Constantine, his friends, and early Catholic leader cohorts made per making Jesus a fake soldier GOD, served as a vehicle and vessel housing some of the truths, and making the world ready, once the gnostic Gospels ARE uncovered and the folks truly running the show, separated a church and state propagating a false GOD of myth.

Truth IS what the U.S.A. is designed around in Constitution way but a public at large, per democracy, with the same old tired morality of a false DOMINEERING AND HUMAN DISCRIMINATING GOD, WITH NO 'EEO' RULES, still ruled the roost through two centuries through oppression of women, and other minorities.

But as they say, THE TRUTH WILL SET YA FREE, AND THAT DIRECTION IS AT LEAST, ACCESSIBLE NOW, FOR PURVIEW, INCREASINGLY WITH ONLINE SERVICES, even IN Muslim countries where blogging can over take the censoring of sources like Youtube and others.

Freedom is contagious, when people get a taste of what it truly looks like.

IT WOULD REALLY BE a big help if the TRUE STORY ABOUT JESUS BELIEVING IN THE GOD OF NATURE, RATHER THAN A FAIRY GOD, as himself, WAS SPREAD AROUND a little more, in a way that could make people believe it.

Making Jesus into a GOD, instead of just another powerful but humble prophet, is a major source of HEARTBURN for Muslim folks, as it both disrespects REAL REPORTED Jesus, and the GOD of NATURE THAT IS MUCH, MUCH, LARGER AND COMPLEX, THAN one little or BIG MAN, whatever the case was that allowed Jesus to be Alpha enough to walk in on some money changers and turn their tables over, like 'CHUCK NORRIS'.

IF HE WAS REAL, AND JESUS REALLY DID THAT HE WAS LIKELY ONE BAD A** DUDE that no one dared to cross without a cross and some nails, and a bunch of 'Roman Hit Guys', to finish the end of THAT STORY.

God is make believe, nothing else than an imaginary boogyman it would be believable as a child but it is time we put away childish things! Santa Clause isn't real neither is the Easter Bunny!We are grown adults we are free to make our own decisions it is time to put the boogyman to rest for good and progress for the better good as the human race and not let a book of fairytails hold us back dictating our lives!

And here lies the really bizarre bit. We know that energy and mass are interchangeable and mass is intrinsically linked to matter. All that is needed to form a universe is Energy and mass, once we have a universe with the correct physics we get life. The deists, theists, and their cousins from the deep south all seem to agree that god lives beyond the universe, and must have some sort of energy and has always existed. Yet they cannot see that if energy has always existed then so have the prerequisites for universes. Therefore according to their own logic there is absolutely no need for a sentient creator.

Neither is there any logical necessity for the absence of a sentient creator.

If you had been paying close attention, you would have noticed by now that I don't define "god" as anything. You are incorrect, yet you are likely incapable of even acknowledging the possibility without external prompting.



Dent's argument is a refutation of the "first cause" argument. Your statement is a step towards the position of "probably not, but we don't know for certain" of the majority of Atheists. You're effectively agreeing with him.

^ Exactly

Duh.

Apparently, you do not have the most rudimentary knowledge, skills, and or ability to catch sarcasm, and considering the source that's not surprising and okay too, of course, as it IS understandable, as after ALL IS SAID AND DONE, this is a site FOR FOLKS, clinically speaking, who often do NOT get sarcasm, and other forms of metaphor.

And yes, metaphor of ALL KINDS in discussing philosophy, POLITICS, AND RELIGION, is an effective way of getting a POINT ACROSS FOR those who have the knowledge, skills AND abilities to more FULLY understand metaphor.

THIS IS AN open discussion area for Philosophy, Politics, and Religion, and all three are FILLED WITH HISTORICAL EXAMPLES of parables, sarcasm, satire, and all forms of metaphorical speak at core of how they manifest in reciprocal social communication in the REAL WORLD.

To not to be able to understand parables, satire, and all forms of metaphorical speak, is quite literally a serious handicap to understand all three elements of this particular sub forum, as in reality, TRUE REALITY; NOT 'GRADE SCHOOL ALONE'; METAPHOR/EMOTIONALISM IN HUMAN LANGUAGE IS CORE of all three ELEMENTS OF THIS SUB-FORUM that drive whatever logic remains, when all is said and done.

IN FACT, IN THE SCIENCE OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUISTICS EXPERTS SUGGEST ALL HUMAN LANGUAGE IS METAPHOR.

AND interestingly enough, this entire site is A great CASE-study for that as that is one of my specialities coming from a degree in Anthropology, with focus on linguistics.

I find it fascinating, and fortunately my Hyperlexic form of Autism includes extreme abilities in KSA's for understanding metaphor in human languages to do JUST THAT.

AND THAT IS why in the real world of poetry, I am considered an enigma of sorts; yes, that's documented for evidence, if necessary; as I can retort poetry to almost anything anyone says, in words, as I for one, am considered a master of metaphor, IN PUBLISHED POET CIRCLES.

And truly some folks diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome are, as one of my bosses from my work career has a grandson diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome who IS A Nebraska STATE CHAMPION OF POETRY, PER CONTEST, AS SUCH, AT HIS GRADE LEVEL.

As discussed earlier with you, folks with symptoms of non-verbal learning disorder who are diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome are often extremely pedantic, as science shows SOME DO HAVE lesions on the right hemisphere of the brain that is responsible for the interpretation of language rather than the left brain that is more responsible for the output of speech.

Speech and writing have always been my RELATIVE weakness AS output; input and understanding all the symbols of life, including problem solving of abstract issues, is my forte, as a Hyperlexic leaning person on the spectrum.

So yeah, I often throw out innovative metaphor, as THAT IS WHAT I DO BEST, AND I AM NOT GOING TO CURB MY STRENGTHS HERE, WHEN I CAN CLARIFY AND VALIDATE MY COMMUNICATION IN excruciating DETAIL, JUST LIKE THIS, with no problems, as again, that is what I do best, SOLVE PROBLEMS, whether people like my style of doing that or have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to decipher what I do.

Freedom of expression means different ways of approaching life and problems.

This is a metaphorical world we live in, and language is certainly a reflection of reality in both human NATURE and how THE REST OF nature is expressed in QUANTUM WAY. AS ABOVE SO BELOW APPLIES IN ALL THINGS IN LIFE, AS WE ALL ARE MADE OF STAR STUFF AKA GOD.

THIS IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND FOR FOLKS LIKE ME AND THE SO-CALLED real Gnostic Gospel of Thomas Jesus who simply and complexly have the KSA's to do JUST THAT.

YEAH.

'I JUST DO IT', like my friends at Nike say, in all COLORS that COMES IN, AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN.

SOME people get me and LAUD ME LOUD FOR MY CREATIVE WAY OF doing that and some folks just say WTF, AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHY, SO IT DOESN'T PHASE ME WHEN THEY DO, as I know I am blessed to be able do what I can do, as I can be as pedantic as I want, IF I so choose to leave the spice of human language out of my personal set of KSA'S.

ANY QUESTIONS..!..

Not really. My statement is a step towards the position of "probably so, but we don't know for certain." Well…not really, but it's closer to that than the alternative. I hold very loosely to a moderate form of fideism. I don't think reason and faith are inherently hostile to each other, as fideism purists would hold. Where faith and reason are hostile is in actual practice, and it's really empiricist reason that is hostile to faith rather than faith being hostile to all areas of reason. Dent doesn't claim to hold the empiricist view, but he does hold to their methods, which I find disturbing.

Dent and I do seem to be on the same page. I'll give you that much. We're just guided by opposing assumptions. In practice, Dent believes it is safe to assume there isn't a God by virtue of improbability. My question is why assume there is no God? And, further, why assume that God is unlikely? Dent's view seems to me to not really allow much room for God at all. The assumption that God is unlikely or non-existent is essential to his belief. Fine. But that doesn't invalidate the opposite conclusion drawn from the same methodology. In my view, it is more unlikely there ISN'T a God. And even if I were to imagine there's not a God, my position is a safer one. The way I see it, I have no REASON to believe there is no God and anyone who wants me to change my mind is going to have to show evidence to back their assertions that God doesn't exist. In my view, the claim that there is no God is an extraordinary claim, hence the evidence that there is no God would likewise have to be extraordinary. I've been waiting on that for some time, and I imagine I'll be waiting an eternity.

So in spite of what some believe is evidence to the contrary, which is not sufficiently extraordinary enough to be convincing, and in spite of what others CHOOSE to believe about God's existence or non-existence, all I can say is I CHOOSE to believe that there is a God and that Jesus is God's Son sent to rescue us from the penalty of our sin.

Oh…forget something…

It's not an effective refutation. It only refutes the logical necessity of the first cause. It doesn't refute in any absolute terms that there was or wasn't a first cause. You can CHOOSE to believe that there was or there wasn't. I fail to see how the opposite conclusion is superior to my own. Without our respective ASSUMPTIONS, we have nothing.

There's also the issue of energy. Why assume that a form of spiritual energy and material energy are one and the same? We already know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The first cause argument involves an uncaused Cause. It is logically unnecessary to assume that Cause exists squarely within our known universe. It is more likely such a Cause could exist both within and beyond our plane of existence. After all, we hold that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. For the cosmological argument to work, one cannot assume that God ONLY works within our realm of knowledge of how energy and matter work. I'm confused how a believer would be convinced to take that bait in the first place.

Probably not, we don't know for certain is what an agnostic would say, not an athiest.
An athiest would say there can't be. An agnostic says maybe, we can't know until there is proof.

But then again most people who claim to be agnostic also believe there can't be a god anyways.

Early man looked at plants and trees and could fathom no reason for their existence except for a deity.
He looked at animals and could only explain them through the work of the gods.
He looked at rocks and mountains and volcanoes, and could find only one explanation.
He saw the clouds and the rain and all types of weather - surely only gods could produce such things.
He looked to the sky, seeing the sun and feeling its warmth. A man could not produce such a thing.
He saw the stars and the patterns they formed. Only a deity could reach so high and place them there.
And he looked within and saw his own superiority to animals. His creator had to be infinitely superior again.

One by one, each of the above has been explained by knowledge, science and technologies that would seem as tools of the gods to early man. One by one, the deities have been pushed back - from plants and trees, from the animals, from rocks, mountains and volcanoes, we can explain them all. The gods are no longer in the clouds or the rain or all types of weather. We understand the sun and what gave birth to it. The gods have even been pushed back from their reign over the stars.

Gods were once the only logical explanation for all that man could see. But bit by bit, knowledge removed our ignorance and pushed the gods out. Step by step it was taken from them. Until now, the only thing that the gods can cling onto is that fraction of a second at the dawn of our universe. Hardly enough for them grasp it with a fingernail, but cling to that last little bit they do.

Apparently you still prefer to condescend based on tenuous 'evidence' rather than engage in rational discourse.

Here's a tip. If you use a statement like "you are incorrect" in written form, the only possible way you could demonstrate sarcasm is with a written cue. As your post was completely bereft of (e.g. [/sarcasm]) or other commonly tool of expression to denote said sarcasm, the failure is one of communication and not comprehension.

Your premise is therefore demonstrably false, and based on your own insular narrative.

Or, if you prefer:

You're right! I totally don't get sarcasm! [/sarcasm]



Key phrase "real world". In the "real world", the majority of human interaction is audiovisual. Your intended meaning, if different to your face value meaning, is easy to convey with tone or gestures. A common issue for people on the spectrum is understanding vocal sarcasm - your alleged written sarcasm is universally ambiguous and therefore unrelated to my condition. As such, I advise you to refrain from ad hominem in future.



The domain of the linguist is spoken language, not written language. Your lack of understanding of this fact goes a long way to explaining the manner in which you attempt to communicate on WP.



A degree which apparently failed to point out that linguistics is the study of the spoken word, not the written.



I find it fascinating that, no matter the subject matter of any given thread, the majority of your responses will be self-referencing and self-aggrandising.

For example:



I won't waste anyone's time listing my own credentials and achievements in the realms of written language. Rather, I'll simply state that this published poet does not find you to be enigmatic. I just find nothing original or valuable in your posts.



The very idea of reducing poetry to egotistical competition is abhorrent to me, and rather misses the point of poetry.



All completely irrelevant to the current discussion. You should try harder to overcome your desire to talk about your special interests. This thread is about the existence, or lack thereof, of divine beings.



Then it should not come as a surprise to you that the onus of miscommunicated sarcasm is on you.



Perhaps you should contact Kellog's and do a decoder ring deal.



No, it simply means freedom of expression. When you choose to express yourself in a manner that is unintelligible by design, you may as well be speaking in tongues.



You've literally just said nothing.



I note that your insular narrative contains a binary that leaves no room for the possibility of understanding yet dismissing or disagreeing. You have my sympathy, for what it's worth.



None are required. Contrary to your perceptions, you're really rather a simple fellow.

Now, unless you actually have something relevant to say regarding my posts, other than "you don't understand X because reasons", I suggest you find someone else to babble at.