jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (557 posts)

God Is Not Required To Be Proved

  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    "Experience of self is not required to be proved"

    "God is experience of self"

    "Therefore, God is not required to be proved"

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "God", an invisible superbeing with unlimited power from another universe, has now been relegated to nothing more than an experience by an insignificant speck of dust in an insignificant galaxy that will soon be destroyed?  You have a far different view of what a god is than most people do.

      Of course God does not need to be proved.  At least not to you; you don't particularly care if the concept is real or not and will believe as you wish.  However, should you wish others to believe the myth you must prove it to them, just as they must prove the FSM to you if they wish you to believe it.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness, you and all others could not understand my point of view, experience of self is universal, you know yourself  and have belief in yourself how ? how do you know with certainty that you are present ? do you require any evidence to prove yourself ? you are never require to be proved for your self because you have direct knowledge of yourself, you never require to satisfy yourself by the rational arguments to prove your self,your knowledge of yourself is limited,you know simply you are present,you do not know even that  who are you? why are you? how are you? , this universal experience of self is experience of God, this is the foundation of all religions, this is the reflection of God, you know yourself and you know your God, God is your self but you are not God,therefore,you have direct knowledge of your God ,denial of God is denial of your self ,this is light within you ,this is heaven within you, you are not losing God ,you are losing your heaven .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I think we understand just fine.  The problem is that you steadfastly refuse to say what you actually mean, trying instead to couch it in terms of logic.  Logic that does not work.

          Here you claim that God is an experience.  You don't say that personal experience is proof of God, which is what you actually mean, you say that the experience IS God in that same misguided effort to use logic to prove God's existence.

          So you said God IS an experience - stick with it!  Don't go off on a tangent, suddenly asking how I know self or how I'm not required to prove I exist.  Just stick with "God is an experience".

          Once that is done, and God has been redefined from a supernatural creature that created the universe to a mere human experience of individual self, your conclusion is correct.  There are some 7 billion people on earth, each experiencing themselves.  There are thus 7 billion gods and no other proof is needed.

          Of course, others may disagree with your definition that god is a mere human experience...

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness, you do not have complete knowledge of yourself but you lead the whole life with you without finding who are you?, why are you? and how are you? you have full confidence and belief in yourself without complete knowledge of yourself,therefore,God is also not required to be completely defined for maintaining belief in Him , we know  He is present because we know we are present.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty much the same as you.  I know who I am, just as you do.  There is no "why" I am, just as there is none for you.  I know minor bits of "How" I am, just as you do.  (Note that "goddunit" is not a "how").

          I do not have full knowledge of myself, just as you don't.  As I cannot sense God with any of my five sense, I do not know He is present any more than you do.  You claim different, of course, but cannot back up the claim with proof - the claim is thus value less and defaults to "I don't know" just as mine does.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness,why can I not raise the question that why am I ? Why biological process has brought ''you'' into existence ? if you know who are you then tell me where were ''you'' 100 years ago ? when ''you'' selected your parents? From where'' you'' have come? what is essence of ''you ''? why have ''you ''come to existence? where will ''you'' go after death? you are matter,energy,soul ,unity or combination of all? what will happen in future with you? no body knows these questions and can make only opinion upon the basis of research.therefore,you are'' secrete'' even for you and only know and feel yourself and try to understand your wishes and objectives and struggle to fulfill the same.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Raise the question of "why" you are all you want.  You just won't find an answer in nature; only in your own imagination. 

              100 years ago I was not, and neither were you.  I did not select my parents and neither did you.  I came from the fusion of two parental cells plus massive quantities of other raw materials necessary to form a body.  There is no "why" I exist.  I will not "go" anywhere after ceasing to exist.

              Define the word soul and I will tell you if I have one.  At least if you choose to define something that can be shown to exist; define it is a supernatural, undetectable "something" and no one can answer the question.  Not honestly, at least.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness,why are you in hesitation to raise the question of why? if you have no answer to ''why '' ,it does not mean you should close eyes from 'why '' as it is easy way to avoid your wishful thinking of absence of God,what answers you mentioned are not self evident knowledge of you,these are simply your opinions in accordance your research or wishes,you do not know who are you? from where you have come ? and why you have come? you are only suggesting answers after studying thousand years ideas of mankind and that may be correct or wrong,therefore,you are a ''secrete'' but you believe this secrete without evidence why ? similarly, you have no ''knowledge'' even of your essence and now after finding the definition of soul you are interested to ''define''yourself in light of your knowledge and history of mankind,you are not capable to define you even, but you are ''reality'' for you even before making such kind of opinions but God is not a ''reality'' for you,interesting,first provide evidence for your belief of self and then come to God.

          2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, your whole life is based over a ''belief'' you never adopted after research,application of reason and senses and not even through indoctrination,that is the BELIEF OF YOUR SELF,this is self experience,this is not myth,this is not ''I do not know'' ,this is not story of old religion,this is the essence of you ,this is the essence of every religion and this is the essence of God.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I believe I am.  Yes it is self experience, not it is not myth and it is not "I do not know".  It is not an old story. 

              But neither is my belief that I am the essence of every religion and it certainly isn't the essence of God.  God (creator of universes) is not a belief dreamed up by the pattern of electron flows in a human brain.  It is not a belief at all, but a very material creature from another universe.

              On the other hand, if your definition of God is a construct of the human mind, then it might make some of your "logic" a little more palatable? 

              Is it?  Is God nothing more than an idea, a belief, from individual human minds?  Incapable of any action whatsoever as ideas cannot act, only living beings can do that.  Is that what a god is?  Another fiction like Superman, Bugs Bunny or Batman?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have said this before and will say it again: We have absolutely NO idea as to whether God is real or the product of some very specific hard-wiring of the human brain.

                There is no way to prove (a) that God exists or (b) that God does not exist. God is, essentially, a paradox.

                I strongly suggest review of  the theory/issue/paradox of "Schrödinger's Cat".  Is the cat in the box or not? Was the cat ever in the box or not? Is the cat alive? Dead? Does the cat exist? Not exist? What happens when we open the box or close the box? Was the cat there before we opened the box OR does the cat exist only when we open the box?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't tell me - I understand very well that there may not be a God.  Or that it is a construct of our mind.  Or that it may be a "physical" intelligent creature that made us.

                  We cannot tell, and I do understand that.  You are preaching to the choir - preach to those that do NOT understand it.  Sibtain, maybe.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness ''I understand very well that there may not be a God'', I am surprised that you never believe any thing without evidence but here you are not only believing but also understanding as'' knowledge'' that there is no God even without evidence or complete knowledge of ''absence of God'',therefore,I have stated that atheism is not more than a belief in ''absence of God'' or'' self existence of universe'' but pose itself as'' logic ''and'' science'',where is your scientific thought Mr,wilderness ,making this statement of'' blind belief''?

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no way to prove (a) that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or (b) that Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Flying Spaghetti Monster is, essentially, a paradox.

                  http://www.venganza.org

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why is it that mockery is always the strategy in these discussions?

                    Did it ever occur to you that there is room---and plenty of it, for a serious consideration of these questions.

                    Personally, I have no idea why anyone opens themselves up to such mockery and ridicule.

              2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness,very simple question,why you believe in yourself without requiring any evidence ? why you never argued or doubted any time about your presence ? this belief was even at the stage when you were not capable of arguing and making your food, you never developed this belief even after research ,this belief is in'' self'',this belief is in'' unseen,''this belief is in ''soul'',therefore,you are ''self'',you are'' unseen'',you are ''soul'',you are not ''matter'',you are appearing as '' matter'',your'' space time form'',therefore we can never deny'' unseen'' as we are ''unseen'',we are ''self'' and our life is based over ''self experience''.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You are so right. We believe in ourselves; believe in the reality of our being. And yet, we have no evidence beyond ourselves and perception that we are.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    not necessarily true.  Haven't you ever had to verify your identity to get a drivers license or a credit card?  If you want anyone else to accept the reality of your being, you have to demonstrate that you are who you say you are or you're out of luck.

                    We have birth certificates.  We have dna testing to verify paternity.  We have identification that has to be presented to get a job or extend a line of credit or open a bank account.  If simply existing was enough to prove that we exist, why are any of these things necessary?  If someone steals our identity, does it mean that they are really us because they exist as well?  What is required to correct the theft?  More proof that we are who we claim to be.

              3. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness,if we wish to escape from God we can never do it as we are ''unseen'',we can deceive our selves by saying that we have no faith in ''unseen'' God but at the same time our whole life is revolving around the ''unseen '' and even it is not possible for us to give up this belief of ''unseen''as we will become abnormal if we will do it, God is not a'' belief'' nor ''an idea'',He is not a deem or imagination,He is an'' absolute reality'' and we can observe His great sign every where and if we try to escape from these signs by closing our eyes we will find Him in our ''selves''therefore,Atheism is not more than a'' deception''.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  True.  You can deceive yourself by saying that you know a god exists and you can run your whole life around that deceit.  You can declare that atheism, we cannot prove a god is out there, is a lie, but anyone with a grain of sense knows better.  Only those that voluntarily deceive themselves by convincing themselves that the myth of a god is real and true believe such nonsense. 

                  Sorry, sibtain, but you can only believe; you can NEVER know if there is a god.  Only when dead and in heaven can you KNOW.  You can produce logical fallacies in a failed effort to prove a god, you can declare one is there a thousand times but you will never prove the unprovable.  You will never have knowledge, but only belief.  If you cannot live with that, suggest you learn to think critically and rationally, then accept the knowledge you gain as truth instead of making up your own reality.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    True for you. Not others. We need to accept others beliefs.
                    That is a novel word:
                                                                 A C C E P T

                    If we could accept that Sibtain Bukhari believes the way he believes, I believe the way I believe, and the atheists believe the way they believe... then we could just share our beliefs without that argumentative attitude that SO creeps in.  Wouldn't that be better?
                    Or not.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Did it ever occur to you---if only for the sake of argument, that you may be deceiving yourself wilderness?

                    How do you know with absolute certainty that there is no god?

                    How do you know with absolute certainty that what you believe to be true---even if you have arrived at it through reason and critical thinking, is absolutely true?

                    As noted above: It is true for you. It is what you believe. You have no proof that god does not exist. So, the only thing to do is accept that; accept that you believe what you believe---and without proof, and that others believe what they believe---also without proof.

                    Remember, reasoning through problems and applying critical thinking got our ancient ancestors---scientists in their time and place, to conclude  among other things that the earth was the center of the universe; that there were perfect "forms" of things; that the basic elements were earth, wind, fire, and air; that there was a fifth element "ether"; that the universe is static.

                  3. bBerean profile image62
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, let's for a moment consider the possiblity of that situation in which you have proposed a person could actually "know" there is a God.  In death then, stripped of all your material senses...how will you "know"?  It would have to be a completely spiritual experience, since being a spirit is all you would have at that time.  This would be your entire reality. 

                    If someone had been receptive to this spiritual reality during their life, in death they would have validation of what they believed all along.  Validation they didn't require, already putting equal weight on the spiritual connection they had in life as they did to the input of their material senses.  This is one reason why people may say they "know" now, even if they have no way of sharing "proof" with you.  Their current experience is just as real as it will be in that future day when the other senses are no longer contributing input and the spiritual is all they have left. 

                    If it is possible for you to even consider what you yourself proposed as the time when folks would truly know, can you consider that there are folks who "know" now, or is the litmus test for "knowing," being able to share their proof with you?

                  4. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness,Kathryn L Hill,mbuggieh,Rad Man,bBerean,The only question involved is that everyone has belief in his self and his presence without requiring any evidence to the effect of the same and even without knowing his definition,why?,everyone is'' secrete''for himself but his whole life is based over the certain belief in this ''secrete'' why? we can never think of a moment to avoid this belief,otherwise,our personality will be imbalanced ,why?, this is not my belief or your belief,this is belief of everyone and therefore,universal,this analysis proves that if we are simply matter and energy or organic formation of matter or brain,then we would not have  required this''belief in self'' and we must be ''mechanical'' in our behavior,therefore,this is opening of the metaphysical world or in other words our life is based over metaphysical world..

      3. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness,for clarification of your objections it is stated that'' experience of God'' does not mean we are ''confining Him'' , it would mean we are ''finding Him'',we have ''light of God ''within us,it would not mean we are confining that ''light.'',moreover. this experience is not individual,it is universal as everyone has self experience.Your presence is invisible for you as you have built a confidence and belief in you without application of reason and outer experience just upon the basis of direct knowledge of yourself,you have not discovered yourself as a ''concept of philosophy'',''argument of logic ''and ''theory of science'' then why are you demanding all that for God? you have recognized yourself as ''experience of self'',therefore,recognize God as your ''self experience'',here, I am not presenting my belief or personal experience ,I am presenting experience of all ,therefore,if'' my presence'' and ''your presence'' is not myth then ,presence of God is also not a myth,He is as real as your self.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Your logical syllogism plainly states that God is an experience. 

          Not that it is inside each individual, not that we are confining it, not that "we are finding him", and certainly not that "we have light of God".  If you mean any of those things, you most definitely need to re-write your syllogism as any and all of those will negate the truth of the logical sequence.

          And finally, on another track completely, experiencing myself is NOT indication that I experience God.  Not unless you wish to define me, Wilderness, as a god.  And I certainly do not "recognize God as my personal self exprience"; wherever do you get such quaint notions?  Just because you say it is so?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness,''God is an experience'' means we know Him as self experience it obviously,does not mean that God is not more than experience,I do not need to rewrite because all these self observations are included in the ''self experience'', lastly experience of self is experience of'' unseen'',experience of ''secrete'',experience of metaphysical,therefore,this is direct experience of God,every experience is of matter or energy except experience of self,that is the experience of unseen and without requiring any evidence or any argument,therefore,this metaphysical experience is so important where our whole life is based,wilderness can deny his God but can never deny his self even without any evidence,without knowing him completely and believing himself as'' secrete'',this is why I stated that denial of God is not more than a ''deception'' as one can never deny his'' self''how can we recognize'' unseen'' and'' metaphysical'' in one way and deny the same in an other way,this is ''deception''

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If God is more than an experience you OP was somewhat of a waste of time.

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I endorse this approach over the previous one of saying God is proved but not providing anything that amounts to proof, leading to torturous pointless debate.

      Now maybe OP get get onto writing that second hub?

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        psycheskinner, God is not required to be proved as we have direct knowledge of our selves  ,God is within ourselves but we are not God,we have direct knowledge of ourselves ,therefore,we never require to prove ourselves,knowledge of ourselves is knowledge of our God, reason is an other source of knowledge that may be applied for proving God rationally ,therefore both contentions are correct at the same time .

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is just one ridiculous contradiction based on a fallacy.

    3. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Says who?


      I don't remember taking crazy pills this morning, so why is this lunacy on my screen?


      You propose the existence of something, so yes, you do need to prove that it exists.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zelkiiro,you can deny my thoughts but you can never deny your self, you can never deny your presence,I am stranger for you but yourself is not ,you have not discovered yourself or your presence by the application of reason as you you have direct conscious of your self,therefore,yourself is proved for your self and never require to be proved rationally,I am not proposing existence of something,I am reminding you that experience of yourself is experience of your God,God is within you but you are not God,consequently ,God being self experience is not required to be proved rationally .,

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Its so hard to tell if I agree with you or not. You bob and weave a lot.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Beth37, you can deny my ideas but you can never deny yourself , I am stranger for you but your self is not , after all you are living with yourself since long without knowing who are you, you know only your presence,this self conscious of your presence is light within you , do not agree with me but agree with yourself .

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              sure sure

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do you mean self-awareness? If so prove is required as humans are not the only creature that are self aware and not all humans are self-aware.

      Does this mean God is self-awareness? That makes no sense at all. Our ability to understand that we are thinking is a product of the mind. No God required.

      That apparently is the case for you, however if you want to convince others you will need some evidence.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man, you require to prove your presence for yourself ? you know yourself directly therefore, never require to prove yourself rationally,you will be rational problem for me but not for yourself as I can never believe in your presence without you being an observable fact but this is not the case for you,you have direct conscious of yourself therefore you are proved for yourself,your knowledge of yourself is knowledge of your God , God is within you but you are not God,therefore,God being self experience is not required to be proved.you have not discovered your self conscious rationally,it is light within you that provides you direct knowledge without any medium that you are present and build a confidence and belief within you.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is the point where you lost me. You again just from self awareness to self awareness is evidence of God when all self awareness is is evidence of self awareness. For example, my self awareness is not evidence for some guy in Iraq.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rad Man,you could not understand my point of view,I am not arguing that self awareness is the evidence of God, evidence is not required in this experience,you require evidence for convincing yourself that you are present ? because you have direct knowledge of yourself and that has built in you the confidence and belief in person of you and consequently, you act like a uniformed personality in a normal manner, your this ''direct knowledge of yourself'' is the'' experience of God'',therefore no evidence and no argument is required for God as nothing is required for yourself, as God is within ourselves and we may experience Him then why we search Him in beyond universe ?when you will do it[search in beyond universe] you will demand evidence for your satisfaction.Therefore,open the book of yourself and start to study your God.

        2. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not true.  Sometimes you DO need to prove yourself.  I don't need to prove to myself that I exit, but I DO need to prove to other people that I exist and that I am who I say I am.

          For example.  I cannot walk into the Department of Motor vehicles and say "my name is ___ and I want a driver's license".  If I want a driver's license, I have to produce evidence that I am who I say I am.  I have to show them a birth certificate, a bank account, a social security card, etc.  I have to verify my address.  I have to verify my personal information, and then I have to prove that I'm capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. 

          god may be obvious to you because you believe that you sense him with your awareness, but if you want others to accept/believe in your version of god, it still needs to be proven - just like I have to prove that I exist and that I am who I say I am to others in order to gain a right or privilege.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JMcFarland, you are not borrowing God from me, you are not demanding license from me, you are not taking any thing from me,therefore, you never require ''arguments of God'' from me because you have God within you,you are trying to forget Him and I am reminding only,find yourself you will find your God, I am not claiming that God is present and accept my this argument, my point of view is that find your God within yourself,God is your self experience not my argument,therefore,never required to prove rationally as He is not away from you but within you, you never require to apply for ''driving license'' as you have''driving license'' within you,open your book of self and start to study your ''license''.

    5. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Experience of self is not required to be proved"

      "God is experience of self"

      "Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
      Ah, deductive reasoning. I like deductive reasoning. You start with a statement which is true and deduce information from it.
      “All men that are not married are bachelors,”
      “Bob is not married”
      “Bob is therefore a bachelor.”
      The entire thing depends on your first statement being true. If I say that all bachelors wear baseball caps as a first statement, then what follows is going to be wrong. Bob may be a bachelor but he may not like wearing baseball caps. Though if the first sentence was true then it would follow that bob would not feel the way he actually does. 
      So let’s look at the first statement here. "Experience of self is not required to be proved" Meaning that experience of self is proof of self. Right? At least to yourself. What self is is another matter, of course. But so far I’d say that’s not a bad first statement.
      But what happens in this next line? "God is experience of self"
      How does that follow? We don’t know how you arrived at this statement. It isn’t one that is self evident. For us to know for certain this is true we would have to know for certain that god exists and forms part of ourselves. It is not self evident and can’t be proven.  I will assume you are talking about the Christian version of god. Most Christians will freely admit that they cannot prove god (by the Christian definition) exists. And it does seem to be a fact.  I’m not saying it doesn’t only that it can’t be proven either way.
      So in essence you are looking for a way to prove god exists by telling us it is in the experience of self or in deed is the experience of self. But that can’t be proven true unless you prove god true as well as being right about its attributes.
      "Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
      But it is in order to prove your assertion that god is the experience of self. God is not required to be proven only if it is self evident as in that it does not have to be proven that Bob is a bachelor as long as he is not married. That Bob is a bachelor if he is not married requires no extra proof, because it is the proof and is self evident.
      So your logic is circular with each statement eating at the tail of the other.
      Now, were it true and self evident that god is experience of self, then it would be redundant to say that it is not required to prove god, because you would have already proven god exists before you made the statement that he is experience of self.
      The following would be a proper statement of deductive reasoning were the first line true:
      We know god exists.
      We know he is part of us.
      Therefore experience of self is experience of god.
      That all follows, and the conclusion would be necessarily true if the first two line were true. But it is not true as we have not proven god exists. 
      Unfortunately, you have put three unrelated ideas together that do not follow in order to prove god exists by proving he is self evident so requiring no proof. You created a bit of a logical paradox for yourself.  Just thought you should know.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Slarty O'Brian,thanks for lengthy and logical comment but my point of view is clear as I have explained in other posts,I am not proving God through arguments this time nor I am stating that God can never be proved rationally, I am simply stating that God has proved Himself in ourselves,and we can discover Him in our selves as an experience not as an argument,therefore,He is not required to be proved as a stranger to self through the application of reason,I have expressed this point of view in logical form as my communication is with the people of logic,there is no circulation in my argument,and second premise is not false as we have observed that thousands of people have discovered God as self experience, but as everyone has self,therefore, this experience is universal,I have not created logical paradox by interlinking three ideas,I have simply stated that God is present in our selves,therefore,it is ridicule to search Him in the beyond universe and even you can never discover Him in your self through the application of reason ,you can only have experience of Him through traveling in the self,our self evident knowledge of our self leads to God.Our self is the mirror of God where we can find His reflection.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I understand your point of view.  But the problems I mentioned still remain.  What is your definition of god? Perhaps you can start there.
          I’ll show you this same argument from perhaps a different perspective. I define god as that which produced all this. Now the first question is, did something produce all this? The self evident answer is yes.  We and the universe exist and did not always exist as we are. If there were a time when absolutely nothing existed nothing could now exist. You can’t get something from nothing at all.
          But notice I am not saying something created us. Creation presupposes a creator. We have no evidence that what produced us is a conscious being,
          But we have ample evidence of the nature of the quantum or energy. We are all made of atoms and they have amazing properties. At the root, all things are made of atoms, because that is how things come to be. Add two atoms together and you have a new substance. Hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms together form water, for instance.
          Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so must always have existed in some form; even as potential. Every  can only be transformed and that is what it does. Those transformations, those interactions form all things including us.
          And not surprisingly we and all things act like that we are made of. The laws of conservation of energy are the rules by which we live. All atoms attempt to find their balance through their lowest possible output of energy. Humans do this as well. We also interact with each other, pass on information, change each other, merge with each other and form new things like economies, societies, corporations, etc. 
          So below, so above. The universe or better: the process of existence, the nature of energy, constantly produces mirror images of itself in variegated form, always more and more complex. In fact it is here we see the simple move to the complex very clearly.
          So were I to make your claim I could prove first that god exists in the form of energy and its nature, that we are a product of that nature and that our existence allows us to know that nature intimately.
          No conscious god required.
          It is probable that those who believe in a conscious god have mistaken nature for consciousness.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Slarty O'Brian,This time my argument was that we all have self experience and we never require any rational argument and evidence for our selves and even we are'' secrete'' for ourselves but we believe ourselves,therefore, this self experience is the experience of God,consequently, atheism is a ''deception'' as it can never deny this''self experience'',when it claims for absence of God for lack of knowledge ,actually ,it deceives one's self.Secondly,nature and evolution are laws of a ''law giver'' and can never substitute conscious law giver[ Absolute Ego or Absolute Reason],order and laws of universe require a'' law giver'' as scientists have refereed and nature itself is not sufficient,further, science has not proved that life and universe are self existing, therefore,the same require creator for their being and all arguments of atheists in the absence of such proof have no rationality.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh but science has given evidence that life evolved from nonliving matter. Physics shows us how. That does not mean I believe it to be true. I think there is a good probability that it is. I make no claims of belief on the matter.

              However, there is no evidence that a law giver is required, and there is none present that we can inquire of. You make a lot of speculative claims and you believe them to be true. But that does not make them true.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Slarty O'Brian, Self existence of universe and life is not proved,however,there are some theories in this respect,that may be correct or may be wrong,Existence of universe and life are facts but eternal existence of the same are not facts and upon the basis of the presumption of eternal or self existence of the same creator is not possible to be denied as'' existence'' will require creator for its being.                                                                                                                         Laws of nature require law giver,this is not speculation, as laws are not possible to be formulated without'' law giver'',if universe had been a collection of raw material,it would have not required a law giver but how this may be rational that laws of conservation of mass, law of conversation of energy,law of definite propositions,law of gravitation,laws of relativity  are without law giver ,simply for the reason that we do not know that law giver? why do you not deny your self when you do not know your self?even we have not seen the force of gravitation,we have not observed the planets being filled by this force,we have not measured and observed this force in all heavenly bodies but we conclude from falling objects and orbits that every heavenly body possess this force Why? If we have not seen'' law giver'',if we have not observed the law giver giving these laws for our limited scope of reason,it would be rational to deny the same and suppose and speculate that these all wonderful laws are just ''miracle'' of nature by self ?

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We already covered why you should stop using "self existence" as if it is a term people should understand just by reading it.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    psycheskinner,''Self existence ''or ''existence by self'', will continued to be used until science would prove the same.

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes. When we say laws we do not mean man made laws or god made laws. Science uses the term laws in a metaphorical way. They are relationships and natural reactions to action.

                  I never said humans or the universe were eternal, though the universe might well be. I said energy is eternal. So we already have something eternal with a nature that creates the complex from the simple. We do not need a conscious god. And since we can't prove there is one it is just speculation.

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have nothing to contribute to this conversation....I just saw your name and wanted to say hi! smile

                  2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Slarty O'Brian,When I referred the'' laws of nature'' ,it would mean the cosmological order,harmony and discipline as viewed by Einstein and other great scientists for understanding the mystery of universe and Law Giver ,this understanding of laws kept these scientists away from atheist views and they found truth in religion and science both upon the basis of this wonderful universe.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Energy is not completely defined by science,it is term used for referring to what matter has been converted and you will be also aware of ''dark energy'',science after the disappearance  of matter has come to close religion as it has come to'' unseen'', Einstein, the founder of this theory also viewed of close link of science and religion.Universe requires conscious God for explanation of this ''ordering'' of universe,however, Einstein,has the idea that God can never be imagined as personal God,magnified man, who can interfere these laws.

            2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What you fail to understand is that a conscious god is just a model of how reality could be, but without evidence the model can't be said to be true. To say it is the absolute truth is therefore a lie.

              Rationality is how you figure out what is truth and what is lie. You should try it sometime. Saying rationality is ego is just nonsense. Belief is ego.
              Faith is ego.

              Belief in speculation is useless and belief in fact is redundant. Why believe anything? Instead try to determine truth from fiction using logic and reason. For models try determining probability. To denounce logic is to advocate illogical thinking.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Slarty O'Brian,conscious God is not model but possible logical conclusion of scientific universe and conscious life for which you have no any possible logical justification,we must discover and identify the limits of our reason before declaring the Absolute truth/ reason/ego of the infinite universe and life as'' lie''. reason, conscious,art,religion,knowledge,conscience are not the characteristic of matter and energy but of'' self'' or ''ego'',therefore,ego is the essence of life and matter is the ''appearance ''of the same or'' space time form'' of the same,or'' confinement''of the same.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You are the one declaring the absolute truth of a god even without any evidence for one. I have been very careful not to make absolute claims. I've give alternatives which have a basis in scientific fact.

                  You do not seem to understand models and why humans make them. But god is just a model like any other. It is a model like the Big Bang is a model. However, the Big Bang has evidence behind it. It may not to turn out to be the right model and it has changed over the years. But because it is built on facts we can work with it.

                  A conscious god is just speculation and nothing more until it is proven otherwise.

                  You also place way too much importance on consciousness. Life does not depend on it, Only things that move need some kind of brain. To show this, there is a type of fern as well as a type of sea plant which begins it's life like a tadpole. It swims around like an animal, but then it does something interesting. It finds a place to put down roots, and then eats it's own brain because it no longer needs it.

                  Humans need brains and consciousness. Consciousness comes from a brain, not something else. So consciousness is not always required.

                  As to what matter is, it is just energy slowed to below light speed by the Higgs field. Energy/matter are one and the same thing. This is proven in E=Mc squared.

                  There is nothing but energy,  You will now have to prove that consciousness can exist outside of a brain. You are making the claim but as far as I know you have no way to back it up.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not so sure I agree with this.   Several questions come up for me.

                    It appears that you equate the brain with consciousness.   The sensory organs and their associated nerves in some cases would seem to be centered in the brain - sight, sound, smell and taste.  The sense of touch would be many places, from the skin to the spinal chord and the resulting reflexes. True or false?

                    I would see Consciousness (i.e., Awareness) as being intimately related to the sensory organs, and the life form cannot therefore live a life without consciousness.   When we presume that only life within the animal kingdom requires Consciousness, and therefore gives rise to the brain and its functions, I believe we are ignorant of the other forms of life, such as plants. 

                    It's difficult for us humans to conceive of plants, inanimate things, as having a consciousness, but we can only presume that in ignorance.

                  2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Slarty O'Brian,''Absolute Truth'' ,may be my opinion in light of ''truth of universe'',you have right to disagree the same but logical conclusion of ''God'' out of order of wonderful universe is the opinion of great scientists.God is not the model in the sense that He may be captured by the reason as He can never be confined nor defined completely but we may conclude Him from the perceivable wonders of universe as ''Mystery'', the most powerful requirement for science as Einstein viewed.Therefore,conscious God is not speculation but ''mystery'' of wonderful universe.

                  3. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Slarty O'Brian, how do you believe that conscious is the result of brain and not the brain of conscious ? brain is an instrument and conscious is ,perhaps,its programming , brain is related with mechanics,conscious is with dynamics,one more important thing is ''uniformity'' that may be observed in physical and biological world,matter and life,atom and cell , perhaps,this'' uniformity'' has been named as ''soul'' by religion through religious experience,as  ''self'' by philosophy through conscious,and as  ''energy'' by science through physical perception,still this is mystery.

    6. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      To Rad Man:

      For the record: I do not believe in God, but I am smart enough to know that may beliefs are just that---beliefs, and therefore, based on NO proof and NO evidence.

    7. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
      ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Once upon a time there were twin babies inside the womb. One asked the other:
      "Hey brother! Do you believe in life after birth? Do you believe there is a MOM?"
      THE OTHER: "Nay -- I don't believe in such things, I mean... have you seen MOM?."
      FIRST ONE: "Any idea from where are we getting food?"
      THE OTHER: "Yes; our kicking produces it."

      The argument will go on....................till the time of birth.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True story.

        Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.

        Is there supposed to be evidence that God is feeding us?

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ARSHAD MAJID,very good explanation of the problem and in a very simple manner but it is very difficult for atheists to learn from the same as they take it necessary to be confined of'' senses'' for continuation of their'' belief'' of absence of God and are not interested to apply the'' reason'' in this respect as it is not suitable for their narrow thinking,they consider this world a'' reality'' and every other thing or concept as ''nonsense'',they are like ''children'' who are questioning for their'' father'',after long discussion with them, even, still, I could not understand the reasons for their avoidance for God but it is perhaps, a great reaction against the dominance of the religious gods,as possibly,Einstein ,has mentioned anywhere.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Like yourself, ARSHAD provided nothing more than a logical fallacy, not an explanation. Neither one of you appear to be able to explain anything and can only offer fallacies, fairy tales and nonsense. Most likely because you're both uneducated and know very little about the world around you, that which we do indeed call our 'reality'. If you both spent a little more time trying to understand reality and less time fishing fairy tales, you might actually learn something, and your arguments here would be somewhat more intelligent and mature.

          Calling us "children" is merely a projection of your own shortcomings because your arguments here  don't amount to anything more than what children might offer. In fact, there are most likely children who could show your arguments to be just as nonsensical as we have shown.

          We are adults here, not children. It would behoove you to start acting like adults. If not, we can only continue treating you like the little children you are exhibiting so well.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You have this completely wrong. The example shows clearly that assuming things gets you nowhere. You need information to come to rational conclusions about things.

          You assume a conscious god. I can not because there is no evidence of said conscious god. I do not believe such a god exists because there is no evidence. I also do not believe it does not exist. Belief is assumption. You can only build logical models from what you know to be facts.

          Belief in god is emotional reason, not rational reason. It is what you want existence to be, not necessarily how it is.

          I do not care what the truth turns out to be. I just want to know what it is, You invest belief and faith in emotional speculation. I can not.

          The way to truth is to give up belief, do not invest yourself in what you want the truth to be, base models of reality on fact, and explore those models where they lead, never excepting those models as fact until they prove themselves to be fact. 

          If at the end of that process we find a god, then so be it. But assuming one stops the process in it's tracks.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    Are you saying there is no God?

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Emile R, I am saying that presence of God is established by the presence of ourselves ,God is our self experience therefore God is universal and we can never deny Him.we never require to prove Him rationally.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I would disagree. God was there before He created us, He would exist if He never had created us and He will exist long after this earth is gone.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Beth37,you are right,God is not dependent upon His creation for His existence,that is not my point of view,I am simply stating that God has proved Himself in our selves ,therefore, He is not required to be proved as stranger to self by the application of reason ,we can discover Him in our selves.Everyone has'' book'' within him,open your ''book'' and start to study God.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
            Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I have. It's a science book, and it is amazing. Throw away logic and you throw away the real path to god.  wink

  3. Paraglider profile image88
    Paragliderposted 3 years ago

    Food doesn't have to be cooked.

    Fish is food.

    Therefore fish doesn't have to be cooked.

    (The justification for Sushi)

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol... I like it.
      I wonder why they don't make sushi chicken.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They tried, but evolution took care of those stupid enough to try.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Flying Fish would be a good substitute, without getting a mouthful of feathers!

  4. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    People say stupid things.
    I am a person saying something.
    Therefore I am a stupid person.
    We are all people.
    Therefore people are all stupid.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

  5. Robephiles profile image87
    Robephilesposted 3 years ago

    Mental Illness is an experience of the self as well.

  6. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    I think you are right.

    If God is a personal experience with something, and if we cannot know each other's personal experiences with anything (or something), then we really don't need to try to prove to one another the substance or essence of our experiences.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Right, so no one should be telling us there is a God.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Or that there were life preservers on the Titanic?

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well there is a difference between real life preservers on a real boat and someones word that there is a god we will never see while alive said to preserve life if we have faith that when we die we will wake up alive though still dead to all the living.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes.. there is a difference.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Such as one sounds far more far fetched than the other? Do you really want to live for ever? What would you do with all that life?

              I get the feeling most people don't know what they are asking. This is not directed at you, but I think most people waste the lives they have and are bored much of the time. What in the world would they do with eternity?

              I'll be just as happy not to wake up dead, and I love life.

              Why can't there be a god that tells us that if we believe in him we can live for ever right here and now and not die first and be perfectly healthy for eternity? Gotta wonder why we have to die first.

              Perhaps science is the answer rather than religion if we want that?

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I respect that you have different views than I do.

                To me, it is not so much "what if" but "what is". I believe after seeking after God for a lifetime, that He is real. He has revealed Himself to me and what the after life holds is a life we cannot imagine. I want nothing more than to be there with God and with loved ones when my times on earth has ended.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I've read your profile page so I won't debate you on this. You need your faith for now it seems. As long as it helps it's all good.

                  I spent my life looking for truth as well. I wish you luck.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do need my faith, but more than that, I need God. Thank you for respecting that. smile

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Beth, what you have shared is very believable and inspiring. Thank You.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks girl! smile

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think that Shakespeare got it right and that we could all learn something from him:

        He said: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Philosophy meaning for Shakespeare: learning.)

        - Hamlet (Hamlet to Horatio)

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know he got it right when he was writing fiction?

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Huh?

            You're kidding right?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He was writing fiction. If a fiction writer says there is a God or giants or dragons, are they right?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your argument is absurd and you know it.

                I will assume you understand the functions of fiction; the uses of fiction. I will also assume that you understand the validity of the message of Shakespeare's comment.

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, why?  Shakespeare was writing plays.  We can no more assume he believed ghosts were really (like Hamlet) than that they are not (like Horatio).  He was making pretty words that expressed all the points of views of all the characters.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hamlet was referring to his father's ghost, who appeared before him and talked his ears off.

          Are you trying to imply that ghosts are real?

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Never mind.

            I will presume that you understand both the content and context of Shakespeare's statement and that you are engaging in little more than an effort to mock me and the topic of this forum; a topic worthy of intelligent and informed discussion free of mockery.

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      mbuggieh,God is a personal experience as well as universal for every self.God is within everyone but everyone is not God but everyone has an experience of God

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Certainly something more than the flesh and blood we all are is in us all; some spirit, some essence that defines us, some soul.

        What it is I do not know, but I do know that something is there.

        And it may, after all, be God.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You do understand that children of a young age are not self aware right. Does that mean they have no soul? There brains develop self awareness. No God required.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Rad Man, when child is born he is weeping, why?  if you will not provide him milk then you can judge what will he do with you and how great cry and noise he will make,this is because of his self conscious-and self feeling,he can never wait for development of his brain for finding his milk.Even you not feed your dog for a while and then wait what does he do with you ?

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why would you claim that children are not self-aware?

          Have you spent no time around young children---even babies? They are most certainly self-aware and act on that self-awareness in many ways.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ...especially when one can't prove one's personal experiences or even justify one's reactions to one's personal experiences. And especially considering one can't show others' one's own personal experience directly, since personal experiences are not physically recordable. Unless of course you live in the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, where one's memory of personal experiences, (i.e. particular devastating relationships,) is actually erasable. However, if instead of being erasable, the experience was recordable and viewable, as on a screen, then there would be proof of... what? memory? brain function? But there is something behind all that...there is something which actually CHOOSES to record or erase and CHOOSES to remember or not remember, and CHOOSES to believe or not believe and CHOOSES to understand (or not!)  That something can be defined as: The EGO, The ID, The SELF, which are extensions of the SOUL.   
      Where does the soul come from?
      It is logical to assume that the soul comes from God. But, of course, it is not provable...
      - unless the soul of each individual is actually proof of God.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Please separate you definition of the soul and consciousness. Are they one or different? Do you get to take your consciousness with you when you die?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They are one and Yes, you take them with you when you die. Now here is the tricky part. If all you do during your lifetime is identify with your EGO, you will loose that. If you identify with what animates the ego, you will be conscious when you die.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Do you get to keep your consciousness during surgery when your brain is shut off by medication? You would think medication wouldn't affect the soul?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have read of those who were conscious during surgery. They remained conscious by immersing themselves in the Ocean of Spirit from which every Soul originates. This Ocean of Spirit is what saved Jesus on the cross. He gave his Soul back to the Ocean. The Ocean of Spirit is Bliss. It is not intellectually comprehensible. I only keyboard in defense of the belief of God which is completely justified in light of the *science of consciousness.*
              TWISI

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ba ha ha ha ha ha. They wanted and chose to remain aware during surgery? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, the surgery was going wrong, The doctors were operating on the wrong side. Since she was identified with her soul she was able to be aware even though her brain was shut down. But, Divine Mother told her to go to sleep and that she would take care of it. Then she did fall asleep.The doctors discovered their mistake during surgery.  When she awoke, the doctors told her she had been chanting God God God during the surgery. I know I am just digging myself a deeper and deeper hole. So, continue on with keyboarding your "Ha" word.  (... however, this story was told as a true account.)

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As long as we do not equate Jesus teachings with the teachings of the ancient East, we will be arguing until eternity.  Better get out now while the getting is good. Thanks for the last word.
                    PS The woman in the story had a guru who taught her how to become one with Christ consciousness.  This takes a life time of practice and devotion to God.  And actually Omniscient Spirit doesn't mind what form you worship Him in, Friend, Jesus, Divine Mother, Beloved God... 
                    The harvest is abundant. The harvest is Christ Consciousness.
                    According to my Sources... which some/many may recognize...

  7. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    Why is it, when you unfollow a thread, it never seems to stick and you continue getting notifications?

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      NO idea...but I've tried and it seems as though the system will not accept it...sad

  8. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
    ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago

    I think it is because some like to waste food.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those starving children like to waste food?

      1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
        ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        smile No Rad Man....we waste food, which was their share. God produced enough food.
        But I am deeply concerned with the 'colony collapse disorder' of 'Nahl". Honey bee is called 'Nahl' in Arabic language and even a chapter of Quran is named after it. The honey bee is responsible for pollination 70% of crops consumed by humans. Gradual and unexplained decline in bee population is a matter which is much more important that 'Global Warming'. This is a bitter fact that in last ten years of hard work, the researchers failed to find a smoking gun. Sad part of the story is that if all the bees die, we have no technology available today to replace the functioned performed by trillions of bees, to finally provide dinner at our tables.
        Who planned  this excellent arrangement of pollination and who is now closing the valve, makes me wonder how helpless and dependent we are.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I see, so the God you believe in allows millions of our children to be punished by starvation and death because a few are greedy. He either is a lousy planner or has a complete lack of compassion. He can create a universe, but allows millions of babies to die needless painful deaths. Rather than pointing your finger at other people you should consider why an all powerful God would allow this to happen.

          It's my understanding that the bees have been weakened by pollutants and insecticides. Is that more bad planning by your all knowing all powerful God? I have to say the universe makes more sense when you dispense with the notion of a God and understand why these things happen.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Watch all your friends and family die! Hasa diga Eebowai!

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I like that. Thanks. One of my kids told me to kindly turn the volume down though as he was trying to watch violence of TV.

              Hasa Diga Eebowai

          2. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think it would be fair to blame God for our own acts. If we could stop unequal distribution of food and resources, those famine related deaths could have been prevented.

            Regarding 'colony collapse disorder' of bees; the lead scientist who is investigating the issue has told; if pesticides or virus was the cause, there would have been dead bodies found in bee boxes, but that is not happening. The bees just disappear into thin air such that they go out and never come back. Availability of corpses may have helped in forensic studies leading towards the cause, but sadly even the corpses are  also not available. That is really scary. Einstein said that;"bees will disappear 4 years before the end of life on Earth". It is hard to believe that there is a God, but it is even harder to believe there isn't One.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then, on the other hand, we shouldn't praise gods for our own acts, or any acts for that matter. See how that works?



              If we could stop religions from indoctrinating people, many problems in the world would get solved.



              That is true if you're entire worldview is based on a belief system as opposed to understanding the world around you.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not blaming any God, for there is no Gods to blame. The only reason why we can maintain this many humans is because of farming. Which God did not teach. If you feel there is a God then you may want to be asking why he allows millions of Children to die a painful death every year. He's the only one who can solve the problem and yet he does nothing.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Uh, no He didn't, nor did He teach mankind anything about agriculture, which is actually where all of our food is produced.

          1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Troubled Man -- I think that we should praise God for making us depend on a small insect (honey bee) which if he makes disappear, we along with all our technology can't even find.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We should praise God for making us depend on an insect?

              1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
                ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad Man -- Don't you think that would help us control our egos and establish his 'praiseworthiness'.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You should be able to control your ego on your own.

                  Are you suggesting the survival of all of humanity resting on the survival of bees is a good design decision?

                  1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
                    ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think he wants us to be humble and sometimes the bitter pill is what you need.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then, we can blame God as well for all kinds of things.

              1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
                ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                you think blaming Him will help you

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You think you are going to get your Gods respect by praising him for stuff he doesn't do and not blaming him for stuff he does do? You think you God wouldn't see through that?

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Praising God doesn't help either. Gods are irrelevant. And, the moment you and every other believer on the planet realizes that, we might then turn to solving the worlds problems. Until then, your God will only serve to cause problems and solve nothing.

                  1. ARSHAD MAJID profile image81
                    ARSHAD MAJIDposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    either we believe in God and praise Him, or we don't....the fact that we are so vulnerable and helpless, doesn't change. I learned a lot from 'colony collapse disorder'.  Its a good example in my view, through which the boss wants us to wonder ........'who is the boss'.

  9. 60
    DTURNER0posted 3 years ago

    God is real; he is author and finishing of our faith, the creator of all things.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can you supply evidence or is that just a feeling you have?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A feeling is good enough evidence for me, maybe not you...
        and thats Okay!

  10. laughing loon profile image61
    laughing loonposted 3 years ago

    That is where the "faith" comes in. You have faith that there is a god.

    1. JMcFarland profile image93
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      and why would we have faith in something without knowing that it exists?  How do you choose that thing to have faith in?  How do you pick?  There are thousands upon thousands of gods out there proposed.  Do you just pick one run with it?  If it's only faith, then it should be simple to stop having faith in one deity and switch to another. 

      Secondly...you would have to demonstrate that just "having faith" is a good or positive thing in the first place.

  11. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    Premise 1 is highly dubious.  Not required to be proved?  In what sense?

    Premise 2 is deeply vague.  "God is experience of self" how?  I don't even know what that means.

  12. Cereal profile image60
    Cerealposted 3 years ago

    God has proven Himself but the problem is- everyone wants proof THEIR way on a silver platter- handed to them in the form of miracles that even if they witness them, they will deny Him.  That is my sentiments as Believer in One God.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Since it is obvious God has not proven Himself universally to all, it would appear the proof for your belief must be proof attained YOUR way, hence you contradict yourself.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Fair enough. Show us the proof.

  13. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    Exactly. It is harder to disprove that God exists than otherwise. Science has proven that a time space dimension outside of ours exists where God must be. Prophecy in the Bible proves that God is not constrained by time.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's harder to disprove a purple dragon exists, what your point?

      Science has proven that a time space dimension outside ours exists where God must be? Where did you read that?

    2. JMcFarland profile image93
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      but no one needs to prove that god DOESN'T exist.  It's not possible to prove a negative when it relates to existence.  For example, no matter how hard you try, you cannot prove that purple leprechauns do not live in my garage along side my invisible purple dragon.

      What needs to happen is that believers need to recognize and accept their burden of proof.  It is up to them, regardless of their religion, to prove that their god exists - and no one has done it successfully for thousands of years.  If they had, there would only be one religion.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Please provide citations for your claims. If science did prove that, it would be very well known.

  14. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    It is my opinion that this is where God is. It is though common knowledge that Einstein and others mathmatecally proved that their more than three dimensions of space and time.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's better. It's just your opinion and it had nothing to do with science.

  15. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    My point on denying that God exists is harder to make a case for than the alternative. The universe and its laws, the amazing human genome that had to have been designed by a supreme intelligence simply because of its complexity. My point is something so complex that we cannot fully comprehend to this day could not have just happened randomly. It had to have been done intentionally.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny that? Whenever someone doesn't understand something they assume it must have been done by God. That's an assumption. I'm sorry that you can't understand it, but that doesn't mean that others don't.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Saying that something must have been designed because it is complex is a fallacy. And, to say it happened because it was random is another fallacy as well as being not true. Evolution is NOT a random process.

  16. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    That is an unfair characterization. The proof that God exists is in the Bible where he predicts in advance by hundreds of years for instance the fall of Babylon to Persia then the Greeks then the Romans. This was in print and extremely accurate. This is just one of hundreds of examples of the Bible predicting the future with precision. That is hard to do without being bound by space and time. Actually its impossible. Their is no need to be condescending I get what u r saying. When I speak of things I can't explain I should just say its amazing what some entity is behind and capable of.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So that means we don't have free will. The idea of prophesy negates free will.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No it doesn't. God having the ability to see all time at once does not negate your ability to make a choice in the moment because you're the one making the choice and you're the one living in the moment.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, so even though God can see that something is going to happen, I can stop it from happening?

          Here is an arab. In a tent. Inside the walls of Babylon.

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8529489.jpg

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's a simple matter of perspective. If God is the creator of the universe then He exists apart from it, meaning He also exists apart from time and space as we perceive it. Being outside of time there is no span of time between past and future and no span of space between here and there. Therefore God exists, from our perspective, exactly the same in every moment everywhere. Just as described.

            We, being the observer and the one making willful decisions, we exist within time and make decisions within time. There is only one timeline and God can see it in its entirety. Whatever you do, you can only do it once in each given moment.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How convenient. So apparently God has a Tardis.

              So, when I am faced with a decision, God exists at the moment I choose oatmeal for breakfast... and at the moment I choose eggs... and afterwards at the moment I chose coffee.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, you cannot choose coffee.  God already looked at the timeline and you chose tea - coffee is not an option for your free will.  Or anything else, for that matter, except tea.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                God would only need a Tardis if He were a product of this universe and thus subject to its laws. But then we wouldn't be talking about the creator, but rather a creation. Don't think of God in such a linear fashion. You and I are products of this universe, made of 'star stuff', and so from our perspective you'd need a Tardis to be able to exist as I'm describing. Think of it more in terms of God being a programmer and existence/reality being a program, with time existing, and you and I existing and making decisions and doing our thing, only when that program is in run-time. All of it right there in front of God, who exists apart from it whether it's running or not, who's able to see it all at once. But you and I, being products of it, we only experience it while running.

                If we're talking about a being responsible for the creation of the universe, then we're not talking about a being that's subject to the laws of this universe or a product of it. We're talking about something that exists apart from it. And if that's the case, it's something beyond the big bang. Whether that be a multiverse or the God of the bible or a spaghetti monster, from our perspective it would exist exactly the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere, from our perspective.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then, there would have to exist a great many gods, each requiring to occupy every coordinate in the universe at every moment in time, popping in and out of existence for no more than a Plank second in a Plank part of space. That said, those gods are in fact part of the universe if they are able to interact with it, by definition.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Each human is part of the "god" that humans have concocted to serve the selfish desires of humans.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, if whatever it is you're talking about is a product of this universe then it would have to conform as you're describing it. But then whatever it is we're talking about would not be the creator of this universe if it is a product of it. But given what we now understand about the universe, being finite with both time and space as we perceive it being a product of it, If there is something responsible for its creation then that something exists apart from this universe as well as space-time. Thus confirming that what we know about the universe in these modern times through physics offers a plausible explanation that matches up with how the deity described in those ancient texts written at least 3000 years ago was specifically described.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no reason why God can't be part of this universe or interact with it. In fact, God MUST interact with the universe if anyone has any idea of God.



                  Not necessarily. If God were not part of this universe, there would be no God to have any influence over anything. God would be irrelevant.



                  I have never heard of any physics describing any ancient texts or deities. Where go you get that idea?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    According to the people who wrote those ancient texts, there was a time when this God interacted with them and made Himself known. And those events were orally described for generations before finally being written down numerous centuries later.

                    God would not be irrelevant if He was the cause. Everything this universe is formed because of what that singularity was that began it all. But we do not know the cause, or the origin, of that singularity. We just know that the fundamental laws that arose from it, and the matter/energy that formed as a result, as well as space-time, interacted in such a way as to form the entirety of the universe and everything in it.

                    Those ancient texts describe a deity who interacted and made Himself known as the creator. It says His perception of time is different than ours, stating that to Him a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, and it also states that He exists everywhere simultaneously. Concepts that didn't even make sense until we learned about the finite and relative nature of this universe.

                    And according to those stories the entirety of the natural world formed on its own just by His willing it to become. So discovering that the universe by all appearances seems to have formed on its own is exactly what you should expect to see. It also says this deity formed two beings capable of behaving contrary to His will, unlike anything else in the natural world, and introduced them into this environment.  And it was because of this that this God then got directly involved. Because there were beings that existed within this universe, that unlike anything else in this universe, behaved according to their own volition and not strictly by the laws of the natural world. He introduced a volatile element that then required His direct interaction to realize the desired outcome. An impact that can actually be seen in the historical/archaeological record.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Then, what about these other failed biblical prophecies?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

  17. aware profile image70
    awareposted 3 years ago

    the proof of god exists in the dictionary. it has 5 definitions in mine

  18. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    No project does not in anyway negate free will. God is omnipresent henceforth can see the future. While we act in free will he can still see what is going to happen in the future and therefore his servants are able to prophecy future events that will come to pass due to the end result of free will. Hard to understand from the human perspective.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, from a human perspective it is indeed hard to see how the future can be observed and written, yet is at the same time completely malleable, subject to change at any time.

      It's like saying God saw a goat, he wrote that there was a goat, but we can change that goat to a cow at any time but we won't because God saw a goat.

      Is that what happened when God said that Babylon would be utterly destroyed by Persia suddenly and completely, with no one ever living there again... Yet it continued to exist for centuries after the invasion... happily and productively... until it effectively died of old age 600 years later... under the name Babylon at least. People still live there now. Have never stopped living there. Many of the buildings are constructed out of the stone that was prophesied would no longer exist.

      Did we exercise free will and therefore make God a liar?

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Right, if the future is predetermine we have no free will. The choices are already made.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Then, how are you supposed to understand that?

  19. Brian Walmsley profile image60
    Brian Walmsleyposted 3 years ago

    Prophecy

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      All to do with your belief(s) not with provable facts.

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Has anyone figured out that the invisible is more real than the visible, yet?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are lots of things that are invisible that are real, it's the undetectable that we should question.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good point, but I have detected God.
        Believe it nor not.
        Yer choice.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't believe that at all. It's not even a choice.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            yes, it is.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And I have detected Santa.
          Believe it nor not.
          Your choice.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            yes, it is my choice.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really?  Honestly now, could you convince yourself that Rad Man has met Santa?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is my choice to believe him or not. I have many thoughts about the matter depending on my own inner feedback.
                For instance, I know that Santa only refers to a mythological figure, therefore to my understanding, Mr. Rad Man probably sat on the lap of a person dressed up like Santa Claus, in a department store as a young child... and has never come to the realization that it was not really Santa.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't make excuses or dance around the pole.  You know exactly what RadMan is referring to; he has detected the Santa you claim is mythical.

                  If you really have a choice, can you convince yourself that Rad Man met the mythical Santa of the North Pole that delivers toys to each and every child on earth on Xmas eve?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not dancing around on a pole. Or making excuses for not doing so. I am simply saying that according to my own inner feedback… my own ability to reason or come to a conclusion regarding the reality of a particular statement... is based on my own perceptions of what is true. In other words, those who have their own evidence of God will choose to believe that I have indeed detected God. Those who have not detected God will choose not to believe I have detected God.
                    Of course, it is a choice to believe that I have detected God...
                    or not.
                    Choices:
                    Those who have also detected God will believe me.
                    Those who have not detected God will not believe me.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How would you know that?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What you are really asking is, how have I detected God? Why not just come out and ask me? Because you know you will not believe me based on your own inner thought processes which long ago blocked out any perception/possibility of invisible communication with God.

                3. jonnycomelately profile image86
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And Jesus does not refer to a mythological figure?????

  21. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    God is omnipresent love, will power, intelligence and awareness. God is the force within us, around us and in all creation. How do I know this?  Because He helped with my last predicament which has been a very bad concussion from a headlong fall. Few understand how to deal with concussions. I got invisible assistance which has brought me through terrible suffering.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's better, because it takes away the presumption that "God" is a real being.... now you present "God" as a set of attributes, which we can all subscribe to and aspire to.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      God obviously didn't help you if you actually fell and had a concussion. Shouldn't God have saved your from the fall?



      So, no doctors, then?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I got little help from doctors. In fact I got huge anxiety from every medical procedure not to mention anxiety from thousands of dollars paid out for lab tests etc. with fees no one told me I would have, even with INSURANCE!
        My fall was based on my own stupidity and my own lack of being in touch with God. I remember running down the street arrogantly running past my neighbors thinking they should be impressed with my triple leash system attached to my waist to promote hands free jogging with my three dogs. aaugh. My littlest dog ran under my feet and we all tumbled down... in front of my neighbors. sad

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting, both you and Cgeanea experienced head trauma and both of you have the same zealotry for God, but that's probably just coincidence.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            OLO   whoops.  Did she also? Maybe you have to hit yer head first in order to hear God within your mind. Don't try it at home, though. Don't play football, don't play soccer, don't dive from high dives, don't do flips on trampolines. A dive coach where I work got paralyzed practicing flips and twists on the trampoline. sad Take care of your neck and head at all costs! Maybe you won't find God, but thats okay too.
            Just kidding.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry that you feel and God hurt Kathryn. I've missed most of this conversation and just saw this post and was wondering…

          Do more Atheists than Christians fall? Do you have stats to back that up?

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    I just saw Delivery Man. At one point He whispers "I am your father…" to one of his special-needs offspring." It was very touching. What if God in his omnipresent omniscience is constantly whispering that to anyone whether they are listening or not...and all you have to do is listen, and be open to his Help. You will notice, if you do this, He will respond. I believe this is exactly how it is, based on how many times He has come to my aide and… in usually a timely manner!
    Ask me and and I will explain as I have so many times before. But those who don't want to hear it, won't. People hear what they want to hear, know what they want to know and do what they want to do.
    Its their choice.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Most people don't hear voices in their head other than their own, those who do hear other voices in their head are known to have mental disorders. Here are just some of the symptoms:

      Schizophrenia

          Delusions (strange beliefs that are not based in reality and that the person refuses to give up, even when presented with factual information)

          Hallucinations (the perception of sensations that aren't real, such as hearing voices)

          Disorganized thinking

          Odd or unusual behavior

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And what if He is not? 

      You are partially correct; some people will hear what they want to hear.  Others will make an honest effort to hear what is there, and ONLY what is there.  They will make an effort to eliminate subjective desires from their "hearing", just as they will make an effort to eliminate subjective desires and wants from any conclusions drawn from what they hear.

      A small child, wanting a trip to the zoo, will listen as Daddy says "Well, we're pretty busy today, but we'll see if we can fit in a trip to the Zoo".  And what they hear is "we're going to the zoo as a number one priority.  Nothing else will stand in the way of a zoo trip".  And the really odd thing is that children can and will convince themselves that Dad said that when he never opened his mouth!  Some people never grow out of that; their desires override everything else around them.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Has God never come to your rescue? Has it always been ALL your own doing? I would not still be here if I did not get help from beyond. My very survival has been facilitated by invisible Spirit.

  23. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

    You asked, "Where does it say a day is a thousand years? Where does it say God told people His perception of time is different then ours? Citations please.".... I answered.

    But to answer your question, it backs up what we're only in recent years really beginning to figure out. Time is really just an illusion, something specific only from the perspective of those of us who are a product of this universe. It's something that is scientifically/physically accurate given what we now know and how God is described, being the creator and therefore existing apart from this universe, His perception of time would be different than ours. This supports that.



    You said, "So far, science has not detected, inferred, speculated or hypothesized any gods as the cause." This suggests that only what is detectable/inferred/speculated/hypothesized by the natural sciences (ie. material) is admissible when discussing causes behind reality. I'm simply pointing out that if God is as described, He exists apart from this universe and will not be detectable via the natural sciences, as that would require He be a part of this universe.



    Assumptions. Assuming you already know better is the key road block to human progress. It's the very same thing believers are often criticized of, holding up progress by thinking they already know what's what, despite the evidence. Now, here you are, doing the same thing. I have ample evidence to suggest this is far from pure fairly tale, yet to you there's no point to even discussing or considering it because you already know better.




    The timeline in Genesis is the ages/lineages given. From that you can conclude that the flood happened 1656 years after Adam's creation, so the period between Cain's expulsion and the flood was roughly 1500 years. There's a culture that existed in the same region/timeframe as these stories are set that was unlike any other culture up to that point. It existed the exact same length of time as is specified and came to an abrupt end just as described. Then came a dramatic shift in climate that really did cause mass human migrations that lines up with the Babel story.

    If this is accurate then it proves that not only are the stories of early Genesis much more on point than they're currently given credit for, but that all the various mythologies from all around that region weren't totally made up, but actually based on/inspired by very real events. And being this is a key development in human history if true, this is hugely relevant to everyone.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
      DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Time is a measurement of movement.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Time is not an illusion, it is built into the very fabric of the universe. Who cares if a book says a day is a thousand years to a god, that means nothing. It doesn't mean a god exists apart from the universe, on the contrary, it confirms a god would be part of the universe if that god experiences a day, even if that day is a thousand years.



      Whatever you are pointing out or inferring is not what I said, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

      And, if a god did in fact exist outside of the universe, no one would ever know, hence it would be a blind guess in the same way we would guess any number of things existed that we can concoct from our imaginations. Your reasoning is pointless.



      YOU are the on assuming you know better but making claims of things existing outside the universe, which is not progress at all. Progress is understanding reality, not fantasies.



      You have not presented a shred of evidence.




      Genesis says the earth is about 6000 years old, while scientists estimate some 4.5 billion years. How's that for a timeline?

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Careful with all of those assumptions, EncephaloiDead. What I'm saying is that those old texts are documenting a time in actual history when this God did actually interact with humanity. Interactions that can actually be pinpointed in our history. That's how we know. Because this God revealed Himself and the impact of that can be seen.

        "Time is not an illusion, it is built into the very fabric of the universe."

        I suggest you read up on 'The Amplituhedron'.

        "You have not presented a shred of evidence."

        Yet you've already made up your mind, so would it matter?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What assumptions?



          No, what you're saying is that those texts are documenting what ignorant, superstitious men back then believed.



          So goes the myths.



          Okay, now please explain how 'The Amplituhedron' supports anything you claimed?



          I can make up my mind when you provide the supporting evidence, which you have yet to do.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Okay, now please explain how 'The Amplituhedron' supports anything you claimed?"

            It supports the statement I made that you objected to when you said ... "Time is not an illusion, it is built into the very fabric of the universe". It directly contradicts that statement.

            "What assumptions?"

            You're making assumptions that basically boil down to the belief that facts and science are on your side, and because I believe something differently than you, facts and science must conflict with my beliefs. So, you make assumption after assumption about me, what I must be saying, and you object to statements I make without verifying whether or not you know what you're talking about. Just in these recent posts you made statements that are factually/demonstrably wrong ....

            "No, they didn't, in actual fact. They had no understanding whatsoever of time."
            "Astronomy and mathematics did not exist back then..."
            "I really see no point to this discussion, you're just pulling stuff out of thin air."

            http://www.mathematicsmagazine.com/Arti … pOYFOKlpTk

            Here's a good write-up on some Sumerian inventions. Inventions that predate the earliest known form of the oldest books of the bible. Among those inventions, the wheel, agriculture, the arch, the plow, irrigation, the earliest known writing system, and .... "The Sumerians, Babylonians and other inhabitants of the Euphrates valley certainly made some sophisticated mathematical advances, developing the basis of arithmetic, numerical notation and using fractions.." and "Their achievements in Astronomy, the establishment of a calendar, and similar mathematical feats...".

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, it doesn't contradict that at all, you obviously don't even know what it means.

              Since you brought it up, you need to explain how exactly 'The Amplituhedron' contradicts what I said, or else we know you're pulling thing out of thin air that you have no understanding.

              And remember, I did read about it.

              Until you can produce a valid explanation for this, I see no reason to discuss anything with you.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Amplituhedron theory challenges the notion that space-time locality and unitarity are necessary components of a model of particle interactions. Instead, they are properties that emerge from an underlying phenomenon." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you are incapable of not only explaining how that "The Amplituheron" contradicts what I said, you are actually showing you are incapable of understand it and merely quote from wiki something that has nothing to do with what I said.

                  That is talking about particle interactions, it is not saying time is an illusion.

                  Obviously, you are just bs'ing me and others here, being dishonest and disingenuous in order to defend your religious beliefs. I'm done with you.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Goodness. Here, let me do the leg work for you ...

                    "The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry....Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated, “scattering amplitudes,” which represent the likelihood that a certain set of particles will turn into certain other particles upon colliding." - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 … lituhedron

                    Notice the title of the article.

                    But of course it's all delusion and dishonesty isn't it? It can't be you. Afterall you have the authority of science backing you up and I'm just here making stuff up and BS'ing people for my health or for my own entertainment or whatever.

                    So, nevermind acknowledging the factual inaccuracies in your previous statements, let's just pick this one thing (that you're also wrong about) and use it to bail out of the discussion completely. Typical.

 
working