Many people claim to have experienced talking to God or Jesus directly, or at least claim to have recieved a strong sign or a strong answer to a prayer. Have any of you had one? Also, how would you know when someone has or hasn't had a genuine religious experience (as some people's minds create an experience to satisfy themselves)?
What is your opinion on them in general?
Have I seen a great sign? No. Have I seen the deaf hear, the blind see, the lame walk? No. Have I heard God's audible voice? No. Have I ever seen a miracle? No. Have I seen an angel or similar apparition? No. Have I ever met anyone who could answer "yes" to the above? No.
How does God talk to me, if He does at all? All I can think of is those occasions where I have had a stong hunch or an inner urgency to go somewhere, say something, or do something. But even these are few and far between. Are my experiences any different from the atheist's? Perhaps not.
I guess I might be one who "is blessed because they believe without seeing". Or I could be an illogical simpleton who believes in sky fairies.
I believe because the idea of a universe creating a sentient being that can gaze in wonder at it, come to understand it, is aware of their mortality, has an inbuilt morality, yet all this thought is one day lost as if it was never there; it just makes no sense to me.
One type of experience I have had on many occasions is also one I don't mind talking about openly.
I have never slammed the brakes of my car unintentionally, except for a half-dozen times when I was driving at night and it just happened. Each of those times I would have hit a deer or elk had I not stopped when I did. Each of those times, I could not see the deer or elk I would have hit, due to a tree, or a bend, dip, or rise in the road. There was no thought process other than 'what the **** am I doing!?!? ... oh...
It might not mean much to some, but it means my life to me.
Kind of like the 'if it looks like a duck...' scenario.
Of course, if one has never seen nor heard of a duck before, how would you know it's a duck?
If people have no reference, how do they know they're having a religious experience? They are just guessing or they want to believe they are having one.
Yes I have. Will my experiences force someone else to believe they are signs from God? No.
The second part: Most of the time you won't, because the signs are intensly personal and private. However people that claim 'religious experiences' that seem to lead to those same people becoming greater in power and prestige should be suspect... IMHO. That does not mean that they should all be dismissed out of hand, merely that people will use anything, including religion, to get what they want. Especially if they are someone who deep down does not believe in God. (some will use the fact that they can pull the wool over believers eyes as evidence that God truly does not exist).
Signs like "Yield to Right of Belief" "Slippery Slope Ahead" "Watch For Dogma Crossing Road"
Signs... not street signs or turn signals...
Interactions with God.
I'm glad you seem to understand yourself.... I don't.
It's quite simple, when you claim to have interactions with gods, you are heading down a slippery slope argument, appealing to belief and relying on dogma for answers.
Didn't think I could make it any easier than that.
Troubled you have once again simply stated that you believe that what you believe to be true 'is' true....
Again your belief doesn't make what you believe to be true, true. It simply makes it your opinion.
You believing something, without proof does not make it true. (except to you.)
Put up or shut up. Got Proof? (that what you believe to be true is true)
"I Can Scientifically Prove God Exists:
If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life. The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being... commonly called God."
"Concrete physical proof does not yet exist but this logical reasoning is rational and it points me in the direction of belief..."
"My feelings tell me God exists, and I believe, because I Love..."
Once again I get the feeling that to you somehow this post proves your point. I can't however see how listing random statements taken out of context can be in anyway considered proof that what -ATroubledMan- believes to be true is somehow True??
Taken out of context?
No, its a matter of you saying one thing and then another while not being able to consistently argue or support your claims.
Ok then please explain how these statements of mine somehow prove what you say is true to be true... Because I don't see it...
Yes, I know. And, we have found no amount of explanation will have you see it any differently.
I went back trying to find where you quoted me from and discovered that the 'quote' you are using here is from a completely different thread. It is a "quote" taken out of context and is incomplete (only a fraction of what I said).
Talk about desperate.
Mikel is right Troubled. Just because you think something is one way doesn't make it true. All your arguments about 'logic' don't define reality. If somebody has actually seen and spoken to God, you can't make that fact false by claiming it's a logical fallacy.
LOL! In other words, just because reality shows itself one way doesn't make that way true.
Reality defines reality and reality is my argument.
LOL! I won't mention that starting from a false premise of God existing is a logical fallacy, no I won't.
But, to your point, why does God appear and speak with some and not others, further to that, why not everyone?
This is exactly how you are missing the point. If I have spoken to God, none of your claims about 'false premises' or logical fallacies would invalidate that actually happening. You are trying to define reality, which you can't do.
Really, and you're not missing anything?
I'm just having a conversation with my invisible purple rhinoceros, let me get back you to on that one after I ask him about why he only speaks with me and not everyone else.
Do you read posts or just fill in the gaps with your own words?
Reality defines reality, I don't. Do you understand now? Need help comprehending that? Smaller words, perhaps?
See, this is the difference. I'm not going to try and prove that an invisible anything doesn't exist. Nor am I going to try and say that my experiences define what is possible for everyone else. Your idea is because you have no reason to believe in a God, that all religious experiences are lies/misunderstandings/lunacy. But, you only base that off of your understanding of reality.
Yes, reality defines reality. You claim that all God claims are bunk, because God isn't real. But, you have no evidence of that, just your personal understanding. In other words, you are trying to define what is real for other people.
And, they can be shown not to be lies/misunderstandings/lunacy? When? Where? How?
That makes perfect sense.
In other words, you can't be bothered to provide the proof to back up your claim(that is how burden of proof works) that they are lies/misunderstandings/lunacy, so instead you deride and shift burden of proof.
Troubled, we are well aware that you operate off your own understanding of reality. What isn't real to you isn't real to reality. If you can't understand that, maybe you should consider that you might not know everything.
Speaking for everyone, are "we"? LOL!
I know failed logic and fallacies when I see them.
I'd like to reply to your question with one example from my own life. My purpose is not to enter into a debate with others--simply to share my experience. All are free to believe or not believe. First, I will have to say that this is what I would call a spiritual encounter, not a "religious" experience. Religion can be completely divorced from the spiritual--but that's another topic. Several years ago, I met a very hard-core atheist. He was very strong is his beliefs. I had a strong sense (kind of like an internal knowing or intuition) that God wanted to encounter this man. I felt my role was to pray for him. I prayed for him every day for 2 years. One day, I was getting ready to say goodbye to him and I gave him a hug. There was a sudden feeling that I can only describe as a warm electrical current that flowed through both my body and his at the same time. There was an overwhelming sensation of peace and joy. Our bodies felt limp under a heavy presence that pushed us down to the ground. I closed my eyes and just felt like I was swirling--like out of my body. I only saw, felt, and experienced "light." The other guy was having the exact same experience (we later compared stories and every details was the same). We just knew it was God. The man began to cry--more than cry--weep (and this was a "tough" guy that NEVER shed even a single tear). He asked for forgiveness for his sins. He declared that he wanted to know this peace, love, and joy forever. He said he wanted to know Jesus. I don't know why he prayed the words that he did--only that this is what he said. I think this lasted for about 15 minutes--it was hard to be aware of time. This man--from that moment forward--was radically transformed. He became as if a new man. He kept the qualities about him that were strong and good and positive, and the ones that were negative began to melt away. I know this story sounds outlandish!!! I've never done drugs so no, I was not high. I was not asleep and dreaming--I was not drunk--I do not have mental issues--I am not telling a tall tale. I am just an ordinary person who had an extraordinary experience.
And I forgot to say this...I think one test you can do to see if the experience was genuine or not is to look for fruit. In other words, was this person transformed? Was this person changed? Did the experience impact him/her? A true spiritual encounter with God would likely cause a person to really be impacted by such an encounter!
I would never say that someone hasn't been moved by the spirit. But, it becomes a religious experience when you begin to interpret the intent. I would challenge anyone to prove that 'the spirit' identified itself, spoke in favor of one religion over another or, in any way, pushed dogma.
Gandhi got it right when he said 'God has no religion'. The Spirit moves where it will.
Well if you truly think about this....
The President has no president, the Pope has no pope...
God (if God knows everything) would not need religion, people need God and people need religion. Religion isn't about giving something to God it is about the needs of people. People need something to relieve them of thier fears. That is where religion comes from. Other people discovered religion was a great way to control people as well, and have used it in that way.
I agree with Gandhi, God isn't part of only one religion, God belongs to them all.
The concept of religion is more of a sticking point for me, than the concept of God. Rituals are man made. Interpretations are the result of human thought and the human action of writing words. Religion is no more than a mutual consensus. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other religion where people decide to agree and support one interpretation of the spirit over another means they close their eyes to a large percentage of how the spirit has moved in this world.
I've always assumed that was the whole point of the warning in the gospels about blasphemy of the spirit. People can say anything. It doesn't make it so. People can think anything. It doesn't make them right. If the Spirit exists; I think religion blasphemes the Spirit by its very existence. It is clearly not our place to speak in its stead.
So you are right. The Spirit would belong to all.
And, if the Spirit is just so much hokum, which is most likely, what then?
Then, if you've kept it to yourself; no harm no foul. Live and learn. If you've pulled other people along behind you in what proves to be a fantasy, ego gets in the way of honesty. Religion is all about ego. No one, in my opinion, should seek to lead or follow, in matters of the spirit.
Why do you do it? You will never make a person who feels confident in the belief that there is a spiritual realm we sometimes briefly interact with think otherwise. And, I'm pretty sure the dogmatically religious are set in their ways.
Have you never, in your entire life, encountered a moment you can't explain?
If I have, and I probably have, I don't go jumping to silly conclusions of ghosts and goblins or invisible friends trying to contact me.
The Spirit is what gives a believer his power. It's an energy field created in all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.
...another pretty acurate description of God I would say...
May the Force/the Source/God be with you.
What you are calling the concept of religion is actually the concept of organized churches.
Religion and 'man made organizations'(churches) are not the same thing.
People need the organized forms of religion, the churches. People need the joining, the sense of belonging. They need to know the rules and it is therefore necessary for a human/s to create those organizations. It is also equally necessary for other people to protect people from the down side to those necessary creations. (those that will abuse the power inherant in those religious organizations). Some people will always refuse to think for themselves, some people fear it. Others refuse to let someone else think for themselves, that is the nature of humanity.
You're looking for an absolute answer...absolute answers that fit every type of problem (every situation) don't exist.
Your solution is the absolute abolishment of organized churches. That won't solve anything, it will simply change the problems. There are no absolute answers that will fix every problem. The only thing we can do is become better problem solvers, in so doing we will be better able to solve the diverse problems/situations as they arrise.
****I do agree that the organized churches we now have need to lose the hate and stop sabotaging the churches that disagree with thier take on God.
The Churches were originally a borrowed idea from Judaism. After the exile to Babylon, the temple no longer became the focus of worship for the people. They wanted more intimate gatherings in the local communities, hence the creation of the synagogues. What I've never understood is why Judaism remained largely a cohesive religion (albeit there are differences between say Hasidic and Reform Jews) whilst Christianity split into thousands of factions (denominations) that were so often hostile to one another. It isn't on the face of it a good lesson in public relations.
Judaism isn't the first religion. Just one religion in a long chain of religious evolution.
Religion goes way back to the beginings of humanity, to the great spirit, the worship of fire, lightening etc.
I would think the cohesiveness is a by product of a sense of kinship. They are of the tribes of Israel. A relationship with God is their birthright.
Different Christians will point to different criteria for their salvation. It's much easier to say someone is not a Christian than it is to say someone isn't Jewish.
Those are not spiritual needs. Those actions play to man's desire to please man, man's desire to control man and the need in some to conform to society as defined by those in the physical world. Any attempts to organize inhibit the movement of the spirit and attempt to define the indefinable.
All religion is organized religion, whether you choose to attend a church, synagogue or mosque. As long as you claim affiliation on any level. As long as you consider any book to be the words of an angel or a God; as long as you consider one religion more pleasing to God than another. As long as a person claims to understand the unknowable, they have embraced religion. Imo.
IMO you're making alot of assumptions.
1. Any attempts to organize inhibit the movement of the spirit and attempt to define the indefinable.
2. All religion is organized religion,
3. As long as you claim affiliation on any level.
4. As long as you consider any book to be the words of an angel or a God;
5. as long as you consider one religion more pleasing to God than another.
6. As long as a person claims to understand the unknowable, they have embraced religion
We all make assumptions, but the question is; how far are you willing to believe your assumptions to be valid? My assumptions are based on the fact that I believe no one has proof. As ATM so eloquently stated, it could all be hokum. Any claims of proof are definitely hokum. Therefore, religion is bogus. All religions insist they possess knowledge they are not in a position to claim.
All religions insist they possess knowledge they are not in a position to claim.
Or do you insist you're in possession of knowledge you are not in a position to claim.
You can't reflect on this argument. You cannot claim knowledge that doesn't exist. My claiming no one knows is not the same as you claiming someone does know. Without proof, the default position is mine.
Sure I can. Anyone can reflect on anything, that is what reflecting is.
You are. Unless you do in fact have proof.
Sure it is. You claiming something without being able to prove it, is just an opinion. No matter what the opinion is about.
In the absense of proof the default position is the best guess, using circumstantial and emotional/subjective evidence (intuition).
You are correct. You can do anything you want to, no matter how silly it might appear to be.
My proof that the knowledge does not exist is the fact that no one has proof to offer. If you know something I don't know concerning this matter, I'd love to be enlightened.
Ditto on your point.
I completely disagree. The only honest position is an admission that one doesn't know. Anything less is ego.
I had a genuine religious experience yesterday in the context of a group to which I belong. It touched me to my core and has changed me for ever. It did not involve Jesus or the fundamentalist Christian Yahweh
Given the deeply personal nature, the specific nature of my experience is unlikely to be shared even by others in my group, let alone by anyone else. However, that does not diminish it as a very valid experience for me alone.
Silly to the rest of the world was exactly what Columbus was. Because they all knew the world was flat.
The knowledge that the Earth was in fact round did not exist. No one had any proof either way. Everyone could see the horizon, where the water fell off the end of the world, so it was obviously flat. Sight proved it. The fact that the rain (that came from somewhere off planet) had to go somewhere reinforced the belief that the world was flat.
The absense of physical proof does not dis-prove logical proof. Logical proof is scientific measure. Scientific proof is proof.
I understand that based on your personal subjective beliefs you have concluded that what you believe to be true is true. That does not in any way make it true. I agree, what you claim as legitimate proof is merely your ego.
Admitting something is merely an opinion unless you can provide some sort of proof is rational, and that is what I have done. That is all I'm asking for from you. So again... Got Proof?
First, you are misinformed. The entire world did not think the earth was flat in Columbus' time.
Second, no one has proof. That is why atheism and theism will forever butt heads. I have proof of what I know. I don't doubt that others have proof of what they know. Unfortunately, that is the reality of spirituality. What you know is for you, alone. No more proof is offered. So, that leaves the question of why. Why is it impossible to prove? The only logical answer I can come up with is; that is how it is meant to be.
No one has proof that can be shared. If it existed, the person in possession of such knowledge would have come forward. No one would hide information of that magnitude.
And they don't hide it. They come forward and are told all the time that they are delusional, stupid, misinformed, not remembering correctly, are insane, and the list goes on and on. I have shared my proof. No one has been able to dis-prove that scientific proof, all they can do is dismiss it. Dismissing it isn't the same as dis-proving it.
The world of disbelievers want the proof to be a proof they have approved of. Anything other than that is deemed unacceptable and is rejected out of hand.
***The me being misinformed about Columbus: http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
Back in the dark ages (when I went to school) Columbus seeking to prove the world was not flat was what we were taught.
Don't believe everything you read in a history book. From Wikipedia;
Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) was among the earliest Christian scholars to estimate the circumference of Earth with Eratosthenes' method. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth; and he even took for granted his readers also knew the Earth is round. [nb 1] Lectures in the medieval universities commonly advanced evidence in favor of the idea that the Earth was a sphere.  Also, "On the Sphere of the World", the most influential astronomy textbook of the 13th century and required reading by students in all Western European universities, described the world as a sphere. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote, "The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth." 
What the church taught the masses might have been different. But Columbus didn't have radical or heretical ideas. Why would a devoutly Catholic queen fund a mission to sail?
And, I'm sorry to say that your refusal to listen to reason concerning your claim of proof appears as dogmatic as religion. Adamantly claiming something is not tantamount to providing proof. It simply makes one adamant.
Obviously you didn't read anything at the link I provided.
I'm sorry to say that your refusal to listen to reason concerning your claim of proof appears as dogmatic as any religious zealot. Adamantly claiming something is not tantamount to providing proof. It simply makes you adamant.
I'm not claiming anything more than that I don't know and that no one has offered any proof to lead anyone to believe anyone knows anything for sure. Sheesh. I've never said God doesn't exist. But, if he does, and he gave a rat's behind what religion had to say on the matter; there would be no room for doubt.
And, your link. Why in the world would I waste time going to a link when you are attempting to argue something I know is wrong? Unless, your link states the same thing, at which point I'll ask; why are we arguing?
Sure you are. You are claiming that the way you see things is the way things actually are, repeatedly I might add.
Got Proof? or just your opinion based on your assumptions?
You're just ruled by your assumptions. Good Luck with that.
If you can't deal... change the subject?
I disagree with him almost as much as you.
No. I wasn't attempting to change the subject, it's simply that you reminded me of him for a moment there.
Anyway, this whole argument proves my point. No one can prove anything. I'm not sure how making no claims and expecting others to be honest enough to do the same is an assumption, but apparently you consider it to be.
You again state that you are not making any claims...
Ok what is this>>> " No one can prove anything." I have proven what I believe.
Then the hidden jab>>> "expecting others to be honest enough to do the same" (meaning I'm being dishonest because If I were honest I'd be agreeing with your Falicious assumptions.)
And you were changing the subject, you simply got caught at it. (and kept the subject changed with this post).
I expected more from you.
Are you serious? Yes. You are. I can't argue when someone blatantly ignores facts. I do tend to make jokes. I don't know what else to do.
The honesty statement was not intended to be a jab. But, I do think anyone who set aside their agenda and took a hard look at the facts would be left to the same conclusions.
As to your dogmatic insistence that you have proven God. You do realize that atheists, agnostics, the religious and some posters whose belief system I'm not privy to have all pointed out that your proof is not proof. I would think that you might be able to step back and ponder why. None of the posters I have read who argued that point with you have anything in common, nor do they appear to be in cahoots.
I honestly can't fathom why you can't see the multiple problems with your argument.
"I honestly can't fathom why you can't see the multiple problems with your argument."
Can you make me a list?
In my opinion there aren't any problems let alone "multiple problems".
We've already been over the primary problems I have with your 'proof', but I went to your hub to refresh my memory.
I think, the problem begins even before you state your proof. You attempt to cobble together a definition for God. Your definition doesn't hold water, so everything that comes after is flawed.
The definitions of God are listed from various sources. They are not non accepted definitions of god.
That you don't define God the same way that those definitions do, does not invalidate the proof, it invalidates your definition of God.
Insisting that your definition and only your definition is the true definition of God is arrogant. I would say the burden to prove that your definition, and only your definition, is the true definition of God resides squarely on your shoulders. Additionaly invalidating the definition used in the proof would also rest on your shoulders. Since this is the only thing you have ever held against the proof (even though you continue to claim there are 'many' additional problems with the proof) I'd say the ball is definately in your court.
Show me the proof, no more unfounded opinions please.
This is your chance to shine and show everyone the evidence that your and only your definition of God is the actual definition of God. If you cannot prove your definition of God nor invalidate the proofs used definition of God, then you are in the wrong, not the proof.
Your chance to shine disappeared when you failed to accept that no one, other than yourself, has accepted this as a proof. You have not shown a way to prove the existence of God, you have not developed a manner by which to ferret out a Supreme being.
I'm sorry, but attempting to bully everyone into pretending that yours was some type of epiphany is madness.
Unless your 'proof' is a spoof, in which case I'd be prone to say; Well done. But stop now. It's becoming tedious.
I'm not changing the subject. I'm attempting to explain to you why it is an exercise in futility for anyone to attempt to discuss this with you. It is akin to explaining to a child something their teacher got wrong. You won't stop to think. You turned your brain off on this matter when you typed the last period in your proof.
Please, if anyone has ever agreed with you on this, I would love to read the exchange. Give me the link. Perhaps an angle different from yours, that ends with the same conclusion, might enlighten me. I am open to accepting that I am wrong. Are you?
It is an exercise in futility to expect me to believe what you believe merely because you believe it.
Does me providing you with someone else that agrees with me lend weight to my stance? If someone else agrees with me or not doesn't matter to me. If that is important to you then I suggest you ask around.
I do have at least one comment that congradulates me (on the Hub)
It seems to me like everything comes down to a popularity contest for you. As long as 'it' is accepted by the masses 'it' is an ok idea to agree with??? If it is unpopular 'it' makes 'it' untrue??
That doesn't add up to me. The facts are the facts, regardless of popular belief.
Your constant need to insult and bully those who laugh at this ridiculous argument shows that you are well aware of its pointlessness.
I didn't say that I would accept this ignorant stance, simply because someone agreed with you. What I said was that I would love to see how another person was able to reason themselves down to the same conclusion. I was hoping that maybe there was one intelligent and rational person that agreed with you; so that I could consider it from a different angle. I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't follow a crowd and I don't have it within myself to politely pretend that someone has proven something when they haven't. No matter how unaware you are of the fact that this 'proof' is childish and ridiculous. To continue to argue for its veracity shows your reasoning skills to be highly suspect.
I'm sure this doesn't count as earth shattering to many people. I don't really care actually. One example of of a time I had an answer to a prayer was when I lost my wallet. I was in college and I taught preschool at the time. I couldn't find it anywhere. I had turned my apartment upside down multiple times as well as my classroom. I was freaking out because it had all my info in it including my college I.D. This was back when they used your social security number as your student idea, not the brightest idea. Not only that, I was newly married, pregnant, and poor. We've all been there, right? After a few days of searching I was really starting to lose it. During my preschool classes' nap time I put my head down on my desk and cried and prayed.....hard! All of the sudden I felt complete calm. I stopped crying. I didn't even think about what to do, I just did it.....with out ANY thought about it. I moved a chair over to my cabinets, stood on the chair to get the the very top shelf, moved the middle plastic tub out of the way, stood on my toes, and there waaaay in the back was my wallet. I hadn't looked on that shelf because I never use it. (I'm short.) The amazing part is...it just happened. Without really planning what I was going to do or knowing. I think maybe the cleaning agency that came in after hours had found it and put it on my top shelf behind the buckets so it wouldn't get lost or stolen. I really believe it was an answer to my prayer. I'm sure they'll be lost of ingenious digs on my comment. Feel free. As I said. I believe and I can't be swayed.
You believe God controlled the cleaning people to put your wallet behind the buckets so you would find it? And, nothing is going to sway you to think?
You prove my point. Thank you. That was truly original.
Prove what point? That there are far more important things to consider, which you haven't, when making claims that God found your wallet for you?
He must have taken the time out to answer your prayer while he was answering the prayers of others who are starving... wait a minute, he wasn't doing that, either.
So, he must be just sitting around waiting for folks to lose their wallets so he find them.
Yeah, that makes sense.
That your mind is absolutely closed to anything other than what you want to see and hear. That millions of us are showing you our diverse, unrelated occurrences that point us all in the direction of what we have come to believe. That we all know you will refuse to see anything other than what you want to see. That we have all had experiences that we know are interactions with something/someone greater than our selves. That sharing our experiences with people like you only result in ridicule and name calling.
Why do we do it?
Here's why that statement is total bunkum.
If reality shows me something, I have to accept it because reality dictates reality. I simply have no choice of whether I want to see or hear it. Of course, there is no reason why I wouldn't want to see and hear it.
LOL! You are showing nothing other than what you want to believe and making false conclusions about unrelated occurrences.
LOL! If you were able to show me anything, I would have to accept it. So, show me.
No, you don't know. That is entirely not true. If it were, we would all have those experiences and would be able to link them with "something/someone greater than our selves." Sorry to say, you aren't special.
Of course, sharing your fantasies as if they wer a reality deserves nothing less.
It seems clear that Troubled is threatened by people who have had a spiritual experience. Probably just jealous. Live and let live Troubled. Why do you care if others believe. Why do you have to try and dispute it?
I don't care if ATroubledMan believes. I care that someone is saying things I know to be true are false.
I do agree that ATroubledMan is someone that is bitter because God won't jump through the hoops required by ATroubledMan. I further believe that ATroubledMan's perpetual insults for anyone that does believe is an attempt to punish God for not jumping through his required hoops (a juvenile attempt at forcing God to do what ATroubledMan wants).
Did you come to that conclusion based on my hysterical laughter at your irrational beliefs?
God doesn't do anything. It's his followers who are doing all the jumping.
<--- Coveted double laughie
Bad God! Bad God!
*hits God on the nose with a newspaper*
That is because those who believe they've had a spiritual experience are threatening. They will threaten us with their beliefs and their holy books.
I have no need to be jealous of the brainwashed and insane.
Haven't been following to well, have you?
*hint* Evangelizing *hint*
I don't care what you believe. No evangelizing here. I just noticed how bitter you are towards people who believe. Why do you care what I believe? If you think I'm brainwashed and insane why waste your time? Are you loking for something...like an answer.
Funny how Christians relate hysterical laughter to bitterness.
Because that's dangerous to mankind, societies and individuals, of course. History has already shown us that in spades.
Yes, I have a "genuine religious experience". I landed me in the psych ward for a week. Exactly where I belonged.
1. Changes the subject.
2. Re-states unfounded opinion.
3. Name calling.
4. Provides some reason why the challenge can't be met do to it being 'unfair'.
5. Actually proves her personal definition of God.
Can I take a ticket on dismantling your proof?
I have read your hub and your stance on the proof. I suggest you take your own advice (what you have told ATroubledMan in this thread) on starting from a fallacy (using a fallacy to prove another fallacy).
I haven't responded to you previously because you are merely restating the same fallacies that others (who I have responded to) are claiming somehow dis-prove the proof.
1. Truth, no matter how old, remains truth unless it is proven untrue.
2. Your personal definition of God is not the actual definition of God. (unless you can prove your personal definition and dis-prove all others.)
3. Stating that the definition of God used is incorrect unless I prove your personal definition of God is true is a fallacy. Proving a being has the correct chromosome to be a man makes that being a man, is sound reasoning. Defining God as the supreme being/Supreme Being is a sound and accepted definition of God.
4. Not proving the existence of what you define God as isn't the same thing as not proving the existence of God. Especially if I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe your definition of God is accurate.
***You're stating God is more than just the Supreme Being/supreme being. That may or may not be true (Got Proof?). That fact/opinion does not dis-prove that God is the supreme being/Supreme Being. The highest form of life/Supreme Being is an accepted description of God.
What fallacies? I pointed out that you start with an assumption in your proof. The fallacy is on your part, not mine.
No, I clearly showed the problem with your definition of God. 'Supreme Being' with capital letters is different than 'supreme being' with lowercase letters. Being the best doesn't make one 'Supreme'. You could argue it makes one supreme, but not 'Supreme'.
You haven't disproven all other definitions either.
I never said that. I said that your definition isn't proven with your proof. defining God as the supreme being is not the same as defining God as the Supreme Being.
I've said before, I showed how your definition isn't proven in your proof. Of course there were many other points as well, but that sinks the whole proof.
Alright Mikel... if you can't back up your claim just roll your eyes and ignore it.
Please list the fallacy that I start out with.
No you haven't. You have clearly stated your opinion.
Agreed, one is a title and one isn't. Being the man that is the head of a kingdom and being King is the same thing.
Actually that is exactly what the definition of the term Supreme is. If not, what does it mean? Supreme is number one and supreme is number two or three??? Come on, you can do better than that.
Re-stating your opinion does nothing to support it.
Two wrongs make you right???
Repeating your statements even a million times does nothing, but bore people.
No you have stated again and again that in your opinion it isn't proven.
Start a list and we'll go over each and every one of them.
Ummm No. If 'that' sinks the whole thing then me stating you're wrong and I'm right sinks your whole argument. Because that is all you're doing.
Proof is what you need, not restating your unfounded opinion. Pick one point, list it, define it. supply proof that backs it. Supply proof(instead of opinion) that dis-proves(not dis-agrees with) what is disputed.
"If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. "
You start with a stipulation on the possibilities you will allow into your proof. In other words, you eliminate any possibility of equality, or the possibility of non-identical beings being supreme in one category but lesser in another.
I've got a few for you. Using a historic definition rather than a current definition for science, for example.
"An older and closely related meaning still in use today"
It's not opinion. It's English.
Ok, so you are using the definition 'Supreme Being' for God. Your proof is that the highest life-form would be considered the Supreme Being, but it would only be considered the supreme being. In the definition of God, Supreme Being is capitalized as a title for a proper noun. All dictionaries reference God as powerful and a creator, which is why the term is rewarded with a title.
You wouldn't say that the best student in a class was the Best Student, you would say he was the best student.
No, the definition of the term 'supreme' is best. The definition of 'Supreme' is different, because it is a title.
It's not an opinion. As I said before it is English. If a creature was the greatest, we would call it supreme. We use the title Supreme in reference to a proper pronoun, the concept of God, in regards to being powerful and creator of the universe.
By the way, where did you get your definition for God?
I don't even know where to begin with this. You tried to prove one definition, but failed. Even if you succeeded, how would that disprove all others?
If you would learn a little about English, I wouldn't have to repeat them. Again, English. Proper pronoun. Reference to a specific being.
1 - Where did you get your definition, and why don't you use the definition in the dictionary?
2 - Why do you use a definition for science from Wikipedia, including a historical version of that definition?(http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Etymological)
3 - Why do you continue to use the title Supreme Being instead of the adjective-noun combination of supreme being that would indicate the highest life form?
4 - Why do you not allow the possibility of non-identical life forms that are equal in supremacy. Why do you not allow the possibility of non-identical life forms that are supreme over each other in different measurements?
Let's just start with those and go from there.
Just because you don't understand the significance of capitalized adjectives in English doesn't make me wrong. The adjectives are capitalized because we use them as a title for God. They aren't the definition. Otherwise, we would be defining God circularly. You want it to be God = Supreme Being(title for God). Or, in other words, God = God.
Are you going to continue to argue about Supreme vs supreme? Ok, I'll get sources for you.
This was added after. You can't change to using Supreme Being/supreme being. It has to be one or the other. They are different things.
Do you understand that 'Supreme Being' and 'supreme being' are different?
According to the rules of English grammar supreme being would be a noun, an object, perhaps one of many. Supreme Being would be a pronoun, an individual supreme being, one of many supreme beings that we are referring to and 'Supreme Being' might be this one's name or title that differentiates it from the others.
However, what these two mean by the difference is unclear.
'Supreme Being', in the definition Mikel provided, is being used as a title for God. He doesn't understand that it's not the definition. It doesn't say 'God is the supreme being'.
This shows the problem with Mikel's definition, which he apparently made up(or cherry picked). Follow the reasoning here. 'Supreme Being' is a title for God. Mikel says that God is the Supreme Being. Mikel is saying that God is God.
That's hardly a definition. You can't define a word with itself.
The only thing that his definition proves(and it does so fallaciously, excluding possibilities in the premise), is that there would be a supreme being. Not a Supreme Being(God).
In case it's still not clear, answer this question.
Bobby, Carl, and Johnny are in the same math class. Bobby has a D, Carl has a C, Johnny has an A. Which of the following statements is correct?
A - Johnny is the best student.
B - Johnny is the Best Student.
Mikel is coming from a place of understanding ...but since unfortunately he must use words, his thoughts are being derailed.
None of us has created the english language but we operate within it and can and do use it to our benefit.
But words themselves are merely products of understanding and not the authors of it.
Mikel point is without fault which ever way you want to take it .. but only to those of the understanding mind.
For where there are unidentical beings one must be greater and one lesser...
And it stands to reason that the Greater can and may swallow up the Lesser.
If they are identical then these Two must be One...
There is an Identity of this unity/oneness...
But even in that unity, each Identity will be preserved according purpose...
and if according to purpose one makes himself lesser for the sake of that unity/and purpose, then that in itself does not negate his Status as being Identical with the greater...
If you get back to the place of understanding you should not find fault with Mikel reasoning ..even if and when he uses the languagre poorly his point is heard.
I hear it and it is sound.
Being greater doesn't constitute being God. Mikel's definition of God isn't 'the supreme being' meaning the greatest. It is 'the Supreme Being', which is a proper adjective, a reference to a specific proper noun(pronoun). It's just another word for God.
Yes, if one is greater than the other, then it is greater. But again, being greater doesn't make one God.
Using the English language, Mikel is using a title for God as the definition for God. In doing such, you can put 'God' in place of 'Supreme Being' in every instance, and it should still make sense, but it doesn't.
Your argument only has validity within the language and languages gives any and all arguments validity...
See beyond and you would be fine...
Language is 100% vital to any argument. If we don't follow the structure of the language, we can't get any point across because we will end up talking about different things.
Without language there is no argument.
Language is the product of understanding not the Author of it......
Kess, if I want to tell you why something happens, I have to use language.
If I start to use my own rules for language, and you start to use your own rules, how do you expect us to communicate?
Otherwise, I could say the following:
It all depends on definitions(the meaning of words).
"When an adjective has its roots as a proper noun, it is said to be a proper adjective. Just like a proper noun, proper adjectives always begin with a capital letter."
A very simple explanation.
So, Mikel, why is Supreme Being capitalized in your definition? What noun is it referring to?
Basically, they are the same thing. You guys are just having a pissing contest. Admit it.
Unfortunately, they aren't the same thing.
Is it Best Student or best student?
If you say Johnny is the best student, you are only saying that he is the supreme student.
If you say Johnny is the Best Student, then you are saying he has a title of being the best student. Then, you can say things like 'The Best Student this year is a shining example of hard work', and you can substitute 'Johnny' for 'Best Student' just fine. You can't substitute anything else for it though.
It's the same with using 'Supreme Being'. You can substitute God for Supreme Being all you want, but there is a huge difference between saying something is the supreme being vs the Supreme Being. One says something is the best, the other says something is God.
I don't agree. Supreme being is self explanitory,and has only one meaning in all cases. God.
Ok, let's create a closed environment. A mini-universe, if you will. In this environment is an ant and a human. We can assume the human is supreme compared to the ant.
Now, which statement follows logically?
A - The human is the supreme being of the two.
B - The human is the Supreme Being of the two?
In other words,
A - The human is better
B - The human is God
You are using exactly the same logic as Mikel, or lack thereof. Both of you are creating the scenario of a supreme/better being (Upper case or not) but are not defining what is meant by 'supreme/better' hence your arguments are moot.
Start a list and we'll go over each and every one of them.
From several dictionaries.
Why wouldn't I? Does the fact that the definition of something is more than 15 minutes old invalidate it? When it becomes proven untrue I'll stop using it.
Because my use of the terms is valid, one is a title and one isn't. Being the man that is the head of a kingdom and being The King is the same thing. Your approval of my use of the term is not necessary. Unless you can prove otherwise.
NON-Identical by definition is not the same . Equal by definition is the same. Two things must be either the same or not the same. They can not be both the same and not the same.
Supreme, supreme, sUPREME, suPREME, supREME, suprEME, supreME, supremE and any other mix of capital and non capital is defined as BEST, Foremost, with out equal. Two things cannot be both equal and non equal. Being similar and possibly equal in some requards does not make them equal/the same/identical in all regards overall. Being supreme makes an entity a unique singular entity.
Haha, really? This is how you are going to approach a discussion?
Ok, how about this... Is it one of these?
Can you provide a source?
1 - Wikipedia isn't a solid reference in and of itself. Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia.
2 - Scientific proof is taken to mean proof derived from the scientific method. Your proof doesn't utilize the scientific method. Science has come quite a ways since Aristotle(which is where your definition comes from).
Your term is incorrect. I will explain why again. In your definition, you say 'God is the Supreme Being'. Now, before we get to your proof, we have to analyze 'Supreme Being'. It is a title, yes, but it is a title that is derived from a proper noun. In this case, a prounoun: God. It's not a definition for God. It's a title for God.
If you use a hypothetical situation where God isn't present, the title doesn't exist. Just because something is the best doesn't mean it automatically inherits the title for God.
Try interchanging God for Supreme Being and see if your proof makes sense. It doesn't.
Equal is "being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value".
Identical is "similar in every detail".
Non-identical things can be equal. For instance, I can get the same grades as another student. If two non-identical things can be equal in any one area, then it is possible for two non-identical things to be equal in every area.
You could have two creatures that are exactly identical except for skeletal and muscle structure. However, it is still possible that they could have the same flexibility, speed, and strength.
Unfortunately you didn't address the question. Here's an example. Creature A is faster than Creature B. Creature B is stronger than Creature A. They are equal in every other regard.
Which is supreme?
I thought you were providing proof that what I say was obviously false and incorrect....
So far all you have done is re-state the same questions you have always been asking.
Provide your stance and your proof supporting your stance. Stop asking questions and show us your proof.
You haven't addressed the title of Supreme Being fully, nor have you addressed where you got your definition for God.
Supreme Being is a title for....?
Fill in the blank Mikel.
I say it again. Show us your stance and the proof supporting your stance.
So, have you given up on pretending to answer my questions?
You've missed quite a few.
Sadly, your proof only proves that if there are more than one non-equal lifeforms then one will be greatest.
Greatest doesn't equal God though... not in any dictionary I've ever seen...
Did you write your own dictionary?
I'm not here to answer your questions.
I'm here to refute your proof. Please provide it.
If all you have are questions, then sit down and raise your hand and I'll call on you when I'm ready to.
***God is defined as Greatest in every definition I have ever found.
I provided the definitions from the most popular online dictionaries. Every one includes something about creation or supernatural power. So why do you exclude that from the definition?
Again, why do you define God with a title for God?
I ask questions because you don't seem to respond to any actual arguments. I'm trying to help you understand why your argument is wrong.
Here is my proof that your argument is wrong.
God is defined as creator of the universe.
Your argument is as follows:
From the definitions, which are compiled by looking at the most common usages of the word God in speech and text, it is fair to say that humanity uses the word God for the creator of the universe. Not, as you state, as 'the highest life form'.
Therefore, according to the definition of the word 'God', your argument is invalid.
When asked the questions:
What or Who is the greatest form of life?
What or Who is the greatest being in existence?
What or Who is the supreme being?
The answer is always God.
Therefore this definition of God is valid.
Creating is an action, not a condition of being. Therefore whether God did that specific action or not, is irrelevant to the proof that God exists. All the references you provided (which are the same ones listed in my hub) define God First and Foremost as a being who is the greatest, supreme, the best, the highest etc. Then they continue to say that the being that is all those things may have also done this specific action. Doing or not doing that action is irrelevant to that being existing or not.
Proving that a being exists and proving that a being did something (or not) is not the same thing.
That you require proof that God did something as a prerequisite for proof of existence is your fallacy.
Ok, so you finally admit that you can't use the dictionary definition for God for your proof. That's fine.
Your logic here is reversed cause and effect.
We say that the greatest form of life is God, because we already have the concept of God. The belief in God as the creator is the cause, the idea of God being the greatest life form is the effect.
You want to say that anything that is the greatest life form is God. In other words, the effect is the cause.
So, you can't use the actual definition(even though you claim it is from a dictionary), so you resort to a twisted cause/effect to get your definition.
Do you need an example of how ridiculous that is? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player, ever. Now, we can say that MJ is the best basketball player.
So, following your logic, if we have a world with more than one basketball player and they aren't equal, then one must be greater and another must be lesser. The greatest basketball player is Michael Jordan.
See how that doesn't work?
CREATOR is a characteristic, and is key to the concept of God. You claimed your definition came from the dictionary, but you haven't provided any evidence for it. On the contrary, I have shown that dictionaries include creator as part of the definition for God.
Don't try and claim that your definition matches, because it doesn't.
Nobody would call the best, strongest ant in a colony God, simply because that was the only life in existence. Well, you would, but that's just your own twisted way of thinking.
I don't require an action. I require that the definition is fulfilled. Not some cherry-picked definition.
Your 'proof' is as ridiculous about my example about Michael Jordan.
Uh...NO. I don't. I am using the definition of God from several dictionaries as I have stated many times. Putting words out here saying they come from me isn't the same thing as me saying them. That you require a particular definition to be the definition of God doesn't make it so. God being the Creator of the universe is the Christian definition of the God concept. The Christian definition is a minority belief when compared to the vast religious beliefs of the rest of the world and of the beliefs of humanity prior to the birth of the Abrahamic religions.
What you are now attempting to use as my position is not my position. My position is my original stance, this example is an attempt to bring you to understanding the definition of God as I have used it is a valid God concept accepted and verified. Even though it does not include your specific definition of God.
NO. I say God is the greatest life form, therefore what ever being is the greatest life form is God.
Sure I can, Did and it is from several dictionaries.
If Michael Jordan is the greatest then the greatest is Michael Jordan even if there are 400 million lesser basketball players...see how that works completely...
Being a Creator makes the term a NOUN not a Verb. Being the Creator of the universe is only key to your beliefs, not to the existence of God (who may or may not have created the universe). After all your rants about the english language I would have thought this distinction would be obvious to you
Because it does. Keep spreading your propoganda sooner or later someone will probably believe you?
Sure I have... repeatedly.
The Christian definition of God includes that as part of thier definition. Again, Christianity isn't the only belief system that defines the God Concept. I included a bit of them all.
Matches only the Christian Definition, I have never claimed that.
This statement is purely your opinion and as such you are entitled to have it. Speaking for everyone else to lend weight to your position is...wait for it... another of your erroneous logical fallacies. But I wish you good luck with it.
The Christian definition you spout as the only acceptable definition is a cherry picked definition that meets your belief system. I have never stated that my proof will prove the existence of the Christian definition of God. But it does prove the existence of the Supreme Being commonly called God by the majority of humanity.
All of your arguments are based on the premise that only the Christian version and description of God is a valid definition and description of God. Sorry that fallacy is not true. Christianity does not hold the patent on the definition or description of God.
What dictionary? Your definition doesn't match any of the dictionaries I checked. Can you tell me which it is?
When you define God as the Supreme Being, you are using a definition for God that refers to an actual being, and the capitalized title Supreme Being is given to the concept of God as relating to being the creator of the universe. You leave that out from the definitions.
You can't provide one dictionary that defines God as you do, but you claim it comes from dictionaries. I showed you that God is defined as creator, or at least supernatural, in every major online dictionary.
You have chosen to take 'Supreme Being'(ignoring the fact that it is a title, and means more than supreme being), while conveniently leaving out every creationist or supernatural aspect of the definition of God. Anybody can prove anything by using their own definitions.
God is the greatest life form because he is. God is the cause, the effect is 'that he is the greatest life form'.
You can't use the effect as a cause. Being the greatest life form doesn't automatically make something God.
Can you see the difference? God being God, he is the greatest. His attributes of perfection are the cause that make us call him the greatest. We don't call him God because he is greatest.
No, it's your own cherry-picked conglomeration of definitions, ignoring 'creation' and 'supernatural' that is a part of each definition.
Or, can you show me a dictionary that defines God as you do, without referring to creation?
No, you're wrong. The logic is applied to a situation where Michael Jordan isn't necessarily present. If a universe has a greatest basketball player(who isn't MJ), does that make him MJ? No.
Mikel, I showed you how every definition defines God as creator. You are the one choosing to say that that part of it is optional. It's not. Otherwise, you're not using the word as it is defined.
What dictionary? Quote and reference. This is your chance to provide some shred of evidence.
You have said 'I got it from dictionaries' with no references, and ignoring every definition I presented to you.
Ah, so there is the admission. You don't use the dictionary definition of God. You use your own, personal, hybrid definition.
It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't match the dictionary. Yet, you claim it is a proper definition.
Dictionary definitions are based off of the most common usage of a word in that language. In English, the word God is used most often in reference to the creator of the universe. That is why it is the definition.
You are just making up your own definition to suit your argument.
I call that an axiom. Find me someone else who would call an ant God, solely because it was the strongest ant in the universe, and ants were the only lifeform.
Cherry picked? That is so laughable. I quoted every major online dictionary for you. You are the one picking your own definition, and claiming it comes from dictionaries.
The 'Supreme Being', commonly called God, in English(we are talking about English words, English usage, and English definition, is most often used in reference to the creator of the universe. This is why the definition says 'creator'. Do you understand how dictionaries decide on definitions, or do you need me to teach you?
All of my arguments are based on the most common and authoritative ENGLISH definition for God. Your definition is one you made up.
Is it strange that she shows up just as green bird is left speechless???
You like to do that when you stay up later than me... but for a proponent of logical fallacies why would you mention me being 'speechless', just because I haven't responded yet.
I apologize, oh powerful Mikel, for taking a few hours to get some shut-eye. As the most logical person on Hubpages, you must be God, so I beg your forgiveness.
Not breaking eye contact and slowly backing away from Emile...
Your just repeating the same things over and over again, dismissing/ignoring everything that shows you're incorrect. You have failed to prove your stance as anything other than your opinion. It's boring. If you can come up with something original... nevermind.
Actually, I reference dictionaries for definition, with sources.
Not my opinion.
I reference information on how dictionaries compile information.
Not my opinion.
The only example of opinion is your definition of God.
You have failed to provide ONE SOURCE to backup your definition, other than 'it's just the best one'.
Yes. I have had several. I do not think there are any guidelines you can put on paper that would confirm one way or another whether someone has actually had a religous experience or not. Most Christians would say that in order to have experienced something like that there would be a noticable change in a person's life. In some cases this is true.
When you veiw the prophets in the bible and those chosen by God it is evident that they were as fallible even after they spoke to God. The second time water came from a rock was when Moses struck it with his staff without giving God the glory. This caused him not to enter the promised land. King David had the affair with Bathsheba and it was Solomon the son of this union that carried on the linage to Jesus.
God understands our sinful nature, but it is unacceptable, yet He has given us a way back. My whole point is that God uses less than perfect people to carry out His will.
If someone today said God spoke to them and then committed adultery as David did everyone would discount that person's witness. The Bible does warn about this.
If you want to know for sure that someone has had a genuine experience: listen to their account, know the Bible and you will pick up on similar attitudes, estatic joy, and or depression because they know they do not live up to the standard they should. Think I am crazy? Read some of the prophets and you will see what I am talking about.
I won't go into detail but there are three heavens just as you can find in the Corinthians. There are Out of Body experiences. Same verse and read the prophets. Our God is not mean and cruel. He is just as the Bible describes Him, unbelievably meek and humble in spirit.
I wish I could be on here all the time to continue this. I will write when I can. Take care and God bless.
by Meg Moon5 years ago
Does the fact the so many people claim to have experienced God suggest that God does in fact exist?
by janesix3 years ago
How do you tell if you are having a religious experience or a delusion/hallucination?From my personal experience, it is impossible to tell. But I have had concrete evidence that tells me that I've at least had some...
by PhoenixV10 hours ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by Jack Lee9 months ago
In discussion here on hubpages, we hear some accuses religion people of being judgemental and more over accuses religious people of forcing their believes and policies on the American people through laws...That is not...
by ParadigmEnacted4 years ago
Are atheists fanatical enough for it to be considered a "religious" experience?Aren't they just supplanting the belief in one savior with others.
by capncrunch24 months ago
Besides the belief in a higher power, what other differences separate non-believers and believers?What is the agenda of either side?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.