Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Here is some help for the village atheists here regarding the First Moment problem; Hartshorne.

But his counter-arguments are seriously flawed.

 

[hobelim]

No one believes that God was wearing a diaper fool.

LOL...so no one believes the story about God diddling a virgin to father himself , no room at the inn, the manger, wise men, hark the herald angels singing, and almighty God in swaddling clothes...diapers ?


So you are all just pretending to believe?

who knew?

No, I am asserting that your mischaracterization of the conception and birth of Christ is flawed and no one believes it.

Which you know anyway. Straw men like you village atheists construct are fairly easy to spot and refute. The only puzzle is whether you do this being more due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

You are asserting that it is a mischaracterization that God was born on Christmas morn and found wearing diapers in a manger by the three wise men??

No one believes this??? ....you had better tell the Pope.


lol.....


I guess if anyone would profess to believe what even you are suggesting is bullshit it would be due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

 

[BreezeWood]

et al,

I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)? And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation. The first moment problem and other arguments from the teleological and cosmological to proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

If these do not suffice, I sincerely doubt your desire to know.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.


there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Exactly, time is relative, it is not a constant. Time exists only in terms of motion. Time can speed up or slow down according to its motion.

And NONE of that avoids the first moment problem.

But great rhetorical effort, points for that, ed.

Time began when motion began and ends when motion stops.

Not according to Einstein, as I understand GTR. Time is a part of space and referred to as time-space. You cannot have space without time, apparently.

But even if they were separable, your observation does not answer the first moment problem, and you still have the fallacy of infinite regression that makes your assertion obviously false.

 

[JimBowie1958]

et al,

I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)? And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation. The first moment problem and other arguments from the teleological and cosmological to proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

If these do not suffice, I sincerely doubt your desire to know.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.


there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?

Define what you mean by 'proof'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL...so no one believes the story about God diddling a virgin to father himself , no room at the inn, the manger, wise men, hark the herald angels singing, and almighty God in swaddling clothes...diapers ?


So you are all just pretending to believe?

who knew?

No, I am asserting that your mischaracterization of the conception and birth of Christ is flawed and no one believes it.

Which you know anyway. Straw men like you village atheists construct are fairly easy to spot and refute. The only puzzle is whether you do this being more due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

You are asserting that it is a mischaracterization that God was born on Christmas morn and found wearing diapers in a manger by the three wise men??

No one believes this??? ....you had better tell the Pope.


lol.....


I guess if anyone would profess to believe what even you are suggesting is bullshit it would be due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

It is not regarded as a fact that Christ was born on Christmas day. It is a day chosen in ancient times for convenience as it corresponded with the observable winter solstice.

And He wasn't wearing diapers, not a custom of that time.

All of which again demonstrates the ignorance you labor under and why you cant believe as you do not understand what is being discussed to begin with.

 

[hobelim]

No, I am asserting that your mischaracterization of the conception and birth of Christ is flawed and no one believes it.

Which you know anyway. Straw men like you village atheists construct are fairly easy to spot and refute. The only puzzle is whether you do this being more due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

You are asserting that it is a mischaracterization that God was born on Christmas morn and found wearing diapers in a manger by the three wise men??

No one believes this??? ....you had better tell the Pope.


lol.....


I guess if anyone would profess to believe what even you are suggesting is bullshit it would be due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

It is not regarded as a fact that Christ was born on Christmas day. It is a day chosen in ancient times for convenience as it corresponded with the observable winter solstice.

And He wasn't wearing diapers, not a custom of that time.

All of which again demonstrates the ignorance you labor under and why you cant believe as you do not understand what is being discussed to begin with.

LOL... my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year?

Yes or no?

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph?


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God?

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are asserting that it is a mischaracterization that God was born on Christmas morn and found wearing diapers in a manger by the three wise men??

No one believes this??? ....you had better tell the Pope.


lol.....


I guess if anyone would profess to believe what even you are suggesting is bullshit it would be due to ignorance, stupidity or simple lack of integrity.

It is not regarded as a fact that Christ was born on Christmas day. It is a day chosen in ancient times for convenience as it corresponded with the observable winter solstice.

And He wasn't wearing diapers, not a custom of that time.

All of which again demonstrates the ignorance you labor under and why you cant believe as you do not understand what is being discussed to begin with.

LOL... my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year?

Yes or no?

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph?


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God?

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.

What is your point if you have one ?

Jesus was a child and later grew to be a man like any other child. He was 100% human.

 

[hobelim]

It is not regarded as a fact that Christ was born on Christmas day. It is a day chosen in ancient times for convenience as it corresponded with the observable winter solstice.

And He wasn't wearing diapers, not a custom of that time.

All of which again demonstrates the ignorance you labor under and why you cant believe as you do not understand what is being discussed to begin with.

LOL... my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year?

Yes or no?

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph?


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God?

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.

What is your point if you have one ?

Jesus was a child and later grew to be a man like any other child. He was 100% human.

My point is that even when I am just repeating what so called believers expect rational people to just believe, THEY DON"T BELIEVE.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL... my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year?

Yes or no?

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph?


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God?

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.

What is your point if you have one ?

Jesus was a child and later grew to be a man like any other child. He was 100% human.

My point is that even when I am just repeating what so called believers expect rational people to just believe, THEY DON"T BELIEVE.

Can you clear this up for me I am missing your point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What makes you think that the world is imperfect ? isn't it more likely that your view is flawed?

In a "perfect" world small children wouldn't be dying

the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life, is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.






Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.


Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

[Care to share that revelation with everyone?

I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?

[Why do you believe that they are called "fairy tales" in the first place?

You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..



Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?


C'mon now, pay the piper.

I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount. It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.

 

[Boss]

et al,

I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)? And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?

Most Respectfully,
R

If you read the OP, you already understand what the problem is. You don't accept the spiritual evidence. The definition of god was presented in the OP, for the sake of this argument, it is the spiritual force humans connect with. The definitive proof can only be realized through an understanding of the spiritual evidence, which you are unable to do, because you reject it.

I don't know why this is such a hard thing for disbelievers to grasp. All through this thread, every page or two, we have someone new who pops in to retort with what they must think is a smug response to the OP argument. However, the very first thing I tackled in the argument, was definition of the terms and how this first needs to be established. If you don't accept spiritual evidence, then the question can never be answered. You can ask all the smug condescending questions you like, and you can ridicule religions and belittle people who practice them, and this question will still remain unanswered for you.

We can argue various theories of the universe and origin of life, we can talk about the Big Bang and Big Crunch, and we can even derail the topic entirely and talk about something totally unrelated to the question, but unless you are able to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you are completely wasting your time trying to answer this question.

 

[hobelim]

In a "perfect" world small children wouldn't be dying

the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life, is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.

Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.

Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?

[Why do you believe that they are called "fairy tales" in the first place?

You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..

Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?

C'mon now, pay the piper.

I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount.

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.

It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.

Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL... my what big teeth you have there grandpa.


do you believe that God, in the person of Jesus, was born on whatever day of the year?

Yes or no?

If so, and he was not wearing diapers as you claim, did he crap all over mother Mary and Joseph?


Or are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was God?

You must have noticed that a few other Christians do profess to believe that.

What is your point if you have one ?

Jesus was a child and later grew to be a man like any other child. He was 100% human.

My point is that even when I am just repeating what so called believers expect rational people to just believe, THEY DON"T BELIEVE.

Rational people believe that non-living elements came together in just the right sequences to form life. If that does not require faith what does it require to believe ? because that can't be tested nor observed in the lab.

People that believe in God must make a choice which God that is they believe in. To me it is a contradiction to say I believe in the Christian God then reject some of the things in the bible. The bible is clear, faith is required because there are many things about God that would and do baffle man.

The scriptures say we do not fully understand God.

Job 11:7 Are you able to take God's measure, to make discovery of the limits of the Ruler of all?

Do these scriptures sound familiar ?

Isaiah 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

Proverbs 21:8 The way of man [is] froward and strange: but [as for] the pure, his work [is] right.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].

Proverbs 12:26 The righteous [is] more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them.

Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.

I Corinthians 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

I Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

I Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. There are words which man's wisdom teaches, but they are not the pure words of God.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

Exodus 20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

Deuteronomy 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as [it is] at this day.

Deuteronomy 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

Joshua 4:24 That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it [is] mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever.

II Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do [it]: for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Nehemiah 5:9 Also I said, It [is] not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

Jeremiah 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that [it is] an evil [thing] and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear [is] not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Romans 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Psalms 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Amos 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

Micah 3:2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;

Zechariah 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are things] that I hate, saith the LORD.

I Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let [not] arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD [is] a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

Psalms 119:128 Therefore I esteem all [thy] precepts [concerning] all [things to be] right; [and] I hate every false way.

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us,

 

[RoccoR]

JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, et al,

To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts). But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.

et al,

I still waiting for a definition of "God;" (conceptional)? And then, "definitive Proof that the conception Exists?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation. The first moment problem and other arguments from the teleological and cosmological to proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

If these do not suffice, I sincerely doubt your desire to know.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?

(COMMENTs SPECIFIC)

FOR BreezeWood: Yes, I saw several of your contributions and, in part, I have to agree with the substance of your view (no proof of existence). But I'm not sure we agree on what it is that we say there is "no proof of" in this context.

FOR JimBowie1958: Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God." Yes, I have a (somewhat) clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue (moment to moment) and the cosmological view (in some respects), but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics. I do understand "The Argument from Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.

But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.

(COMMENT - GENERALIZED)

I find it difficult to follow the discussion when there seems to be a disparity on what the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the topic ("God"). How you prove or disprove an "unknown" or "undefined" entity or quantity is very difficult for this poor old Sicilian Boy just trying to make his way through the world.

Is the topic a deity, a Supreme Being, a VMAT2 Gene apparition, limited powers, all powerful, spiritual or supernatural. Is it subject to physical law or is it the creator of all laws? To discuss it, the group must come to some consensus as to what it is.

I don't think we are there yet. We haven't reached a conclusion of what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Youwerecreated]

the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life, is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.

Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.

Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?



You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..

Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?

C'mon now, pay the piper.

I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount.

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law and the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the teachings, figurative for flesh, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that does not ruminate.

It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.

Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

Maybe that is the problem for the non-believer.

 

[Boss]

JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, et al,

To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts). But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation. The first moment problem and other arguments from the teleological and cosmological to proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

If these do not suffice, I sincerely doubt your desire to know.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?

(COMMENTs SPECIFIC)

FOR BreezeWood: Yes, I saw several of your contributions and, in part, I have to agree with the substance of your view (no proof of existence). But I'm not sure we agree on what it is that we say there is "no proof of" in this context.

FOR JimBowie1958: Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God." Yes, I have a (somewhat) clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue (moment to moment) and the cosmological view (in some respects), but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics. I do understand "The Argument from Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.

But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.

(COMMENT - GENERALIZED)

I find it difficult to follow the discussion when there seems to be a disparity on what the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the topic ("God"). How you prove or disprove an "unknown" or "undefined" entity or quantity is very difficult for this poor old Sicilian Boy just trying to make his way through the world.

Is the topic a deity, a Supreme Being, a VMAT2 Gene apparition, limited powers, all powerful, spiritual or supernatural. Is it subject to physical law or is it the creator of all laws? To discuss it, the group must come to some consensus as to what it is.

I don't think we are there yet. We haven't reached a conclusion of what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The only way to objectively evaluate the existence of something spiritual, is to examine spiritual evidence. Physical evidence is great, but it can never prove spiritual existence alone, and it's illogical and irrational to expect this. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, therefore, they simply reject all spiritual evidence. Now think about it... if you reject physical nature, how can you prove something physical in nature? You can't! You have to first acknowledge the physical evidence exists, and the same applies with spiritual evidence, if you are unable to acknowledge it, you can't examine spiritual evidence.

We need not define god in specific terms, to prove that a spiritual power greater than self exists. We do not have to specifically define anything, to prove existence. We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question.

So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

And NONE of that avoids the first moment problem.

But great rhetorical effort, points for that, ed.

Time began when motion began and ends when motion stops.

Not according to Einstein, as I understand GTR. Time is a part of space and referred to as time-space. You cannot have space without time, apparently.

But even if they were separable, your observation does not answer the first moment problem, and you still have the fallacy of infinite regression that makes your assertion obviously false.

Space/time has to do with the fact that the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

 

[edthecynic]

JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, et al,

To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts). But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.

I have posted at least one definition of God with explanation ... proof of the Creation event itself via Big Bang theory give more than sufficient evidence.

there is no proof there of God ... where is found the persuasion between good and evil - the laws for the Everlasting - imbedded in the awful Judea / Christian texts, from previous religions and "Thought" ?

(COMMENTs SPECIFIC)

FOR BreezeWood: Yes, I saw several of your contributions and, in part, I have to agree with the substance of your view (no proof of existence). But I'm not sure we agree on what it is that we say there is "no proof of" in this context.

FOR JimBowie1958: Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God." Yes, I have a (somewhat) clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue (moment to moment) and the cosmological view (in some respects), but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics. I do understand "The Argument from Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.

But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.

(COMMENT - GENERALIZED)

I find it difficult to follow the discussion when there seems to be a disparity on what the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the topic ("God"). How you prove or disprove an "unknown" or "undefined" entity or quantity is very difficult for this poor old Sicilian Boy just trying to make his way through the world.

Is the topic a deity, a Supreme Being, a VMAT2 Gene apparition, limited powers, all powerful, spiritual or supernatural. Is it subject to physical law or is it the creator of all laws? To discuss it, the group must come to some consensus as to what it is.

I don't think we are there yet. We haven't reached a conclusion of what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The only way to objectively evaluate the existence of something spiritual, is to examine spiritual evidence. Physical evidence is great, but it can never prove spiritual existence alone, and it's illogical and irrational to expect this. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, therefore, they simply reject all spiritual evidence. Now think about it... if you reject physical nature, how can you prove something physical in nature? You can't! You have to first acknowledge the physical evidence exists, and the same applies with spiritual evidence, if you are unable to acknowledge it, you can't examine spiritual evidence.

We need not define god in specific terms, to prove that a spiritual power greater than self exists. We do not have to specifically define anything, to prove existence. We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question.

So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.

There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. I have proven this over and over to you but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence as spiritual evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

JimBowie1958, BreezeWood, et al,

To claim that I've read all 3000 Postings, would probably be a fib (quibbling of sorts). But I have read most of them; many being very interesting.


(COMMENTs SPECIFIC)

FOR BreezeWood: Yes, I saw several of your contributions and, in part, I have to agree with the substance of your view (no proof of existence). But I'm not sure we agree on what it is that we say there is "no proof of" in this context.

FOR JimBowie1958: Yes, I've read many of your commentaries, mostly opposing views, but I have not yet seen you define what it is we mean when we say "God." Yes, I have a (somewhat) clear picture of your cosmic view, you opinion on memory, and disagreed with your thought on the timeline issue (moment to moment) and the cosmological view (in some respects), but I did not see where you defined "God:" its scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics. I do understand "The Argument from Motion" (Thomas Aquinas). I think it is one of the great arguments; but I don't find it compelling.

But then, I'm an old man, and I beg your acceptance of my apology if you stated it and I simply don't recall it.

(COMMENT - GENERALIZED)

I find it difficult to follow the discussion when there seems to be a disparity on what the scope, nature, influence, powers and general characteristics of the topic ("God"). How you prove or disprove an "unknown" or "undefined" entity or quantity is very difficult for this poor old Sicilian Boy just trying to make his way through the world.

Is the topic a deity, a Supreme Being, a VMAT2 Gene apparition, limited powers, all powerful, spiritual or supernatural. Is it subject to physical law or is it the creator of all laws? To discuss it, the group must come to some consensus as to what it is.

I don't think we are there yet. We haven't reached a conclusion of what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The only way to objectively evaluate the existence of something spiritual, is to examine spiritual evidence. Physical evidence is great, but it can never prove spiritual existence alone, and it's illogical and irrational to expect this. Some people have closed their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, therefore, they simply reject all spiritual evidence. Now think about it... if you reject physical nature, how can you prove something physical in nature? You can't! You have to first acknowledge the physical evidence exists, and the same applies with spiritual evidence, if you are unable to acknowledge it, you can't examine spiritual evidence.

We need not define god in specific terms, to prove that a spiritual power greater than self exists. We do not have to specifically define anything, to prove existence. We do, however, need to come to mutual understanding on words like "exist" and how the word means different things, depending on whether you are talking about physical or spiritual existence. You see, those who reject spiritual nature, have no way to conceptualize spiritual existence, the term is an oxymoron. God obviously doesn't exist physically, or God would be a physical entity, proven by physical evidence of physical existence, and that is not a debatable question.

So it all boils down to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual nature. If you do not, then the question of god's existence can surely never be proven to you. However, if you can open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, and willingly accept the spiritual evidence, you will find it is overwhelming and undeniable. Which explains why the non-believers absolutely refuse to allow spiritual evidence.

There is no evidence of the spiritual existing independent of the physical. In all cases, the physical exists first and then the spiritual is created by the physical. I have proven this over and over to you but you refuse to accept spiritual evidence as spiritual evidence.

Yes there is evidence but people like yourself who have never witnessed it, believe people who have witnessed it are insane. I guess you believe the same for the priests and pastors as well.