Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Montrovant]

We're going in circles here. Pay attention... You can demonstrate gravity as many times as you like, if I am refusing to accept your scientific explanation for gravity, and claim that it is the force of god at work, and refuse to accept your scientific evidence as valid, you will never ever ever ever be able to convince me. Got it? If not, re-read this paragraph, until it penetrates your cranium, because I am tired of going in circles.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. I can show you evidence until I am blue in the face, just like the example above... you are never going to be convinced.

You say that man could misunderstand something for all of man's existence? That this intrinsic connection to something outside the physical, is just in his head, imaginary? Well.. about 5% of the human population have been able to convince themselves of this. That it's all just a big misunderstanding and overactive imagination run wild. They are Nihilists.

I personally can't believe this, because I am very much in touch with my spiritual connection. I guess I am at a disadvantage over some here, because my "faith" doesn't really require much faith, I know this power exists and I rely on it daily. I am most comfortable with this arrangement, and don't need to seek any more answers or see anymore evidence. What I am doing in this thread, is exposing the god-haters. The people who are genuinely not interested in answering the question of god's existence, because they don't like the answer. These are closed-minded individuals who will not open their minds for anything spiritual in nature, because they hate and loathe religious people.

It continues to be you who doesn't understand and moves this discussion in circles.

Whether you believe gravity is the result of natural forces or the work of a god is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that you see the effects. It is objectively observable (yes, we're back to this, as you seem to have had a problem with it the first time around). One does not need to believe that gravity exists to see a rock fall when it is dropped from your hand. The rock falls whether you believe it is gravity or the will of god or the ground fairy using it's magic vacuum cleaner.

By your definition, this is not the case with the spiritual. In order to see the spiritual rock fall, one must believe. If you don't believe....I guess the rock never moves.

You can tell me it's gravity that causes the rock to move, but if I don't accept what you call gravity, and believe that god makes the rock move, you will never change my mind. There is no doubt, we observe the same rock move... just as you and I observe the same 70,000 year history of mankind worshiping. Spirituality happens and does exist, whether you acknowledge it or recognize it is spiritual, just like the rock falls. Your perception of what we observed is different.

You are actually the one who said man has misunderstood the spiritual throughout our existence. You said you believe organized religion, which has been around for most of our history in one form or another, is a product of human imagination. You believe it is an attempt to 'grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to.'. If humanity can misunderstand the spiritual so widely for so long, why could that misunderstanding not be of a different nature?

It is possible that man is totally wrong, and the spiritual connection is some kind of physical connection science has yet to discover or explain, I suppose. I am merely using "spiritual" in the sense that it's non-physical. Nevertheless, mankind does connect with something that science can't explain physically at this time. I call it spiritual, if another word makes you more comfortable, I understand, but the connection is real, not imagined.

It seems arrogant that those who don't believe are god-haters, closed minded and unwilling to ask questions about god's existence because they don't like the answer....but you are of course open minded, willing to ask whatever questions, and have no worries about possible answers. It couldn't be that, having decided you already know the answers, you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being, no!

I am open minded, I am willing to examine all the spiritual evidence and physical evidence, and evaluate objectively. I can't do this with closed-minded people who refuse to accept spiritual evidence, there is no point.

I didn't decide I knew the answers, there are many things I do not know. I do not require anymore answers with regard to the question of god's existence. That is a completely different statement, and you've taken it out of context in order to ridicule me. Do you love your mother? Is there any need for you to ponder the question? Do you need to evaluate evidence to decide, or is your mind made up? What if I don't believe you? What if you've not convinced me with evidence you love your mother? If you don't want or need to prove this to me, are you being closed-minded?

Three quick things.

First, you have said that in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual. That is not the case for observing a rock fall. Your continued harping on the 70k year thing aside, that's a huge difference.

Second, whether I love my mother or not is subject to change. Is your belief in god's existence subject to change? If not, your analogy falls flat.

Third, my point about you deciding you know the answers is not just about a particular statement you've made, but the sum of what you've posted in this thread. Your evidence for almost everything you've claimed about the spiritual boils down to, 'because I say so.'. You seem as convinced of the veracity of your claims as anyone else, yet because others disagree with you, they are closed minded and afraid of the answers they may receive, yet you are not. That continues to seem like arrogant double standard to me.

 

[daws101]

Are you that dense we argued this in the other thread lol. Still waiting on you to show what I quoted how it was not accurate as you claimed.

I already did..

You posted nonsense.

ah no, that's your job!

 

[daws101]

Ms daws is copying and pasting like there is no tomorrow now if he quotes anything that sounds sort of intelligent better check it if he does not credit the source.

but I did credit the source .unlike yourself.. bahahahahahaha!

How many times have you not ? do I detect someone really defensive.

lol! like everything else you claim to detect it has no basis in fact.

 

[Mom]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.

Self esteem issue huh? ♫ ♫

 

[daws101]

Why can't you just say no there is no life out there as far as we know ?

why can't you say I have no proof there isn't life out there?

Why should I ? is there life out there ?

now you're contradicting yourself. you've yammered endlessly that earth is special and there is no life anywhere else. With absolutely no evidence of any kind.

the bible even refutes your bullshit:

Does the discovery of life on other planets contradict with religions?
answer:

No, if life is discovered on other planets then it will not contradict with religions.

Below are opinions from view points of different religions:

A. In the Islamic religion:
•It is mentioned in Quran, Muslim's holy book, that God (the Creator) is the Lord of all worlds. God says in Quran that God is the Lord of what we know and what we don't. God says in Quran that we have known only little. Accordingly, nothing in Quran or Islam religions contradicts with the possibility of discovering life on other planets. God says in Quran (meaning English translation):
•{In the name of Allah (God), the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. (1) [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds...} [Quran, chapter 1, verse 1-2]
•{To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil. (6)} [Quran, chapter 20, verse 6]
•{And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." (85)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 85]
•{The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving. (44)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 44]
•There is a religious explanation, even before such discoveries, revise these verses:
{28. And He it is Who sendeth down the saving rain after they have despaired, and spreadeth out His mercy. He is the Protecting Friend, the Praiseworthy. 29. And of His portents is the creation of the heaven and the earth, and of whatever beasts He hath dispersed therein. And He is Able to gather them when He will.}[quoted from, Meanings of the Golrious Quran, by Marmaduke Pickthall]
Here the mention of Heavens and earth, meant the whole universe,
•{12. Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge.}So, for certain there is life on other parts of the universe, whether we discovered this or not.




The above Quran verses confirm that we still don't know except a little and that God is the Creator of all worlds what we know and what we don't. Accordingly, discovering life on other planets doesn't contradict with Quran or with Islam religion.

B. In the Christian religion:
•There is nothing in the Bible that says God created life only on this planet. Doesn't even rule out other intelligent life in the universe. But after seeing the mess we created in this world, He would probably not try again.
•Most certainly. The Bible speaks nothing of life on other planets, though some may craft an explantion through through vague references and loose endings. However, the fact remains that would seriously hinder Christian credibility as an absolute religion whose implications are universal. What I think is more interesting is that this does not rule out the existence of God as creator, merely the existence of a God we thought we knew. This discovery would force us as an entire race to seriously question our faith - at least where we rest our faith - because a discovery like that would prove beyond doubt many religions false.
•The original unadulterated idea of God transmitted to us by Adam through Noah is one of having no form, no physical or natural bounds, one beyond perception and even conception (the imagination). That theology is completely invulnerable and impervious to a discovery of life at another location. Only theologies which are self (human)-centric could be weakened by such a discovery.
•Read the Scriptures as God speaks to Abraham. He says that he has created worlds without end. The Scriptures do not say that life and God's children are restricted to just this earth. If God would create one world where Billions have lived, why would He not create another place, where more of His children can be tested whether they will follow what is right or not. There are Christian churches that use other holy Christian writings as well as those gathered into 'The Bible'. Certain of those writings reveal that God has created "worlds without number" ... and "the inhabitants thereof are as numberless as the sands upon the seashore" [Moses 1:28] ... 'and the inhabitants thereof, are begotten sons and daughters unto God', ... "But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you ... For behold there are many worlds ..." [Moses 1:35] Here is also a scientific way to test the truthfulness of the Gospel. Put it to the test. Exercise a little faith, read the scriptures, pray about it and wait for answer. And when you receive the answer, feed it and let it grow. It's an experiment. Try it. (And to express an idea that God has killed millions is incorrect. We have the freedom to choose; it's a sacred right. We are judged by those choices. We are free to choose and those who have decided to murder suffer their choices.)
•The simple answer is no. God has no limits, and the only limit in religion is the mind of man, who is unable to comprehend this. The real answer is: the Baha'i Faith teaches that there are an infinity of other planets out there, and each is alive with God's creatures. They may be very unlike us, but they exist.
•For some religions, the answer would be "we already knew that". For most others, the answer would be "we already knew that, it's just that you misunderstood us before".
•I do not think that it would debunk religion. Science and religion serve VERY different needs of humanity, religion is a matter of faith; faith is belief without proof. Science is a tool to understand our surroundings and has zero room for "faith". I do not think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.
•Actually, the Bible itself says there is intelligent life other than man. There are intelligent beings called angels, cherubim, seraphim, there are the four beasts which stand before the throne of God. The Bible is full of "life on other planets." Also, Christian writers in the last century wrote many sci-fi stories about encountering life on other planets, etc. Some were better than others, but the concept is not foreign to Orthodox Christianity. And if you incorporate Christian fantasy writings such as The Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, the treatment of the idea of intelligence other than man is even more fully developed. The "problem" posed by the possibility of life on other planets is mostly a moral question. If there are other beings, do they have to obey the same rules as we do? What if their religion were contradictory to ours? Would that challenge the truth of ours? If they experienced a "fall" as our first ancestors did, do they need redemption? In fact, I once heard about a sci-fi story written by a non-Christian author (I have not read it) in which humans land on a planet and Jesus is there getting ready to die on the cross. Several of the earthmen try to stop His execution but Jesus won't let them. He tells them it's necessary for Him to die there, just as He had to die on earth.
•In every single religious book eg. "Bible" it doesn't say that life doesn't exist on other planets. But in most religious books it states that there are nine planets eg. Mercury, which have life on them... Life being some form eg. Bacteria, not necessarily "Aliens" and in my personal opinion UFO's are a load of CRAP, you can see in UFO sighting pics and videos that its all rubbish. But religions' explanation would be along the lines of what it says in their religious books.
•The Bible does mention life in other planets that has not gotten corrupted by sin like in earth.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_discovery_of_life_on_other_planets_contradict_with_religions

this is another case of you. casting god in your own image.

 

[daws101]

Your math should be suffice to follow along and show that what you posted is nonsense.


http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

this is one of those pseudoscience religious dogma sites nothing they say is based on fact.
my math tells me you and them are talking out your collective ass.
but thanks for helping me showcase your fraudulent knowledge of science.

Your math skills are poor as was pointed out in the other thread take a hike dumbass.

 

[daws101]

You resorted to plagiarism in the creationism thread as well daws eh ?

Post of plagiarism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-1042.html#post6886253

Same ol source you use and don't credit. Amphora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

looks like you just broke you own rule...

 

[Boss]

The "70k years..." canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

I can understand your being angry at your specious opinions bring refuted, but why not counter opposing arguments with fact instead of pith and vinegar?

Because, that's what you're going to do, right?

You generously give yourself credit for defeating an argunent you aren't able to understand. You rattle on with terms such as "spirituality", for a failed attempt to promote religion.

Where are your facts refuting my argument? Sounds like another personal attack, full of pith and vinegar.

I think the truth is useful, of course, which is why it's useful to expose those who make unfounded, bellicose claims which they're unable to defend.

Again, I see no facts refuting anything I've said here.

Why do far fewer people believe in literal creationism now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

I don't know that this is a fact. Am I supposed to take your word for it?

Certainly, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creation hypothesis.

You still haven't proposed one.

In large part this was because the religious authorities had greater influence and managed to rigorously suppress the scientific community.

What science has been suppressed?

A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery.

There is still no naturalistic explanation for origin or cross-genus speciation. You still can't explain why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before it.

Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated.

Evolution does not explain origin, it never has. It can't even explain cross-genus speciation. There is no evidence this ever happened, much less, overwhelming evidence.

That was a positive development for humanity. I can’t imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.

It's a good thing you can't imagine such a world, since it doesn't exist, never has and never will. Humans are intrinsically connected to spirituality, not superstition and fear.

So there we have it, you simply did not refute my argument with facts. For the most part, you attacked me personally, then launched into religion and religious people. Which is what this thread is all about to you and the god-haters. You can't pull your minds away from religion long enough to be objective, like dogs returning to their vomit.

 

[daws101]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.

Self esteem issue huh? ♫ ♫

yeah yours...

 

[daws101]

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

I can understand your being angry at your specious opinions bring refuted, but why not counter opposing arguments with fact instead of pith and vinegar?

Because, that's what you're going to do, right?



Where are your facts refuting my argument? Sounds like another personal attack, full of pith and vinegar.



Again, I see no facts refuting anything I've said here.



I don't know that this is a fact. Am I supposed to take your word for it?



You still haven't proposed one.



What science has been suppressed?



There is still no naturalistic explanation for origin or cross-genus speciation. You still can't explain why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before it.

Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated.

Evolution does not explain origin, it never has. It can't even explain cross-genus speciation. There is no evidence this ever happened, much less, overwhelming evidence.

That was a positive development for humanity. I can’t imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.

It's a good thing you can't imagine such a world, since it doesn't exist, never has and never will. Humans are intrinsically connected to spirituality, not superstition and fear.

So there we have it, you simply did not refute my argument with facts. For the most part, you attacked me personally, then launched into religion and religious people. Which is what this thread is all about to you and the god-haters. You can't pull your minds away from religion long enough to be objective, like dogs returning to their vomit.

this post is a prime example of the axiom "the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!"

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.

Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

Your fire analogy is flawed in the sense that the basic understanding of fire is knowing the ingredients needed to produce it (heat, fuel and oxygen). Understanding how heat passes from molecule to molecule and things like that has no bearing on a persons ability to use it.

(John20: 29 ) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[daws101]

Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

Your fire analogy is flawed in the sense that the basic understanding of fire is knowing the ingredients needed to produce it (heat, fuel and oxygen). Understanding how heat passes from molecule to molecule and things like that has no bearing on a persons ability to use it.

(John20: 29 ) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

that's not an answer.
faith requires action ,that is to say when someone takes on a faith, SPECIFIC rules and regulations are applied, if a person declines to follow those rules and regs, they are ousted from that belief system.
so faith in and of itself is not enough.

 

[Hollie]

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

I can understand your being angry at your specious opinions bring refuted, but why not counter opposing arguments with fact instead of pith and vinegar?

Because, that's what you're going to do, right?



Where are your facts refuting my argument? Sounds like another personal attack, full of pith and vinegar.



Again, I see no facts refuting anything I've said here.



I don't know that this is a fact. Am I supposed to take your word for it?



You still haven't proposed one.



What science has been suppressed?



There is still no naturalistic explanation for origin or cross-genus speciation. You still can't explain why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before it.

Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated.

Evolution does not explain origin, it never has. It can't even explain cross-genus speciation. There is no evidence this ever happened, much less, overwhelming evidence.

That was a positive development for humanity. I can’t imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.

It's a good thing you can't imagine such a world, since it doesn't exist, never has and never will. Humans are intrinsically connected to spirituality, not superstition and fear.

So there we have it, you simply did not refute my argument with facts. For the most part, you attacked me personally, then launched into religion and religious people. Which is what this thread is all about to you and the god-haters. You can't pull your minds away from religion long enough to be objective, like dogs returning to their vomit.

That's all very melodramatic but the "angry fundamentalist" thing is getting old. .

Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didn’t understand. The Abrahamic god of the desert is more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why your god(s) are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But it's all gainsay.

The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion about something you call "spirituality" but are unable to define in any meaningful way. It seems you're actually using terms you don't understand to press your fundamentalist religious agenda. You like to make the claim to mysterious, supernatural "spiritual" connections and that humans have always had an inherent hard-wiring to this mumbo-jumbo so hey-- why don't you show us all the evidence that places your alleged spirit realms into a meaningful context?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You have nothing. Got it.

I have more than you could ever imagine.

So then give me 3. Or are you just a faker?

Many times I have stood at a crossroad unsure of which direction to turn. I asked God to guide me and He did. Many times I was faced with death, I asked God to save me and he did. I stood and watched as God comforted my Mother as she lay dying, I seen how He took away her pain and gave her clarity so that she could tell us (her children) things we needed to hear.

To truly appreciate the way God has helped me and has shown Himself to me is to know from where I came and the hardships that I've faced. His guiding hand lead me off of the self destructive path I was on. Through his grace I was able to not only help myself but all that I came into contact with. I seek no glory nor fame for anything I've done in this life for all the glory belongs to Him.

Hopefully the day will come when you accept Jesus Christ and you invite the Holy Spirit into your heart because on that very day, you will come to understand God's grace and He will reveal to you His plan for your life.

 

[Boss]

Three quick things.

First, you have said that in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual. That is not the case for observing a rock fall. Your continued harping on the 70k year thing aside, that's a huge difference.

I never said "in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual" that is a misinterpretation. You can certainly observe the spiritual and reject the belief it is spiritual. Just as you can see the rock fall, we can see human history and connection to spiritual belief. Our conclusions for what we observed are different.

Second, whether I love my mother or not is subject to change. Is your belief in god's existence subject to change? If not, your analogy falls flat.

My belief in god is not subject to change. My analogy only fails if I were trying to say something different. I don't know about you, but most people are going to always love their mother, that's not ever going to change. My point was, you can't prove this to me, and you have no need to prove it to me. If I don't believe you, it doesn't change your love for your mother. I can challenge you, ridicule you, demand physical evidence, it won't change what you know in your heart to be true.

Third, my point about you deciding you know the answers is not just about a particular statement you've made, but the sum of what you've posted in this thread. Your evidence for almost everything you've claimed about the spiritual boils down to, 'because I say so.'. You seem as convinced of the veracity of your claims as anyone else, yet because others disagree with you, they are closed minded and afraid of the answers they may receive, yet you are not. That continues to seem like arrogant double standard to me.

Well I am sorry that I am so well-informed and well-equipped to debate the topic of my thread. In the future, I will try to start threads where you can make valid points that I can't refute, so you will feel better about things. I've not once posted "because I say so" in this thread, I'm not sure where you are reading this, but please give some example so we can clear up this misinterpretation as well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

the classic dodge!

Not a dodge, just an understanding of the mentality of people like her and you.

You need God to reveal Himself to you before you will ever believe. Which is quite odd seeing that you already believe so much that has not been proven.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

I don't know if he exists, but if he does and we're made in his image, god's a fucking retard.

Self esteem issue huh? ♫ ♫

yeah yours...

She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

 

[Mom]

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

the classic dodge!

Not a dodge, just an understanding of the mentality of people like her and you.

You need God to reveal Himself to you before you will ever believe. Which is quite odd seeing that you already believe so much that has not been proven.

Leave the poor boy alone, he's got nothing.

 

[dblack]

Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

For the kind of understanding I'm proposing, it does. The fire analogy is appropriate. You're describing what is required to use and experience religion, as opposed to understanding it.