How powerful would god need to be?

[ding]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

And this is how you enjoy life? By behaving this way?

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[Taz]

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle,

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

 

[Taz]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

And this is how you enjoy life? By behaving this way?

Who are you trying to convince?

I'm searching just like everyone else... You don't like my "behaviour" because I asked some tough questions and sometimes they make you realize that your answer WAS douche. And this makes you all angry. You're not the only one.

 

[ding]

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle,

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

 

[Taz]

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle,

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

 

[ding]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

And this is how you enjoy life? By behaving this way?

Who are you trying to convince?

I'm searching just like everyone else... You don't like my "behaviour" because I asked some tough questions and sometimes they make you realize that your answer WAS douche. And this makes you all angry. You're not the only one.

 

[Taz]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

And this is how you enjoy life? By behaving this way?

Who are you trying to convince?

I'm searching just like everyone else... You don't like my "behaviour" because I asked some tough questions and sometimes they make you realize that your answer WAS douche. And this makes you all angry. You're not the only one.

I agree, you are pretty funny.

 

[ding]

No idea why.

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

 

[ding]

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

And this is how you enjoy life? By behaving this way?

Who are you trying to convince?

I'm searching just like everyone else... You don't like my "behaviour" because I asked some tough questions and sometimes they make you realize that your answer WAS douche. And this makes you all angry. You're not the only one.

I agree, you are pretty funny.

Thank you. I try.

 

[Taz]

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

Like YOU'RE not here to entertain yourself!!!!

Yes, that's for sure part of it, but part of it is serious as well. It's just that you peeps give such whacky answers most of the time in the Religious forum that it becomes comical, don't lay all the blame on me for that!

 

[ding]

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

Like YOU'RE not here to entertain yourself!!!!

Yes, that's for sure part of it, but part of it is serious as well. It's just that you peeps give such whacky answers most of the time in the Religious forum that it becomes comical, don't lay all the blame on me for that!

Not in this forum, I'm not.

I don't lay any blame on you, Taz. Do whatever you want. That's between you and God.

And no, there are some exceptionally insightful posters and posting here. You seeing everything as comical just reveals your level of bias and dishonesty.

 

[Taz]

I think you're in the wrong thread because your answer lacks relevance.

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

Like YOU'RE not here to entertain yourself!!!!

Yes, that's for sure part of it, but part of it is serious as well. It's just that you peeps give such whacky answers most of the time in the Religious forum that it becomes comical, don't lay all the blame on me for that!

Not in this forum, I'm not.

I don't lay any blame on you, Taz. Do whatever you want. That's between you and God.

And no, there are some exceptionally insightful posters and posting here. You seeing everything as comical just reveals your level of bias and dishonesty.

I'm just looking for proof of God. None of you have any. Not my fault.

And God gave me free will, no strings attached. Too bad for you though. Maybe I can get you, hob, and Merri a new deal.

 

[ding]

Maybe you don't understand the relevance, Taz.

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

Like YOU'RE not here to entertain yourself!!!!

Yes, that's for sure part of it, but part of it is serious as well. It's just that you peeps give such whacky answers most of the time in the Religious forum that it becomes comical, don't lay all the blame on me for that!

Not in this forum, I'm not.

I don't lay any blame on you, Taz. Do whatever you want. That's between you and God.

And no, there are some exceptionally insightful posters and posting here. You seeing everything as comical just reveals your level of bias and dishonesty.

I'm just looking for proof of God. None of you have any. Not my fault.

And God gave me free will, no strings attached. Too bad for you though. Maybe I can get you, hob, and Merri a new deal.

Who are you trying to convince, Taz?

 

[Anathema]

I'm just looking for proof of God. None of you have any. Not my fault.

And God gave me free will, no strings attached.

Taz, you will never find PROOF of God's existence. At least not irrefutable, logic-based proof. If that's what you're looking for I'm sad to say you'll be disappointed.

Have you ever thought that maybe free will us a trap? Kind of like the old "If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" questions .

 

[zaangalewa]

... your god has yet to be proven ...

No. First of all: Everything is true, except it is wrong! With other words: Everything is true as long as it is not disproven. That's a paradigm of science. In our modern states for example everything is allowed - except it exists a concrete law which forbids something. That's the way we live.

Second: God is creator and not creation - except in Jesus, when god made himself to a part of the own creation too. But this phenomenon is to complex for your form to think in the moment - if I could call this "to think" at all, when you repeat standardized prejudices. Whatever. Natural science studies much more simple structures of the creation. Physics asks for example not even what are electrons - nor whether electrons exist at all. (No one ever saw any electron). It asks only what electrons are doing. It uses mathematical structures for such questions about the nature of the creation and the characteristics of such particles and makes predictions and tests this predictions in the reality with experiments.

What Stephen Hawkings says about his belief in god is in such a context not more important then this what a baker of pretzels says about god - in both cases is their belief in god and/or atheism completely independent from studying physics or baking pretzels.

 

[Taz]

Then please explain...

You are here to entertain yourself; to please yourself.

You can tell what people believe by what they do, not by what they say.

Like YOU'RE not here to entertain yourself!!!!

Yes, that's for sure part of it, but part of it is serious as well. It's just that you peeps give such whacky answers most of the time in the Religious forum that it becomes comical, don't lay all the blame on me for that!

Not in this forum, I'm not.

I don't lay any blame on you, Taz. Do whatever you want. That's between you and God.

And no, there are some exceptionally insightful posters and posting here. You seeing everything as comical just reveals your level of bias and dishonesty.

I'm just looking for proof of God. None of you have any. Not my fault.

And God gave me free will, no strings attached. Too bad for you though. Maybe I can get you, hob, and Merri a new deal.

Who are you trying to convince, Taz?

Nobody, just looking for proof, of which you have none.

 

[Taz]

I'm just looking for proof of God. None of you have any. Not my fault.

And God gave me free will, no strings attached.

Taz, you will never find PROOF of God's existence. At least not irrefutable, logic-based proof. If that's what you're looking for I'm sad to say you'll be disappointed.

Have you ever thought that maybe free will us a trap? Kind of like the old "If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" questions .

These peeps can even come up with anything remotely plausible, let alone real proof.

 

[Taz]

s

... your god has yet to be proven ...

No. First of all: Everything is true, except it is wrong! With other words: Everything is true as long as it is not disproven. That's a paradigm of science. In our modern states for example everything is allowed - except it exists a concrete law which forbids something. That's the way we live.

Second: God is creator and not creation - except in Jesus, when god made himself to a part of the own creation too. But this phenomenon is to complex for your form to think in the moment - if I could call this "to think" at all, when you repeat standardized prejudices. Whatever. Natural science studies much more simple structures of the creation. Physics asks for example not even what are electrons - nor whether electrons exist at all. (No one ever saw any electron). It asks only what electrons are doing. It uses mathematical structures for such questions about the nature of the creation and the characteristics of such particles and makes predictions and tests this predictions in the reality with experiments.

What Stephen Hawkings says about his belief in god is in such a context not more important then this what a baker of pretzels says about god - in both cases is their belief in god and/or atheism completely independent from studying physics or baking pretzels.

If this is your crude attempt to prove a god, you've just suffered an EPIC FAIL! Please try again.

 

[BreezeWood]

my response was in your comment about faith, not life experiences.

I find life experiences have a very high value in either strengthening or weakening Faithfulness in people. I know hey mist definitely have for me.

.

I find life experiences have a very high value in either strengthening or weakening Faithfulness in people. I know hey mist definitely have for me.

the subject was faith and how it is used as a shield rather than the means to come to a conclusion, you seemed to have agreed it is in itself a reality.

 

[Anathema]

These peeps can even come up with anything remotely plausible, let alone real proof.

They, and I, don't feel we need proof;definitive or otherwise; to support our beluefs. The only difference between them and me us thst I'm ot gonna sit here and try to change yoir mind.