What would you accept as proof for G-d existing?

[Meriweather]

The gap between rich and rest of us led to the French revolution. It also led to the church losing it's power.

People are realizing religion has been forced on us for hundreds of years. So long we don't need it forced on us we want it.

Religion is "forced" on people the way clothing is forced on people--i.e., it is not force, it is a choice. True non-believers have had to live with believers all throughout time. And, believers have always had to live amidst non-believers.

There is a skewed way of looking at religion, accusing it to be all about control and power. Religion is not about control and power, but those who are about control and power have ever tried to use religion to gain them that control and power. Rather, religion is about service, and it is about discovering where God might be found. (Clue, not in your microwave.)

 

[Mudda]

The gap between rich and rest of us led to the French revolution. It also led to the church losing it's power.

People are realizing religion has been forced on us for hundreds of years. So long we don't need it forced on us we want it.

Religion is "forced" on people the way clothing is forced on people--i.e., it is not force, it is a choice. True non-believers have had to live with believers all throughout time. And, believers have always had to live amidst non-believers.

There is a skewed way of looking at religion, accusing it to be all about control and power. Religion is not about control and power, but those who are about control and power have ever tried to use religion to gain them that control and power. Rather, religion is about service, and it is about discovering where God might be found. (Clue, not in your microwave.)

God is in the joint that I'm about to smoke.

 

[sealybobo]

The gap between rich and rest of us led to the French revolution. It also led to the church losing it's power.

People are realizing religion has been forced on us for hundreds of years. So long we don't need it forced on us we want it.

Religion is "forced" on people the way clothing is forced on people--i.e., it is not force, it is a choice. True non-believers have had to live with believers all throughout time. And, believers have always had to live amidst non-believers.

There is a skewed way of looking at religion, accusing it to be all about control and power. Religion is not about control and power, but those who are about control and power have ever tried to use religion to gain them that control and power. Rather, religion is about service, and it is about discovering where God might be found. (Clue, not in your microwave.)

God is in the joint that I'm about to smoke.

God is in my balls. Every time I nut I have to call out his name.

Or god is responsible every time I stub my toe or get run over by a car because those are the times I call out his name. Or when I'm scared.

 

[sealybobo]

The gap between rich and rest of us led to the French revolution. It also led to the church losing it's power.

People are realizing religion has been forced on us for hundreds of years. So long we don't need it forced on us we want it.

Religion is "forced" on people the way clothing is forced on people--i.e., it is not force, it is a choice. True non-believers have had to live with believers all throughout time. And, believers have always had to live amidst non-believers.

There is a skewed way of looking at religion, accusing it to be all about control and power. Religion is not about control and power, but those who are about control and power have ever tried to use religion to gain them that control and power. Rather, religion is about service, and it is about discovering where God might be found. (Clue, not in your microwave.)

Is Islam about service?

 

[Meriweather]

Is Islam about service?

Keep in mind I know little about Islam--only a couple of key points. One of these points is that even the movement of moving a finger--or the desire to eat--is the will of God. If it had not been the will of God to set off that bomb in Manchester, it never would have happened. If one finds him/herself in the mood to build a bomb, that is the will of God. No good. No evil. Simply the will of God. If it is the will of God that a person be helped, then that person will be helped. If it is not the will of God, then that person will not be helped. There is no free will. No good. No evil. The only thing is existence is the will of God.

The second point I know: The only reading material needed is the Quran. A book that contains anything in the Quran is superfluous. A book that contains anything outside of the Quran is not needed.

The American Muslims I know have a different focus. The ones I know keep their focus on the peaceful tenets of Islam and sincere worship of God. Some are even willing to entertain the idea of cause and effect but tend to keep a hold on the idea it still boils down to God's will. (God wills the cause, God wills the effect and it still couldn't happen without God's direct intervention.)

 

[sealybobo]

Is Islam about service?

Keep in mind I know little about Islam--only a couple of key points. One of these points is that even the movement of moving a finger--or the desire to eat--is the will of God. If it had not been the will of God to set off that bomb in Manchester, it never would have happened. If one finds him/herself in the mood to build a bomb, that is the will of God. No good. No evil. Simply the will of God. If it is the will of God that a person be helped, then that person will be helped. If it is not the will of God, then that person will not be helped. There is no free will. No good. No evil. The only thing is existence is the will of God.

The second point I know: The only reading material needed is the Quran. A book that contains anything in the Quran is superfluous. A book that contains anything outside of the Quran is not needed.

The American Muslims I know have a different focus. The ones I know keep their focus on the peaceful tenets of Islam and sincere worship of God. Some are even willing to entertain the idea of cause and effect but tend to keep a hold on the idea it still boils down to God's will. (God wills the cause, God wills the effect and it still couldn't happen without God's direct intervention.)

You said religion is about service. So is Islam about service? It is a religion you know. So don't tell me that religion is about service if that is not true. Are you referring to your one particular religion?

3.3 million muslims living in the USA in 2015. That number is expected to double by 2050. Are these 6.6 million muslims going to be all about service?

 

[hobelim]

One of these points is that even the movement of moving a finger--or the desire to eat--is the will of God. If it had not been the will of God to set off that bomb in Manchester, it never would have happened. If one finds him/herself in the mood to build a bomb, that is the will of God. No good. No evil. Simply the will of God. If it is the will of God that a person be helped, then that person will be helped. If it is not the will of God, then that person will not be helped. There is no free will. No good. No evil. The only thing is existence is the will of God.

How convenient. If there is no free will, no good, no evil, only the will of God then no matter what happens one could say, it was the will of God.

Sounds great, albeit a bit deranged, but its completely untrue. why do people punish other people for doing evil if evil is the will of God einstein?

I heard that it is Gods will for peace, love, truth and prosperity for the people of this planet, to heal and give life,not to maim and end life.

If someone builds a bomb and blows up innocent people it is the will of that person or the devil who deceived them to do such an evil thing that is against the expressed will of God.


Is it evidence for the will of God that you perjure yourself in his name or it is evidence of your cowardice and contempt for the truth??

 

[Meriweather]

You said religion is about service. So is Islam about service? It is a religion you know. So don't tell me that religion is about service if that is not true. Are you referring to your one particular religion?

3.3 million muslims living in the USA in 2015. That number is expected to double by 2050. Are these 6.6 million muslims going to be all about service?

I was speaking of Judaism and Christianity, and then Islam was introduced, so I am trying to explain the differences in perception of service. Judaism and Christianity acknowledge that choices man makes are of their own will, and that people should align their own will to God's will. Often Christians will remark that they could do nothing without the grace of God; or that it was by the grace of God something happened to them. When it appears all is falling apart, Christians and Jews will often examine the situation to see how obedient (or disobedient) they had been to God. Islam sees it as more black and white. All is the will of God. God directs people into the service of His will.

Muslims see themselves as servants, even slaves of God. They have no will. All is God's will. This perspective of service is very different from Judaism and Christianity. Judaism and Christianity see service as an act of individual will. Muslims see any service as an act of God's will. In other words, don't expect Muslims to serve you. If it is God's will, you will be served. If no one helps you, that is because God willed it that way.

 

[Meriweather]

How convenient. If there is no free will, no good, no evil, only the will of God then no matter what happens one could say, it was the will of God.

Sounds great, albeit a bit deranged, but its completely untrue. why do people punish other people for doing evil if evil is the will of God einstein?

I heard that it is Gods will for peace, love, truth and prosperity for the people of this planet, to heal and give life,not to maim and end life.

If someone builds a bomb and blows up innocent people it is the will of that person or the devil who deceived them to do such an evil thing that is against the expressed will of God.

Is it evidence for the will of God that you perjure yourself in his name or it is evidence of your cowardice and contempt for the truth??

It has nothing to do with being convenient. It has to do with perception. When a person is raised with the perception that they choose right or wrong, then they are apt to fight against wrong impulses. If a person is raised with the perception that God will use each individual as He wills--that you cannot lift a finger or even experience hunger without that being the will of God, then when the idea of killing someone enters the mind...will of God because otherwise that thought would not be there, just as feeling hunger would not be there if it weren't for the will of God.

 

[danielpalos]

I ask this of myself all the time. What event or occurence would stand out from natural phenomenae and be an unmistakle indication of an all-powerful conscious G-d doing something?

If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating for a day or so then started up again, I'd take that as proof of G-d.

An angel materializing before me would suffice as well. Thought I encountered one way back, but think it was just a really beautiful woman I passed in a hallway and our eyes met for a moment. I actually stopped in my tracks awestruck.

You know, things like that.

States of Religion being economic Power Houses due to having the, "Red Tape" only Ten Commandments from a God.

 

[hobelim]

And on that day, my response will be, "Because I have a brain. I lived my life according to reason, and logic, not emotion, and fuzzy warm feelings. Now, where's the beer?"

And if your brain failed you? I mean, sometimes my brain fails me at higher mathematics. I have to live my life with that failing. Would you consider saying, "My brain failed me, and I had to live my life with that failing. I did the best I could."

Nonsense.


If you couldn't muster enough intellectual acuity to know that a human being never was or became God either before during or after their human existence then you really never even tried.


If your brain failed you it failed you because it had become defiled and contaminated with irrational superstitious archaic lore and the specious falsehoods of men inspired by demons.

So your inspiring God to you is just that but others have a differing opinion,one has to look at different religions for a start....lets take Catholicism for starters....the first Popes were not religious MEN(emphasis as Women are not really given much credence in that body) but LAWYERS....but I digress...all religions are responsible for utmost VIOLENCE throughout history...today we concentrate on ISIS and their lacky's...but all religions have been exactly the same.....all have the best God according to them.

A violent God at that.....steve

Thanks steve but I think you have confused what people who do not think very deeply have claimed to be true about God with what God must be like in reality to qualify as a benevolent and loving supreme being; the source, goal, and sustainer of all life.


The truth is most religions worship a god that reflects their own perversions. Yeah, a violent and detestable god.


Try this.

Use your imagination in a rational way and think about what God must logically be like if he exists, incorporeal, uncreated, rational, intelligent, constant, loving, etc., then raise your eyes and study each religion that ever was and see if any person in history ever promoted a God that conforms to your own rational conclusions about how God must belike if he exists at all.

I'll wager anything that you will discover that only Jesus spoke about such a God.

The problem seems to be that Christians don't know what the hell Jesus was talking about and consequently have turned to a false image of god that reflects their own perversions.

 

[hobelim]

How convenient. If there is no free will, no good, no evil, only the will of God then no matter what happens one could say, it was the will of God.

Sounds great, albeit a bit deranged, but its completely untrue. why do people punish other people for doing evil if evil is the will of God einstein?

I heard that it is Gods will for peace, love, truth and prosperity for the people of this planet, to heal and give life,not to maim and end life.

If someone builds a bomb and blows up innocent people it is the will of that person or the devil who deceived them to do such an evil thing that is against the expressed will of God.

Is it evidence for the will of God that you perjure yourself in his name or it is evidence of your cowardice and contempt for the truth??

It has nothing to do with being convenient. It has to do with perception. When a person is raised with the perception that they choose right or wrong, then they are apt to fight against wrong impulses. If a person is raised with the perception that God will use each individual as He wills--that you cannot lift a finger or even experience hunger without that being the will of God, then when the idea of killing someone enters the mind...will of God because otherwise that thought would not be there, just as feeling hunger would not be there if it weren't for the will of God.

All I can say is that I am grateful that I do not have to go through life with all of that crap in my head.

And it wasn't the will of God, it was my own deliberate decision and a conscious use of life, the application of my own will, guaranteed by the Divine, that equipped me to diligently stand guard over the purity of my own mind..

 

[Meriweather]

All I can say is that I am grateful that I do not have to go through life with all of that crap in my head.

And it wasn't the will of God, it was my own deliberate decision and the conscious use of life, my own will, that was applied and equipped me to diligently stand guard over the purity of my own mind..

Keep in mind there are millions of Muslims who are people with very good hearts who go quietly about their lives crediting God for the good that He does and seeing themselves only as humble servants or even slaves of the Almighty.

Sometimes scholars can be the worst enemies of religion because they have this very bad habit of trying to overthink philosophies and intangibles. There seems to be a feeling that a true answer lies in the absolute. For example, if God made everything, then God made evil, God is not evil, therefore the absolute must be there is no good or evil, there is only God's will. However, if the absolute can be an error, where should we stand? I am in favor of searching out the balance, the fulcrum point.

 

[hobelim]

There seems to be a feeling that a true answer lies in the absolute. For example, if God made everything, then God made evil, God is not evil, therefore the absolute must be there is no good or evil, there is only God's will. However, if the absolute can be an error, where should we stand? I am in favor of searching out the balance, the fulcrum point.

I think a great error that people make in their speculations is based entirely on misunderstanding the story of the creation.


If you read it carefully you will find that before God said, "let there be light' the world was already in existence for billions of years indicated by the sentence, " The earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep".. meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

The story is about a time about 6000 years ago when God established in a world overrun with knuckle dragging barbarians law, like a light in the dark, that separates good from evil.

What this shows is that the story of creation is not about God creating the planet or solar system. Its about when God appeared and revealed to human beings the concept of a world above and a world below, heaven and earth, the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, clean and unclean, and established a deeper meaning to our understanding of life and death.

So, in a way God did create good and evil by teaching people to learn how to distinguish between the two, but this does not mean that evil or death is the will of God.

Remember?

Choose life and live.

 

[Meriweather]

There seems to be a feeling that a true answer lies in the absolute. For example, if God made everything, then God made evil, God is not evil, therefore the absolute must be there is no good or evil, there is only God's will. However, if the absolute can be an error, where should we stand? I am in favor of searching out the balance, the fulcrum point.

I think a great error that people make in their speculations is based entirely on misunderstanding the story of the creation.


If you read it carefully you will find that before God said, "let there be light' the world was already in existence for billions of years indicated by the sentence, " The earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep".. meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

The story is about a time about 6000 years ago when God established in a world overrun with knuckle dragging barbarians law, like a light in the dark, that separates good from evil.

What this shows is that the story of creation is not about God creating the planet or solar system. Its about when God appeared and revealed to human beings the concept of a world above and a world below, heaven and earth, the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, clean and unclean, and established a deeper meaning to our understanding of life and death.

So, in a way God did create good and evil by teaching people to learn how to distinguish between the two, but this does not mean that evil or death is the will of God.

Remember?

Choose life and live.

I may see it a bit differently. Take a look at the birth of a star. It starts with dust in a void. Quite a long time goes by before light exists. Which, ironically enough, is what the original Hebrew says: Light, exist. We see God creating light with these words, but what we know of stars, God's creation started long before the light appeared. We can just as easily imagine God looking over what was already happening and say, "Ah, light!" an observation, not a command. (Picturing God more as a scientist than a magician.)

In either case, I find it a bit astonishing that ancient man realized (or was told) that light came later, and not first.

God saw that it was good. Sometimes I wonder if the Fall of Man was when man realized that not only could good be used for good--good could also be used for evil.

 

[BreezeWood]

There seems to be a feeling that a true answer lies in the absolute. For example, if God made everything, then God made evil, God is not evil, therefore the absolute must be there is no good or evil, there is only God's will. However, if the absolute can be an error, where should we stand? I am in favor of searching out the balance, the fulcrum point.

I think a great error that people make in their speculations is based entirely on misunderstanding the story of the creation.


If you read it carefully you will find that before God said, "let there be light' the world was already in existence for billions of years indicated by the sentence, " The earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep".. meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

The story is about a time about 6000 years ago when God established in a world overrun with knuckle dragging barbarians law, like a light in the dark, that separates good from evil.

What this shows is that the story of creation is not about God creating the planet or solar system. Its about when God appeared and revealed to human beings the concept of a world above and a world below, heaven and earth, the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, clean and unclean, and established a deeper meaning to our understanding of life and death.

So, in a way God did create good and evil by teaching people to learn how to distinguish between the two, but this does not mean that evil or death is the will of God.

Remember?

Choose life and live.

.

The earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep".. meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

hobelim: - meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

the fact is this is earth 6001 years ago ... after 3.48 billion years of life preceding the above image ...

Its about when God appeared and revealed to human beings the concept of a world above and a world below, heaven and earth, the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, clean and unclean, and established a deeper meaning to our understanding of life and death.

that awful 4th century book is what needs correcting not the reality of Garden Earth -

what is your source from the image above humanity has a distinction not shared by all other living beings, hob.

 

[hobelim]

There seems to be a feeling that a true answer lies in the absolute. For example, if God made everything, then God made evil, God is not evil, therefore the absolute must be there is no good or evil, there is only God's will. However, if the absolute can be an error, where should we stand? I am in favor of searching out the balance, the fulcrum point.

I think a great error that people make in their speculations is based entirely on misunderstanding the story of the creation.


If you read it carefully you will find that before God said, "let there be light' the world was already in existence for billions of years indicated by the sentence, " The earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep".. meaning there was no law, no awareness of good or evil, right or wrong, and the absence of truth about life was covered by superstition - darkness covered the face of the deep.

The story is about a time about 6000 years ago when God established in a world overrun with knuckle dragging barbarians law, like a light in the dark, that separates good from evil.

What this shows is that the story of creation is not about God creating the planet or solar system. Its about when God appeared and revealed to human beings the concept of a world above and a world below, heaven and earth, the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, clean and unclean, and established a deeper meaning to our understanding of life and death.

So, in a way God did create good and evil by teaching people to learn how to distinguish between the two, but this does not mean that evil or death is the will of God.

Remember?

Choose life and live.

I may see it a bit differently. Take a look at the birth of a star. It starts with dust in a void. Quite a long time goes by before light exists. Which, ironically enough, is what the original Hebrew says: Light, exist. We see God creating light with these words, but what we know of stars, God's creation started long before the light appeared. We can just as easily imagine God looking over what was already happening and say, "Ah, light!" an observation, not a command. (Picturing God more as a scientist than a magician.)

In either case, I find it a bit astonishing that ancient man realized (or was told) that light came later, and not first.

God saw that it was good. Sometimes I wonder if the Fall of Man was when man realized that not only could good be used for good--good could also be used for evil.

Still, I see the formation of stars as irrelevant to both the story and the teaching. It is well known that the Law came into the world as a light, a light that separates the darkness and teaches to distinguish between good and evil.

The fall of man can be summed up by what Jesus said,

"Here lies the test; The light has come into the world but men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil."

And yes, Rome, for instance, just like the talking serpent in the fairy tale, realized that the light, knowledge of the law, could be used for evil in 325 c.e.

Ever since then the power of death and the captivity of hell consequent to defying the divine commands, the light, was used to deceive and subjugate the nations for the past millennia by making openly defying divine law, desecrating the teachings of Jesus, and celebrating his torture and death a most holy obligation and the official religion of the empire.

Apparently, still works like a charm.

now you know why your brain has failed you.

 

[Czernobog]

No, I wouldn't. As has been demonstrated by many of the posts on this thread, there is no logical, rational, objective evidence of God, so there is no "failing" of my brain, but we're all just supposed to say, "Okay. I will ignore reason, and logic, and go with the warm fuzzies, instead,"

That's not a failing of my brain, that is your God, in this silly hypothetical, failing to provide the one thing that us sceptics would need to change our positions. That's on him, not me.

I was addressing the point where you were addressing God. In that scenario you were telling God, "I have a brain." All your life your brain had been telling you there is no God, but here you are in a scenario where you are facing God--and it never crosses your mind that in such a scenario it may have been your brain that failed?

You see, that's where you're wrong. My brain has been telling me that there is no evidence to support the position that God exists. There's a difference. This is the position of rationalists, liked myself. When we say "There is no God", that is not a dogmatic position that "our brains" tell us. It is a default null position of science. In order to assert the existence of a thing, then objective evidence to support the existence of that thing must be observed. That simple.

If your god would like me to assert his existence, then all I need is objective, demonstrable evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Meriweather]

You see, that's where you're wrong. My brain has been telling me that there is no evidence to support the position that God exists. There's a difference. This is the position of rationalists, liked myself. When we say "There is no God", that is not a dogmatic position that "our brains" tell us. It is a default null position of science. In order to assert the existence of a thing, then objective evidence to support the existence of that thing must be observed. That simple.

If your god would like me to assert his existence, then all I need is objective, demonstrable evidence to support that assertion.

I understand how you arrived at your conclusions. I was simply curious about the scenario you presented, of you, an atheist, face-to-face with God and informing Him your brain had led you to the logical conclusion God did not exist. Obviously, if you were face-to-face with God, it turned out He did exist, but it seems even if this were so, there would still be no admission from you that your brain failed in its conclusion about God.

 

[Czernobog]

You see, that's where you're wrong. My brain has been telling me that there is no evidence to support the position that God exists. There's a difference. This is the position of rationalists, liked myself. When we say "There is no God", that is not a dogmatic position that "our brains" tell us. It is a default null position of science. In order to assert the existence of a thing, then objective evidence to support the existence of that thing must be observed. That simple.

If your god would like me to assert his existence, then all I need is objective, demonstrable evidence to support that assertion.

I understand how you arrived at your conclusions. I was simply curious about the scenario you presented, of you, an atheist, face-to-face with God and informing Him your brain had led you to the logical conclusion God did not exist. Obviously, if you were face-to-face with God, it turned out He did exist, but it seems even if this were so, there would still be no admission from you that your brain failed in its conclusion about God.

That's just it. I never said my brain led me to the logical conclusion that God didn't exist. I said my brain informed me that there was no evidence that God does exist. You really seem to be having a hard time distinguishing the difference between those two statements.