Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
your psychopathic god acccording to you that see no problem murdering humans and make a book which is easily tampered with which shows his incompetence and callousness deserved to be ridiculed. now provide physical and observable evidence of your god instead of repeating yourself, and talking in metaphysical crap
As you wish, I will continue on what I have already provided as physical observable evidence of God;
The Milky Way - which includes Draco, Ursa Minor, Carina, Sextans, Pegasus, Sculptor, Fornax, Leo, Maffei, Andromeda and Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte, are all Galatic proofs of God.
The Sun
( Really any galatic or extragalatic nebulae are physical proofs of God)
The Cathedral of Light is a proof of God, including dark matter, halo, disk and bulge.
The componants of Bulge at their nucleus are sizzling proofs of God.
Massive darkness
Celestial illusion is proof of God ( such as those who claim this majestic created itself, such illusion is stellar proof of God)
\
The Orion Spur
The Milky Ways Heart
Sagittarius A
A Black Hole in a Doughnut
The Cosmic Menagerie
Quasars
All physical observable proofs of God, just to name a few.
Not proofs of your God, just observable objects. There is no correlation between their existence and your God, at all. You have simply been choosing random things, all through your thread.
First...For the jillionth time I've had to say this on this forum--I never said Ad pop indicated what was "TRUTH"...I said it typically indicated what "DOMINATED and RULED". Get that straight.
So you claim but the reality seems to show otherwise. When people are debating the point of gods existence you roll in with your populist point. This shows that EITHER you do think it a valid point to make on the truth claim of god OR you want to derail arguments about the truth claim of god with things you know are off topic and irrelevant. Either way it is poor form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
We DO KNOW that the mass/energy that DOES IN FACT EXIST
So what? Listing things we know exist is not evidence for a god. You are just saying there is a god and then listing some stuff. This is about as useful as me declaring fairies exist and then listing the ingredients of apple pie.
Have you got anything better than simply listing words for things you know exist? You know, some ACTUAL evidence perhaps?
Simple declaring some things exist and that god must have created them is called "Begging the question". You are assuming god exists and then using that assumption to evidence that god exists. Circular.
We DO KNOW that the mass/energy that DOES IN FACT EXIST...Creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."Controls" that which is created through "laws", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and Maintains and Sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know, that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It matters not whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining happened out of what some believe to be "chaos"...and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also matters not if this mass/energy has always existed and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it does exist.
And, by it's KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by labeling that which we know to exist (and has the attributes that we know to define a God) something other than the "God" that it is by definition...they then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
If you think there is evidence in the post you replied to that I am missing however then feel free to point it out.
Thanks, I know how to read a thread. I replied to the user. If you want to reply to me on your own then I am all ears. Alas the post you quote pretty much boils down to "Energy and Mass exist... therefore god".
Thanks, I know how to read a thread. I replied to the user. If you want to reply to me on your own then I am all ears. Alas the post you quote pretty much boils down to "Energy and Mass exist... therefore god".
Absurd. It specifies the minimum attributes that define a God and points to the evidence for them in our reality. Pretending not to see it and making an absurd summary conclusion is not refutation. The mantra we are refuting, remember, is that "there is not one shred of evidence or indication of a God." How do you maintain such an absurd stance in the face of the attributes delineated in the post?
Absurd. It specifies the minimum attributes that define a God and points to the evidence for them in our reality.
Then the user is pretty much sock puppeting your own views because this is just what we were talking about in another thread.
Basically it just involved defining god to be whatever fits the reality around you - all based on the assumption up front that there IS a god already. Such "reasoning" basically assumes there is a god and we just have to define its attributes correctly. I do not join either of you in making that assumption.
By all means invent hypotheses. This is a good thing. But just because one invents a hypothesis that fits some of the observed attributes of the universe - this does not mean the hypothesis is right or valid or even credible. More work needs to be done. The thread is about "How to prove god to yourself" not "How to best implement Confirmation Bias on your already held assumption that god exists".
Then the user is pretty much sock puppeting your own views because this is just what we were talking about in another thread.
Basically it just involved defining god to be whatever fits the reality around you - all based on the assumption up front that there IS a god already. Such "reasoning" basically assumes there is a god and we just have to define its attributes correctly. I do not join either of you in making that assumption.
Wrong yet again. The attributes themselves define and evidence the existence of God . . . not the other way around. We use the KNOWN attributes of our reality to conclude that it is a God relative to us. That constitues evidence for and indications of a God . . . which your preposterous mantra tries to ignore and claim does not exist.
Quote:
By all means invent hypotheses. This is a good thing. But just because one invents a hypothesis that fits some of the observed attributes of the universe - this does not mean the hypothesis is right or valid or even credible. More work needs to be done. The thread is about "How to prove god to yourself" not "How to best implement Confirmation Bias on your already held assumption that god exists".
My synthesis DOES create hypotheses using existing knowledge to suggest some of the currently unknown aspects consistent with known science. That has nothing to do with the separate existential issue of the existence of God, per se.
Wrong yet again. The attributes themselves define and evidence the existence of God . . . not the other way around.
Not at all. You are coming to look at the universe with the preconcieved idea there is a god and then just fitting the attributes to whatever way you define god. There is nothing in those attributes that - for example - suggests any kind of intelligence or intention or consciousness was behind their creation - let alone that any such things were _required_ for that creation.
You often try to get away with the language trick of just renaming everything "god" before later slipping in things like "The universe is conscious" or that Jesus was some manifestation of that consciousness. When I talk of "god" however I am talking about an entity which has intelligence, intentions and consciousness and you simply have not shown that there is any such thing - let alone that such a thing not only exists but is somehow required.
Not at all. You are coming to look at the universe with the preconcieved idea there is a god and then just fitting the attributes to whatever way you define god. There is nothing in those attributes that - for example - suggests any kind of intelligence or intention or consciousness was behind their creation - let alone that any such things were _required_ for that creation.
You often try to get away with the language trick of just renaming everything "god" before later slipping in things like "The universe is conscious" or that Jesus was some manifestation of that consciousness. When I talk of "god" however I am talking about an entity which has intelligence, intentions and consciousness and you simply have not shown that there is any such thing - let alone that such a thing not only exists but is somehow required.
You do not get to decide what are the only attributes that provide "a shred of evidence or an indication of God" using your PREFERRED beliefs. Everyone adds attributes and beliefs ABOUT God . . . but they do not determine the existence of God. That is a purely scientific issue based on minimal attributes as delineated in Gldn's post and so many others. So abandon the "there is not one shred of evidence or reason" crap and deal with the added attributes you demand separately from the existential question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
