questfortruth
Well-Known Member
A proof is the knowledge of the God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy.What is the proof?
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A proof is the knowledge of the God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy.What is the proof?
Some balanced things are not moving with acceleration, not evolving enough.Why is the other choice in voting "I hate it with all my heart"? Why not for balance have the other choice be "I love it more than my life"...?
And how to you prove something to something that doesn't (or may not) exist?A proof is the knowledge of the God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy.
That video seems to only be available in Russian. The subtitles, too, are ony in Russian.Hello, friends. I am a theoretical Physicists with the honor diplomas from the Church. I have the mind, which is guided by the hungry heart. Hungry for Love. Look, what I have:
The True Religion is Proven - YouTube
I think he linked a playlist rather than the actual video he meant. Copernicus linked the video earlier and even provided a helpful transcription of it:That video seems to only be available in Russian. The subtitles, too, are ony in Russian.
It is not too hard to add subtitles in English to, at least, the shorter videos of that list, but that would need someone with proficiency of both languages to help.
I think that you have to look at the "proof" as a variant of presuppositional apologetics. That is, one cannot really question the assumption that God exists, so existence automatically becomes the first premise in a proof, which of course makes it a circular proof. The idea that one cannot prove anything to people, only to God, is just tacked on as a way of reinforcing the claim that there can be no argument over God's existence. It amounts to just a bald, unsupported assertion that God exists. The argument is not designed to counter atheism, but to reinforce existing belief.Thanks. As proofs go, it is gloriously circular and unconvincing.
In fairness, Aquinas' did not make a much better case and people keep presenting his work as arguments for the existence of God.
Many fields. Do you like to read the discoveries?
How can I serve you? Through a Personal Messages?Nope.I have a question .....
Start with imagination.And how to you prove something to something that doesn't (or may not) exist?
So you wanted to give a push toward the answer you wanted by providing a supremely negative choice along with a normal positive choice?Some balanced things are not moving with acceleration, not evolving enough.
The faith in God is subconsciously inside every one of us. That is why the proof seems to be circular. It is impossible to fight the "false atheism", because the "false atheism" is the ABSOLUTE denial. The people, however, do stick to the God at least a tiny bit.I think that you have to look at the "proof" as a variant of presuppositional apologetics. That is, one cannot really question the assumption that God exists, so existence automatically becomes the first premise in a proof, which of course makes it a circular proof. The idea that one cannot prove anything to people, only to God, is just tacked on as a way of reinforcing the claim that there can be no argument over God's existence. It amounts to just a bald, unsupported assertion that God exists. The argument is not designed to counter atheism, but to reinforce existing belief.
No it's not.The faith in God is subconsciously inside every one of us.
I don't know how much truth there is in there. But it is a rather bold premise to have before claiming to have a "proof" of the existence of God.The faith in God is subconsciously inside every one of us.
No. It seems to be circular because it is very much circular.That is why the proof seems to be circular.
It is impossible to fight the "false atheism", because the "false atheism" is the ABSOLUTE denial.
In other words, you expect people to admit to being believers in God because they have awareness of the concept?The people, however, do stick to the God at least a tiny bit.
So God is purely the result of imagination?Start with imagination.
Atheism and theism are opposite sides of the same coin. There is no "absolute" belief in either, because we weigh both sides of a claim. Your argument cuts both ways, because neither of us can absolutely rule out our tiny doubts.The faith in God is subconsciously inside every one of us. That is why the proof seems to be circular. It is impossible to fight the "false atheism", because the "false atheism" is the ABSOLUTE denial. The people, however, do stick to the God at least a tiny bit.
Let me check the compository again: 3 videos are in English.
Without the God no proofs and no conclusions are possible to make. But latter sentence is a conclusion. So, the God exists.So God is purely the result of imagination?