How to prove God.

[YoursTrue]

Well, I’m a syncretist, I believe God is in every religion.

Don't the gods or whatever god a person is worshipping, differ in thought and concept and ways to worship?

 

[F1fan]

It's faith.

Yet faith is notoriously unreliable. With faith a person can justify anything, like the 9-11 hijackings and suicide/murder missions.

So explain why you think it's good to default to use "faith" for any decision.

You sound like a mind closed to the supernatural possibilities unless really strong evidence is given.

Quite the contrary. I'm very open to any phenomenon as a possibility. What I refuse to do is pretend possibilities are true and real when not only there's no evidence, but are even contrary to what is known about how things work in the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm more concerned about those who believe they found the truth and pound others with what they believe. These discussions are useful in how thinkers can challenge believers. and expose how the believers tend to have a truth that doesn't quite measure up.

That's an interesting thought, although it's also interesting that it is made rather clear in the Bible which god is which, and who is who among gods. But then, a person needs to believe that God hears and sees us. Can I account for everything right now? No. But I can say that I'm pretty sure pesticide may be used against cockroaches by most people without worrying too much about what the cockroach may or may not think about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a literalist. Let me explain how I reconcile my Christianity with my belief in Hinduism. Baha’u’llah, the founder of Baha’i, taught a syncretic philosophy in which he declared a many prophets of the past to be the authoritative. This included himself, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Krishna. I believe that Baha’u’llah was a prophet of God, and if he believes Krishna is too then I am to believe. Before my discovery of Baha’ism however, I read the Bhagavad Gita, it had a profound effect on my life and helped lift me out of dire circumstances. I interpret Brahman as the God I worship. When I read the Gita, I felt the presence of God and experienced His wisdom. Through experience, I authenticated Krishna.
I believe that the Bible teaches what all other religions teach, and that is God is Love is love is love.

Let me ask you a question did Bahau'llah say that God spoke to him?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a Baha'i and I also believe that.

So then, allow me to ask another question. Are all religions right?

 

[F1fan]

That's an interesting thought, although it's also interesting that it is made rather clear in the Bible which god is which, and who is who among gods.

The OT says God is jealous and tribal. In the NT God changes and becomes loving and redemptive. The Quran describes this God as even more different. The mormon Bible say other things, and the Urantia Book has over 2000 pages of excruciating detail of loads of things, including Jesus and other worlds and beings. Explain how this leads to clarity.

But then, a person needs to believe that God hears and sees us.

What need are you referring to? Why is this good?

Can I account for everything right now? No. But I can say that I'm pretty sure pesticide may be used against cockroaches by most people without worrying too much about what the cockroach may or may not think about it.

Well cockroaches don't think, but they do evolve with resistance to the pesticides. God's chosen?

 

[F1fan]

Fantasy often explains true reality better than scientists theories.

Give examples.

There's no facts in science, BTW.

So scientists are wrong when they refer to facts? Yes or no?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science often deals in facts, the boiling point of water being just one of them, many facts are often used to support a theory.

I'm just telling you what the scientists themselves say.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Give examples.



So scientists are wrong when they refer to facts? Yes or no?

Yes because their system isn't built on facts. It's built on evidence that can be modified when evidence is discovered.

Fantasy is often allegorical in nature, and as such, speaks to the human soul. What we see isn't the most real reality.

 

[F1fan]

Yes because their system isn't built on facts. It's built on evidence that can be modified when evidence is discovered.

So it's not a fact that hearts pump blood? Sodium and Chlorine are not facts about nature's elements? It's not a fact that these two elements are poisonous to humans? It's not a fact that mixing these two poisons results in table salt and is safe to consume?

Explain why these are not facts.

Fantasy is often allegorical in nature, and as such, speaks to the human soul. What we see isn't the most real reality.

This topic is about human perception which has many elements. In the most basic elements there are the senses, the sensory data transmitted to brains, and how our brains interpret the data. It's this last element that we can discuss in regards to what is a fantasy, and what is part of the actual environment.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So it's not a fact that hearts pump blood? Sodium and Chlorine are not facts about nature's elements? It's not a fact that these two elements are poisonous to humans? It's not a fact that mixing these two poisons results in table salt and is safe to consume?

Explain why these are not facts.


This topic is about human perception which has many elements. In the most basic elements there are the senses, the sensory data transmitted to brains, and how our brains interpret the data. It's this last element that we can discuss in regards to what is a fantasy, and what is part of the actual environment.

"In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."
"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D."

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

 

[YoursTrue]

The OT says God is jealous and tribal. In the NT God changes and becomes loving and redemptive. The Quran describes this God as even more different. The mormon Bible say other things, and the Urantia Book has over 2000 pages of excruciating detail of loads of things, including Jesus and other worlds and beings. Explain how this leads to clarity.



What need are you referring to? Why is this good?



Well cockroaches don't think, but they do evolve with resistance to the pesticides. God's chosen?

Not saying that God does not allow cockroaches to develop resistance, obviously he does. Some might argue with you who say cockroaches might think. But Jesus spoke of a great destruction coming to mankind at Matthew chapters 24.and 25. What do you think of that?

 

[Justanatheist]

Yes because their system isn't built on facts. It's built on evidence that can be modified when evidence is discovered.

"In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."
"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D."

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

I thought you might of done this, you have confused proofs with facts, now if you had said science does not deal with proofs or absolute truths then you would of been correct. No where in the article does it say that science does not deal in facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then, allow me to ask another question. Are all religions right?

That's a loaded question. I believe that all the religions that were revealed by a Messenger of God were true before men messed them up with many translations and then later misinterpreted the scriptures.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am using the FT argument in the context of cosmology.

for example if gravity would have been say 1% stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole, (there would have been no stars, no planets, no molecules no atoms etc) and therefore no life and no evolution.

You are still evading my main question. In recent posts you are saying you accept natural evolution but as the collection of multiple natural just random mutation events or at least that is how I interpreted your posts. Just so I am not misinterpreting, is that your interpretation without divine (ID) intervention or not?

 

[F1fan]

"In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."

So your quote to prove there are no facts in science is someone saying "In fact..."? That's helps proves my point. And cite no one who says that there no facts about nature that science uses.

"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D."

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

What you seem to be referring to is how results of tests in science are never 100%. Is this where you've been mistaken in your claims?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh boy. So you might as well not eat to avoid the risk of choking. But you have to eat to avoid the risk of starvation. You are trapped. What can you do except cry and pray?

Everyone has to eat in order to live but nobody has to have children. It's a choice that comes with a lot or work and certain risks. If people want the benefits of having children they have to accept the work and risks.

Almost as if your idea of god doesn't exist. What point is there to believe in a god that does nothing?

God does do something when it is in our best interests, but why would God alter a fate that is not in someone's best interest ?

But it does mean that you, and anyone else, CANNOT say what God is, or can or can't do, or refer to any gods as if they actually exist, etc. But you do this anyway as if you are a hypocrite. You admit we cannot prove a God exists but you feel free to explain what God is. That's what we call "full of ****".

A Messenger of God can say that God exists and what God is, as much as we are able to know about God. I just pass on that information.

When I say someone's who claims they experience a God is actually fantasizing about it because what they describe falls into the category of fantasy. They are never enlightened, not have found some sudden level of wisdom and intuition, or any sort of spiritual depth, etc. They are just repeating dogma they've learned from other similar theists.

These testimonies are not impressive. I use Occam's Razor and put forward the most likely explanation. You yourself should agree since you admit no one can prove a God exists. That would include the believer to him/herself.

I do not believe that anyone can ever "experience God" so I consider such a belief to be a fantasy. God is, and has from everlasting been, one and alone, self-subsisting, occupying the Seat of transcendent majesty, of supreme and inaccessible glory. That is why Jesus said that no one has ever seen God. The only way we can ever know about God is through His Messengers. They are the Tree beyond which there is no passing.

You can;'t refer to a God existing as a reality and then admit it cannot be proven. You can say the same thing about Elves or hobbits. There's no reality of these imaginary characters outside of fantasy and imagination. So again, you trap yourself. More crying and prayer for you.

You need to learn how to stop trapping yourself between competing ideas.

That is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not equivalent to Elves and hobbits (except in the mind of an atheist.) They are not equivalent because there is no reason to believe that Elves or hobbits exist because there is no evidence of Elves or hobbits. However, there is a reason to believe in God because evidence for God exists. The great religions and civilizations alone are the evidence. There would be no civilizations were it not for the various Messengers of God who have come to earth.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation’s life,—even as it is recorded in the Torah and confirmed in history that when the Jews became fettered by empty forms and imitations the wrath of God became manifest...” Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272

Here you go again, you can't have it both ways. Either a God exists or it doesn't. You can't keep admitting that we cannot know a God exists and then tell all about God. This makes you look foolish and terribly confused.

I never said that we cannot know that God exists, I said we cannot prove that God exists as a fact that everyone will accept, but we can know that God exists through the Messengers of God and the great religions and civilizations that were established because of them.. That is a logical proof.

The God people pray to is supposed to answer. That it doesn't either means it doesn't exist, or they are wrong about what they think the God is, which could be a cruel sociopath. Again, you describe how theists trap themselves with hope, and prayer, and dig themselves deeper into despair instead of taking charge of their own mental state of being.

Who said that God is supposed to answer? Do you set God's itinerary? Or it means you are wrong about what God is "supposed to do." If you could think logically you would figure out what God could not answer the prayers of all people giving them what they want. For one thing, what people want is not always in their best interests. For another thing what one person wants would interfere with what another person wants since they might want different things. We are all interconnected, so what one person does affects other people.

I don't mind a person seeking solace in times of serious heartbreak, it's truly a time when a person is not equipped to cope and get through a day. But I do not like people who approach every mundane day of life as if it is a crisis that a God has to soothe. I don't see that approach as healthy.

If a person is in a crisis they are in a crisis, and this has nothing to do with God. Some people turn to God in a crisis, some don't. I tend to handle my own crises. If I cry out for help, I know that I may or may not get help, and I accept that because I know that once I have done all I can do, my fate is in God's Hands. One never wins when they fight the Will of an omnipotent God.

 

[Bear Wild]

"In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility."
"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D."

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Great you discovered the power of science but do not understand it. So here is some thoughts to help.

A proof works for simple things that have a direct unalterable relationship. Mathematics which is not the real world fits this criteria. 1+1=2.

The world we live in is far too complex with so many variables that proofs are meaningless. Absolute truths are a fiction in humans brains and humans brains never really see reality (further information of the neuroscience of this can be discussed).
Science uses evidence that is tested and retested over and over again. The result is amazing unmatchable approximations of the reality. There is no other process that can approximate reality to any degree other than science.

Creationists love this idea because they hold that they have absolute truth and misuse the honesty of science to make false claims that the theory of evolution is incorrect. In reality they have no evidence no proof and hold an absolutist opinion that is baseless.

The people who post in favor of evolution (Christian, Buddhists, pagan, Jewish, Baha'i, Hindu and even atheists) all know that scientific proof is a myth or misuse of the world. They are honest that not everything is known and do not let it interfere with their beliefs. That is in my opinion true wisdom.

 

[F1fan]

Not saying that God does not allow cockroaches to develop resistance, obviously he does.

As well as mosquitos that carry deadly viruses. Flesh eating bacteria, among other types that are deadly to humans. Bears, sharks, tigers, lions, elephants, etc. are some of the bigger critters that kill humans And let's not forget weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, extreme cold, etc. It's almost as if the planet is hostile to humans. Good thing some of us are smart and can find solutions.

Some might argue with you who say cockroaches might think.

Some might? And they might think cockroaches think? You don't sound very sure.

But Jesus spoke of a great destruction coming to mankind at Matthew chapters 24.and 25. What do you think of that?

I think it's literature that has no real significance.

What is apparent is the humans have diverse beliefs and they will fight over these beliefs. This includes Christians who thought they had authority from God to kill other people over ideology. Too bad the bible didn't warn of doing that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I thought you might of done this, you have confused proofs with facts, now if you had said science does not deal with proofs or absolute truths then you would of been correct. No where in the article does it say that science does not deal in facts.

Something unproven is not a fact...