• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proof for God of Love and Truth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The meaning of the existence of science is the presence of
Absolute Truth, Objective Knowledge, and Verity. The All-Knowing is Absolute Truth.
He is aware of His existence. Therefore, the existence of God
is Absolutely True and Accurate.

Would a debate follow?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
The meaning of the existence of science is the presence of
Absolute Truth, Objective Knowledge, and Verity. The All-Knowing is Absolute Truth.
He is aware of His existence. Therefore, the existence of God
is Absolutely True and Accurate.

Would a debate follow?

Yet another post indicating that questfortruth doesn't comprehend what a proof is.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The meaning of the existence of science is the presence of
Absolute Truth, Objective Knowledge, and Verity.
So far the truth is there's no evidence of any gods.

The All-Knowing is Absolute Truth.
And there's no one we are aware of that is all knowing.

He is aware of His existence.
This is an unwarranted assumption.

Therefore, the existence of God
is Absolutely True and Accurate.
False conclusion.

Would a debate follow?
There is no debate. Critical thinkers can inform you of logical errors. Are you open to learning about your flawed thinking?
 

Viker

Häxan
New The meaning of the existence of science is the presence of
Absolute Truth, Objective Knowledge, and Verity. The All-Knowing is Absolute Truth.
He is aware of His existence. Therefore, the existence of God
is Absolutely True and Accurate
No it isn't. There's no proof in this statement, only conjecture.
Would a debate follow?
I don't believe you're interested in an actual debate.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No it isn't. There's no proof in this statement, only conjecture.
It is natural for ordinary persons to feel distrust and rejection against an
unfamiliar, low score, unpublished author because the true information
must come from a trustworthy source. This condition for the validity of
information has already been described in the first century:
"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?'' John 1:46. But this
self-protection instinct is abnormal for scientific journals.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The meaning of the existence of science is the presence of
Absolute Truth, Objective Knowledge, and Verity. The All-Knowing is Absolute Truth.
He is aware of His existence. Therefore, the existence of God
is Absolutely True and Accurate.

Would a debate follow?

I suspect the only truths that exists are conceptual.
IOW, truth does not exist outside of the minds of humans.

So absolute truth could only be absolute inside of your's, mine, somebody's head.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
You're not debating. You're proclaiming and then rejecting any debate point. You can't "win" a debate if you're just not actually debating.
Too many is put on the table. The eternal afterlife is on the table. Hence, I can not be vulnerable in any way. Just the risk is very high.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Science doesn't deal in absolute truth. It deals with sustained hypotheses and theoretical models.
Then the Scientific Community are all liars? No. The Absolute Truth is another expression for Objective Knowledge. The sentences are synonyms.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Position question a human being man. As hierarchy conditioned by his own man human applied thinking themes. All man humans first choices.

If you question your own authenticity as a man human first are you owner position one natural first only and correct?

A man's question to his owned humanity.

Woman his life equal. A second question of humans thoughts asks her also.

She has the exact answer natural human one species position mutual never needed your domineering thoughts. As applied by man status and self man opinion.

Advice.

Why men self idoliser of their own being a human when just using natural aware human only thinking status was always first.

Science never first. Never was science first thoughts either for existing. Man self is why you lied to your own presence.

There never was any question about lifes human position a human the man living on planet earth.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A teaching model against man's humans incessant lying.

God a deity not a man was idealised as unnamed and unknown.. it was taught as a model against men who display self destructive theories versus life on earth.

As a human only poses both a question and an answer. Identified lying as no question existed first.

Stated three times I knowingly destroyed life on earth by ignoring my owned man's highest father...life natural continuance advice. Self explanatory man's consciousness.

As a human.

Naming my human self by my penis status. I named that penis a C o c K myself.

Who by egotism crowed about my ability to assert science powers as just a man.

I symbolic said a cock as clock was what I used to destroy life on earth earths by natural gas light constant. Holy only by and at void vacuum womb space position.

It was a self aware human man's direct pleading against his egotism.

A model of self preaching against myself.
 
Top