Existence of God

[dybmh]

Why should that be enough?

Because the goal is not convince of truth or fact only plausibility. So absent any falisifying evidence, weak evidence should be enough to show a possibility exists.

Example: There's no evidence that pink unicorns don't exist. If someone trustworthy says, pink unicorns possibly exist because I saw one in the woods one day, but I've never seen it again so I can't show you. Because the person is trustworthy, then one can reasonably believe that the person thought they saw a pink unicorn. Maybe they were mistaken, maybe not. But the possibility now exists eventhough the evidence is weak.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

I see It is evident.

I present the Messengers, such as Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, they are the sources of all we know of God. (This comment is inclusive of them one and all)

For the Bab and Baha'u'llah, there are many eyewitness stories available.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

Because the goal is not convince of truth or fact only plausibility. So absent any falisifying evidence, weak evidence should be enough to show a possibility exists.

The weak evidence to which you are referring is that someone said it. By that light every non-falsifiable thing that I could possibly ever say is not only possible, but both reasonable and probable. Is that seriously the standard that you are promoting?

Example: There's no evidence that pink unicorns don't exist. If someone trustworthy says, pink unicorns possibly exist because I saw one in the woods one day, but I've never seen it again so I can't show you. Because the person is trustworthy, then one can reasonably believe that the person thought they saw a pink unicorn. Maybe they were mistaken, maybe not. But the possibility now exists eventhough the evidence is weak.

You left something out of that example. What would make a person trustworthy on the subject of unicorns? Pink or otherwise.

Also, are you talking about an actual unicorn, or just something that looked like what we imagine a unicorn to look like?

 

[dybmh]

The weak evidence to which you are referring is that someone said it. By that light every non-falsifiable thing that I could possibly ever say is not only possible, but both reasonable and probable. Is that seriously the standard that you are promoting?

I don't understand how you go from possible to reasonable and probable based on one persons anecdotal evidence. Also, it's not even weak evidence if the individual isn't trust worthy. If you start claiming a lot of things, all with weak evidence, that naturally undermines the credibility of all the claims.

You left something out of that example. What would make a person trustworthy on the subject of unicorns? Pink or otherwise.

Well, most people know what a unicorn is, and most people can identify the color pink, so that's a start. It's best that you would know the person well. Also, the person shouldn't have a history of making false claims, or exaggerating the quality of their evidence. They should recognize weak evidence and they should not attempt to use weak evidence to convince someone.

Also, are you talking about an actual unicorn, or just something that looked like what we imagine a unicorn to look like?

It's possible it was a real unicorn, and it's also possible that it was just something that resembled a unicorn.

 

[ppp]

I don't understand how you go from possible to reasonable and probable based on one persons anecdotal evidence.

Hmm. You said "Because the goal is not convince of truth or fact only plausibility. So absent any falisifying evidence, weak evidence should be enough to show a possibility exists.". Plausible means reasonable and probable. Did you mean something else?

I think that you are perhaps misusing both possible and probably. Possible means that there is a positive demonstration that an event can occur in reality. Or that an object can exist in reality. Plausible means that not only is there a possibility, but a demonstrated probability based on strong positive evidence. I don't think that either applies in the case of your anecdote.

Well, most people know what a unicorn is, and most people can identify the color pink, so that's a start. It's best that you would know the person well. Also, the person shouldn't have a history of making false claims, or exaggerating the quality of their evidence. They should recognize weak evidence and they should not attempt to use weak evidence to convince someone.

I know what a unicorn is, too. It is a magical horse-like creature from Greek myths that has a single horn in the middle of its head, can detect virgins, and can cure any poison with its horn.

Under what circumstance should I believe that a person saw that? Not just a horse with a fake horn glued to its forehead, but an actual living breathing, magical, virgin detecting, poison curing unicorn?

It's possible it was a real unicorn, and it's also possible that it was just something that resembled a unicorn.

Then that person is not trustworthy, and is prone to exaggeration. Your person said that " pink unicorns possibly exist because I saw one in the woods one day". In that circumstance, I would say, "I think I saw a unicorn. Or at least something that looked like a unicorn".

*edited to quote you correctly

 

[Nakosis]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

The benefit of God not being evident is that God can be whatever you imagine God to be and nobody can prove you are wrong.

 

[blü 2]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?

If you think of gods as an idea ─ often acculturated to a degree ─ then it all sort of falls into place, doesn't it?

how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

You simply drop the claim that God (or gods, or as the case requires) has objective existence, no?

 

[Bird123]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?


how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

It has never ever been about appreciating God. This physical universe exists not for God. This physical universe exists for us. The time-based causal nature of the universe is perfect for learning.

In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. This is evidence of God, however it might not be recognized as evidence. When one understands God's actions, one will start to Understand God.

All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? The knowledge was there all along.

One can study God's actions and slowly put the pieces together resulting in a great understanding of God, however God will always be a Belief until one actually bumps into God.

Bumping into God will be the ultimate proof. It is something each must Discover for themselves. Of course, when one reaches a certain level of understanding, It invites God. The visit from God might come quicker than one expects.

When all the facts are not known, people patch the gap with Beliefs. Without beliefs we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known. Religion has taught people to value Beliefs above all else, yet those Beliefs are not always true. As a result, so much is said about God that simply isn't true.

People speak of Beliefs of whether God exists or not. Some say God exists. Some say God does not. I find few people actually want to find God yet people will hang onto Beliefs for dear life. Clearly there are more issues than Discovering the Real Truth.

If God exists, then God can be found. God can be found.

God is not what religion teaches. I have found no religion that actually understands God at all. On the other hand, finding and understanding God is not what it's all about. Each will choose their own path. The rest will take care of itself so to speak.

There is no need to Hate or Control the Beliefs. I point to the Truth with Unconditional Love and kindness knowing regardless of how much time or how many lifetimes, we will all Discover God and the Truth for ourselves. In time, we will learn how to create a Heavenly state for ourselves and others. We might be mere ants now, however it will not always be that way.

That's what I see, It's very clear!!

 

[RestlessSoul]

God is abundantly evident to those who want and need Him enough to lay aside prejudice, and search honestly within themselves.

Pride often prevents us from doing this, for man has killed God in his own heart, and replaced Him with his ego.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic just a human. Not an egotist or talking for organisational benefits of organisation of humans.

I live. I had two human parents who had sex. I was born. I live.

I look I see a whole lot of human egotists.

Who by the way taught don't self human idolate. One of your incorrect destructive conscious conditions...yet you do.

So scientists just men are included. You do self idolate man to machine.

Your natural life is human parents two who reproduce two humans only.

Science advice. Means I think abstractly to identify why questions.

Is the only correct human basis on earth. Without any argument.

As basics is the substantiated basis of discussing.

I know we don't own as a human god.

The advice tells me.

I'm an equal human. I'm not Idolating by a humans pre owned position of fakery.

I think.
Scientists think.

They say on earth for their machines. Laws to function factor machine controlled reactions. Machine mechanical laws. Is termed lying in cosmic themes.

Versus natural earth mass in natural law. Heavens mass in natural law. Consciousness present now thinking a and only biological human.

Thinking equal thinker versus thinker does not own all subjective reasoning.

You say I think I know how created creation began.

My story is different to yours.

I say from a pre existing eternal place.

You say reaction imposing to equals a machine advice.

Why scientists argue all about machines.

Then he'll put in a separate argument and say it's all about biology.

So he uses two arguments to my one.

He owns no evidence.
I own no evidence.

Yet he says I'm wrong as he wants to practice human science. Which proves he is defiantly wrong himself.

Now I can explain how a non atmospheric God owned biologies presence. Not science.

He wants that idea to be science.

So he owns and uses three theories for science opposing my spirit story.

Can I prove to science my spirit?

Yes. Sperm not a human and ovary not a human. I manifested. My spirit biology only and I'm not wrong.

He discusses two dead humans now just dusts by biology terms.

Says the advice from dusts to dusts is two deceased biological humans owning no science answer.

He argues. He says dusts convert into nuclear reaction....destroyed biology also. No answer.

He then coerces his biology theses. So he's wrong.

If science the occult branch has seen spirit manifest. Then my story owns more credence than theirs. That creation came from a place of spirit first.

Isn't the same terms now. Yet they tried to infer it was having only used that word eternal in a humans conversation only.

My god story isn't clouds.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not looking for any evidence. "God" is a matter of faith, for me, not evidence. I choose to trust in something that I can't know to be so because doing it significantly improves the quality of my experience of being. Faith in God as I choose to comprehend God, works for me. So I don't need any convincing. If it didn't work, I wouldn't choose it.

So you believe because it's comfortable.
Not because it's actually true. In fact, how true it is doesn't matter to you. What matters is that it feels comfortable.

 

[PureX]

So you believe because it's comfortable.

That's not what I posted. Why do you feel the need to change my own words to try and make them look insignificant? What I posted was that I choose to have faith in a God of my own understanding because I find that doing so significantly improved the quality of my life experience. It's not an issue of mere "comfort". It's an issue of increased value.

Not because it's actually true.

What's actually true is that putting faith in God (as I choose to understand God) increased the value of my life experience. What's honestly true is that none of us can know of the existence or nature of what we refer to as "God". Including you. So I have no logical reason to reject the idea of God, and I have a good, effective reason to trust in it. What do you have?

In fact, how true it is doesn't matter to you. What matters is that it feels comfortable.

How true it is, is irrelevant to me because I can't know how true it is.

 

[1213]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?

I think God is evident, because life and this world and Bible exists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

how can you appreciate something, that isn't evident; such as, god?
how do you provide evidence of something that isn't evident?

How can I appreciate something without having any proof of its existence? How does science provides evidence of photons or cosmic rays which are not evident? The theists also need to come up with some evidence before existence of God can be accepted. Like disappearance of Covid-19 on fine morning or Russia giving back the annexed regions to Ukraine. These are just examples, but the almighty God must be able to do something like that, not just sending typhoons to Florida.

 

[rational experiences]

Free thinks a greedy man.

You ask why?

I freed the power of God. Then I owned it.

You owned GOD?

Yes.....actually no. I got Satan's powers he said. Not gods.

Okay any human asked....didn't you speak words?

Yes.
Didn't you say the spoken word about god is only the correct status?

Yes.

You said God was all the greatest highest in your life as you breathed?

Yes.

Position god....a dust?

Yes.

Position ash just God as ash?

Yes.

You man who says I copy is only an artificial thought?

Yes.

How?

A thesis as I didn't create God.

Okay. You want free?

Yes.

You freed it as satanic?

Yes.

As in the life of a human by your spoken word no man is highest or greatest?

Yes.

We're equal and mutual.

What to?

Living and breathing....life.

Why isn't life the greatest?

It perished either into an ash or a dust in disintegration. After it dies. If you look at disintegrated wood or bones.

Okay.

Yet ash is God and so is dust?

Yes.

Is the word just a teaching and should be read as a teaching only?

Yes.
And it owned interpretation by the living consciousness as no human is a book or another humans thesis....thoughts.

The warning no man is God.

In law a man said lightning is free as it's gods. As it is correct to say it's gods even though freed. Made into its greatest coldest term. A reaction.

You cannot claim lightning is free for a human. As you cannot free it.

Lightning the exact thought upon term....how do I change it to get electricity.

And you began with coal. Was and is the only answer.

Why no man is God or ever owned God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not what I posted. Why do you feel the need to change my own words to try and make them look insignificant? What I posted was that I choose to have faith in a God of my own understanding because I find that doing so significantly improved the quality of my life experience. It's not an issue of mere "comfort". It's an issue of increased value.

You disagree, but you really don't.
It "increases your life experience" = "it's comfortable" in my book.

What else would you mean by that?

What's actually true is that putting faith in God (as I choose to understand God) increased the value of my life experience. What's honestly true is that none of us can know of the existence or nature of what we refer to as "God". Including you. So I have no logical reason to reject the idea of God

Eum.... being utterly unable to distinguish a real god from an imagined non-existing god, is actually a very good logical reason to reject the claim that a god exists.

How true it is, is irrelevant to me because I can't know how true it is.

There you go.

 

[PureX]

You disagree, but you really don't.
It "increases your life experience" = "it's comfortable" in my book.

What else would you mean by that?

Can't you read? I said QUALITY, several times, not comfort. You can't understand the difference? Get a dictionary.

Eum.... being utterly unable to distinguish a real god from an imagined non-existing god, is actually a very good logical reason to reject the claim that a god exists.

Please explain that logic. Because I don't think you can. First, I don't claim that God exists. I claim that we cannot know if or how God exists. How is this illogical to you? And second, you claim it's logical to reject the claim that God exists when you can't know whether God exists or not. How is that logical to you?

Why is the "real" existence and nature of God matter to you when you cannot know of either?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can't you read? I said QUALITY, several times, not comfort. You can't understand the difference? Get a dictionary.

I know you didn't use the word "comfort".
What I'm asking you is how it is different in practice.

Isn't a higher quality of life a life that is more comfortable then a lower quality of life?
How is saying that incorrect?

Please explain that logic. Because I don't think you can.

How is it logical to believe X exists when X can't be distinguished from things that don't exist?
Is it logical to believe in undetectable extra-dimensional unicorns living in my garage?

First, I don't claim that God exists. I claim that we cannot know if or how God exists. How is this illogical to you?

That part isn't illogical.
The illogical part only shows its face when you then believe that X exists while X can't be distinguished from something that doesn't exist.

And second, you claim it's logical to reject the claim that God exists when you can't know whether God exists or not. How is that logical to you?

Do you reject the claim that there is an undetectable dragon about to eat you?
Or does the idea of undetectable monsters keep you awake at night in worry?

Do you feel it is illogical for you to not believe the claim that such monsters exist?

Why is the "real" existence and nature of God matter to you when you cannot know of either?

Because plenty of people believe such things and beliefs inform actions, and their actions have very real consequences in the real world.

 

[PureX]

I know you didn't use the word "comfort".
What I'm asking you is how it is different in practice.

Isn't a higher quality of life a life that is more comfortable then a lower quality of life?
How is saying that incorrect?

Oh, stop. We both know you were trying to belittle my point by making the positive results of choosing faith sound selfish and frivolous. If you can't own it that's on you.

How is it logical to believe X exists when X can't be distinguished from things that don't exist?

I have already stated several times that I have no way of knowing how or if "God exists". And I have said nothing at all about "believing that God exists". You seem to be reading words and presuming assertions that aren't there. What I stated was that "I trust in God as I understand it" because I find that doing so increases the quality of my experience of life. I didn't say a thing about believing anything. "God as I understand it" is an idea. It's my idea. Whether or not that idea corresponds to some phenomena or entity far beyond the limits of my cognition is impossible for me to determine. Or for you to determine. So I have no reason to believe or disbelieve anything about it. And neither do you.

What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

Is it logical to believe in undetectable extra-dimensional unicorns living in my garage?

When you find someone that believes that, ask them.

That part isn't illogical.
The illogical part only shows its face when you then believe that X exists while X can't be distinguished from something that doesn't exist.

But I've never stated that I believe anything except that we cannot know how or if God exists. So if you're seeing some asserted belief, here, your imagining it. And maybe you should be asking yourself why you're doing that.

Do you reject the claim that there is an undetectable dragon about to eat you?

I have no reason to accept or reject such a claim. I have no reason to consider it at all, as no one, including myself, is actually making such a claim.

Do you feel it is illogical for you to not believe the claim that such monsters exist?

It's illogical for me to consider the assertion at all, as no one is asserting it.

Because plenty of people believe such things and beliefs inform actions, and their actions have very real consequences in the real world.

Living in a gravity field has very real consequences. Everything is a "consequence" of everything else. What we choose to "believe" or "disbelieve" in the face of all that consequence is up to us.

I choose to believe very little because I know so very little about anything beyond my own limited experiences. And even those I could very easily misunderstand. So to me, "belief" is mostly just an egotistical pretense that I can do better without. And so is your "unbelief", by the way.

 

[rational experiences]

My brother is a historic liar.

About the human life he created by man's thoughts. Men human first by claiming his words spoken as stories only first. As he invented thesis by machine theory first.

Is no different today as before. Same lying human. Behaviour chosen.

Who says my formula is the spoken calculated presence of anything I say it represents. Science he says.

Okay but you first told a huge amount of variable just human stories about human man beliefs? By words only.

Yes. So how is it real?

Because man with machine says so.

History. Father First human spiritual life.

Brain prickled burnt changed brothers man mind by falling star above. Very dangerous position about earths collision.

Science theory.

How are you sane?

You aren't. It's the exact advice history of man's science thesis for machine. Origin reason to thesis first was for the machine only.

It was never a man's belief how he existed as a human. It was machine thesis only first. As a human did exist.

That human mans life position wasn't with his first human parents.

The position of a human Theist.

Age of human first parents as just humans only equals skeletons of human now just dusts.

So history says brain prickled man. Became thinker designer man who became rich by human slavery. Science man.

One two and three. Three positions history of the human man. The thinker man.

Man's position you can never go back to family first spiritual holy nature life...too late.

Otherwise civilisation has to be destroyed. Family spiritual life first nature still would not inherit. We'd either all be deceased or mutated sick.

Cannot go back is the warning.

All organisation today is built on that lie of men.

So you ask a basic question when earths God mass was sun attacked first in cosmic law didn't the mass of earth convert and be saved as dust?

Yes.

And you liar brother converted the dust and got holes of sin? As you ignored frozen fused laws of cosmic history.

Yes.

Is your arrogant man's answer today. You ignored earths cosmic law history first position...not any human in law.

Men today hence should read his formula as it doesn't own nor represent any bio life existing on earth.

Man says as I artificially place my law by machine in heavens as either lightning or electricity. To interact with machine. I've put it above ground as one higher position it doesn't own by cosmic law.

So his brother said science converting earths mass takes the reaction outside of current space time laws to force an artificial application such as plastic. Just by human men.

As man's artificial invention thesis is to take biologies destruction to an answer only about a machine channelling it's life source to be machine alive....with no biological life involved.

And you all support him. As those answers do not own life living naturally in natural laws of oxygen breathing in a bio water heavens.

Scientist told. First you do a pretend thesis why a human lives?

Yes.

What for?

As I told myself biology only owns living in the heavens after dusts as dusts by law are exact the dust. I didn't thesis dusts reactions to biology.

I theoried dust reactions to nuclear.

Why?

As our brother tried to replace bio life by machines history whose mass belongs only below in melt by law as place of mass energy converting history reacting.

Proven temple stones steps had melted.

What did he cause?

Cosmic law in space history where melt and freeze was first formed to convert one mass body...planet. Released evil god ET and UFO....the plan. Out of natural law space time.

How he caused it's presence...men released it already.

For transcending time and light cosmic laws as man on earth by his forced evil machine.

Known. Told. Warned. Said when his evil man's consciousness returns in mans future healed DNA consciousness...which is now... he'll do it again.... life's destruction. Machine.

As their men's minds choices beliefs said so. Never father's first mind.

To learn man's consciousness no longer heals returns to our father. The learning.