Is there any possibility of God's existence.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't mean I know How God looks like.

I never said it did.

However, it does mean that when you say "God", you mean something.

 

[FearGod]

I never said it did.

However, it does mean that when you say "God", you mean something.

What do you mean by something? something that we can see and test?

 

[_nameX]

What do you say ?

My I ask you a question?
If the devil made his existence public, would you then believe in God?

 

[columbus]

We can never know without the real prophets telling us the truth, I rely
on their prophecies, it's our evidence that it's a serious issue and those
who won't listen will be the losers.

This is how all the belief systems I consider to be religions work. Somebody claims to speak for god(s) and enough other people believe him to form a group.
But God never says anything, at least nothing plausible or intelligible. Dreams, visions, and there is a wild variety of these.
There is no real way to distinguish one from another. That's why I am so convinced that prophets are, at best, well intentioned. Often not even that. But they don't know any more about god than I do, which is essentially nothing. They're just better at saying things people want to hear.
Tom

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

it's only conditional upon the choice of the person. the potential is always there, always. it might not be manifested but a person isn't born a psychopath, or sociopath. they are created by both nature and nurture.

love isn't just a human emotion.

babies have to have nurturing, or physical affection; otherwise their growth and psycholgical well being becomes arrested.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by potential. Do you mean the potential to love? If so, I agree. If you mean the potential to love unconditionally, I respectfully disagree. Love really is just a human/animal emotion. It doesn't really conquer all. And it doesn't precisely because it's only half of the equation and it's very conditional - and that leads to the other half of the ying yang equation: hate. When a baby's psychological well-being is arrested, what is the most common thing to happen that we know of? Lack of empathy or feeling of love. Ergo, love is arrested. Again, it's not divine. It's an emotion, one of many, and that's all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean by something? something that we can see and test?

If God has done anything that we're aware of, then we can test for God.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

My I ask you a question?
If the devil made his existence public, would you then believe in God?

I've seen the devil many times. He was spinning yarn in the details. But I still don't believe in god.

It's a strange question; similar to asking if one saw a leprechaun would they then believe in the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. Neither subject in either phrase is visible or testable in the first place.

 

[Fool]

I am not sure I understand what you mean by potential. Do you mean the potential to love? If so, I agree. If you mean the potential to love unconditionally, I respectfully disagree. Love really is just a human/animal emotion. It doesn't really conquer all. And it doesn't precisely because it's only half of the equation and it's very conditional - and that leads to the other half of the ying yang equation: hate. When a baby's psychological well-being is arrested, what is the most common thing to happen that we know of? Lack of empathy or feeling of love. Ergo, love is arrested. Again, it's not divine. It's an emotion, one of many, and that's all.

no the arrest is at a certain level of psychological maturity, or love.

babies are innately loving. they instinctively seek out a warm and nurturing host. no one hates themselves, that is a learned behavior. self love is not an issue until it becomes a hypocrisy against another like self. a narcissists doesn't hate themselves.

hate is a reaction to ignorance.

anger is not unloving; thus the wrath of god, or the wrathful aspect of Love;

in ancient times, righteous anger wasn't seen as something that could be destroyed, nor should it be. when someone has an injustice committed against them based on appearances, that is biased and prejudicial. justice is the ultimate form of righteousness, or love.

Love does not look the other way when an injustice is being committed. That would be depraved indifference.

Love is not a respecter of persons. Love is the same for all people.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

babies are innately loving. they instinctively seek out a warm and nurturing host. no one hates themselves, that is a learned behavior. self love is not an issue until it becomes a hypocrisy against another like self. a narcissists doesn't hate themselves.

Babies also scream when they don't get what they want, whether it be food (there's that condition) or whether they're teething, after which they enjoy biting their siblings with a vengeance. I know it's all hippy-dippy to believe in "peace love and happiness forever" about things, but it's not reality. The reality is that we're all born innately selfish.

A narcissist isn't exactly an good example of love nor divinity either.

 

[Fool]

Babies also scream when they don't get what they want, whether it be food (there's that condition) or whether they're teething, after which they enjoy biting their siblings with a vengeance. I know it's all hippy-dippy to believe in "peace love and happiness forever" about things, but it's not reality. The reality is that we're all born innately selfish.

A narcissist isn't exactly an good example of love nor divinity either.

there is not an issue with a baby crying; if something is wrong. Some need isn't being met. Anger is OK. Anger is not necessarily hatred. again hatred is based on ignorance. the problem would be if the baby were hungry and the parent became angry. does a person become angry, if they can feed themselves?


everyone is a narcissist. it's only when an narcissist can't see herself reflect in the other narcissist that it becomes a problem. it's okay for the narcissist to love herself. its only a problem when the narcissist can't recognize another narcissist as self. it's OK to bloom.

love brings the haughty mountains low and love fills up the lowly vallleys until all are ONE

 

[FearGod]

If God has done anything that we're aware of, then we can test for God.

I think we're aware that a thing should be always existing, I call it God and I believe
he's aware of what he did while you call him the unknown.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

there is not an issue with a baby crying; if something is wrong. Some need isn't being met. Anger is OK. Anger is not necessarily hatred. again hatred is based on ignorance. the problem would be if the baby were hungry and the parent became angry. does a person become angry, if they can feed themselves?

I am going to guess that you've never heard a baby crying in anger. I never said it was hatred. I said we are innately selfish. Thus a baby who cries in anger.

A person may not become angry because they can feed themselves, but take their food away and find out how muh you are loved by them. It is the same with any baby/child. They feel the same anger/hate that you or I would. Imagine the concentration camps. Do you think they loved their captors giving them watered down soup? I doubt it. But then food is essential. What do you say about the little babies after they grow teeth and start biting siblings with impunity because of a certain toy? Is that love or selfishness?

Love is taught - it's not divine.

 

[Fool]

I am going to guess that you've never heard a baby crying in anger. I never said it was hatred. I said we are innately selfish. Thus a baby who cries in anger.

anger is not an issue when there is neglect. self-preservation is allowed. defense of basic needs is inhumane. a baby crying because its needs are not being met isn't selfish.

and yes I've heard many different species of babies crying; not excluding humans.

A person may not become angry because they can feed themselves, but take their food away and find out how muh you are loved by them. It is the same with any baby/child. They feel the same anger/hate that you or I would. Imagine the concentration camps. Do you think they loved their captors giving them watered down soup? I doubt it. But then food is essential. What do you say about the little babies after they grow teeth and start biting siblings with impunity because of a certain toy? Is that love or selfishness?

denying someone something is selfish. again as explained to you, it is okay to be angry when One narcissist is neglecting or abusing another.

Love is taught - it's not divine.

love is not a taught behavior. self-preservation is innate. babies are not vicious; otherwise they'd attack their own hosts, or themselves.

 

[V lad i mir]

What do you say ?

God, lord or creator? do you know the diff.?

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

love is not a taught behavior. self-preservation is innate. babies are not vicious; otherwise they'd attack their own hosts, or themselves

By the very definition of "self-preservation" we are selfish. "Self" comes first. You made my point. Babies absolutely can become vicious. As I stated, and this will be the last time, before they are taught to share and have empathy they bite their playmates (and siblings, others, et al) with impunity....viciously.

Do you honestly believe there was a lot of love going around in the Khmer Rouge or Auschwitz? Why did everyone fight over the crumbs given? Because it's self preservation - not preservation for anyone else. Thus the conditional, thus love does not really conquer all, thus it is not divine. Thanks! Have fun in the poppy fields of happiness.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

Is there any possibility of God's existence?

Sure, as much as there is a possibility of leprechauns. Why not?

 

[Fool]

By the very definition of "self-preservation" we are selfish.

no, loving self is not a problem; especially if one is to love all as self. one can not exclude, or be indifferent, to any to be equitable..

otherwise the hatred of self, or indifference to self, is self-hatred or depraved indifference.

"Self" comes first. You made my point.

no defense of self is justifiable. you're confused. one cannot save another if they are not incapable of accomplishing the feat. a person who can't swim can't save a drowning person; unless they have some means of doing so.

Babies absolutely can become vicious.

yes, they "can become" being the keyword. the potential is there for narcissistic personality disorder.

As I stated, and this will be the last time, before they are taught to share and have empathy they bite their playmates (and siblings, others, et al) with impunity....viciously.

yes they do but this is a learned behavior. recognition of other self comes at an early age and is seen as separate from self. the illusion of separateness but the drive to be loved is always there.

Do you honestly believe there was a lot of love going around in the Khmer Rouge or Auschwitz?

that is again the illusion of difference between self and others as self based on ethnicity, or belief system, people created differences out of their own minds and believe them to be true.

Why did everyone fight over the crumbs given? Because it's self preservation - not preservation for anyone else.

yes animals at their base will fight for crumbs; when the resources aren't shared equitably and a few are controlling the flow of supply to insure it doesn't meet the demand. you never heard of divide and conquer?

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

yes, they "can become" being the keyword. the potential is there for narcissistic personality disorder.

I am sure you know that's not true. They become vicious by the age of 1-2 or 3, and not because there are a lot of little ankle biting narcissists out there, nor because it's a learned behaviour! How many parents do you know of that are biting their spouses and children to teach the little lesson of biting others to tiny toddlers? but because it's nature. We are all territorial, selfish animals who have to be taught the boundaries. If we're not selfish by nature, please explain the borders that are on maps but not really on the Earth.

You almost contradict yourself, but for sure you flatter yourself.

that is again the illusion of difference between self and others as self based on ethnicity, or belief system, people created differences out of their own minds and believe them to be true

If that's true, why did Jews kill Jews and Cambodians kill Cambodians? I'll answer: To save themselves.

yes animals at their base will fight for crumbs; when the resources aren't shared equitably and a few are controlling the flow of supply to insure it doesn't meet the demand. you never heard of divide and conquer?

Divide and conquer is not a good analogy here. All animals will fight for food - not just crumbs at their very base. It's not a matter of dividing and conquering; rather a matter of survival and "self". And we are all animals. Individually and/or collectively. The lines are drawn for us thanks to natural selection and evolution.

 

[Fool]

I am sure you know that's not true. They become vicious by the age of 1-2 or 3, and not because there are a lot of little ankle biting narcissists out there, nor because it's a learned behaviour! How many parents do you know of that are biting their spouses and children to teach the little lesson of biting others to tiny toddlers? but because it's nature. We are all territorial, selfish animals who have to be taught the boundaries. If we're not selfish by nature, please explain the borders that are on maps but not really on the Earth.

You almost contradict yourself, but for sure you flatter yourself.



If that's true, why did Jews kill Jews and Cambodians kill Cambodians? I'll answer: To save themselves.



Divide and conquer is not a good analogy here. All animals will fight for food - not just crumbs at their very base. It's not a matter of dividing and conquering; rather a matter of survival and "self". And we are all animals. Individually and/or collectively. The lines are drawn for us thanks to natural selection and evolution.

ad hominems won't bring someone to the truth

again, it has to do with self and the illusion of independence from other as self

its called the golden rule for a reason

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

ad hominems won't bring someone to the truth

Please review the definition of ad hominem.

The rest of what you said may as well have been said in a transcendental temple. It made no sense to me. The second sentence has nothing to do with the third.