We're on a discussion forum.
How the heck, given this medium, do you expect proof to be given?
Well for some of us, it isn't only a matter of faith, but is also a matter of logic. An argument if you will.
But some of you (non-theists) don't want that, you want good old fashioned physical evidence. Physical proof. Like someone suggesting you study that tree near your house, and soon you too will see God in there. Not a god, the God. Or that person claiming to be God, or some followers of his claiming he is god (not a god, the God), go talk with him and he will convince you. Then you'll have your physical proof.
Is that what you are looking for? Cause anything short of that, and on a discussion forum is just not feasible. Just as say proof for global warming, is not feasible (really) if I am studying the 'evidence' while sitting at my computer. Pretty easy to refute the data if one is not observing it, and if one is prone to say, 'this is not convincing enough, I need more.'
Isn't the burden of what the proof looks like, and is within reason (of medium we are all congregated around) on those asking for proof?
Me, I say go within. Not in willy nilly, I'm going to deny whatever I experience, and only last 4 seconds before I say that's enough - sort of way. So, spend as much time within as you would have an uninitiated person study actual evidence of global warning before they can conclude, with reasonable conviction, one way or another, that the theory is valid (or not).
There are only about 10,000 resources / guides around to 'help you go within' and to understand what that means, what to look for, what you are substantiating, how you might know it is God, of (higher) Self, and so on and so forth. The means to find the evidence are plentiful, and once found / experienced, chances are you'll have own version of means, for how another could 'get there' to observe, discern, experiment, and draw conclusions from the experience, developing a theory. Thus you will likely have desire to share, even publish findings. Yeah, it works like that.
Unless it doesn't. Or more appropriately, unless it is not allowed to work that way. Due to insistence that burden of proof is forever on the ones making the claim, even if evidence, means for evidence, and theories of what evidence is telling us, have been provided. As long as game of denial can be played, then yes, proof may always have a short fall. Just as certain claims on say global warming can have short fall for those who need more convincing, regardless of evidence being provided. They can always resort to 'lack of belief' and be done with it, saying their not accepting it, and that is on you because you didn't provide convincing enough proof. That's your problem, not theirs.
Anyway, if there is debate on this thread to be had, it is around questions asked above such as:
- How on a discussion forum does one expect proof of God to be shown to them?
- How in the physical world would one expect proof of God to be given?
- Isn't the burden of what proof 'must be' on the one who is asking for said proof?
- Do you really think the means, the place to look, and the assistance in understanding theory are completely lacking? Given the over abundance of resources?
- If after finding 'evidence' and one who originally demanded it is still insisting it is not enough / they are not convinced, who's burden is that, really?
How the heck, given this medium, do you expect proof to be given?
Well for some of us, it isn't only a matter of faith, but is also a matter of logic. An argument if you will.
But some of you (non-theists) don't want that, you want good old fashioned physical evidence. Physical proof. Like someone suggesting you study that tree near your house, and soon you too will see God in there. Not a god, the God. Or that person claiming to be God, or some followers of his claiming he is god (not a god, the God), go talk with him and he will convince you. Then you'll have your physical proof.
Is that what you are looking for? Cause anything short of that, and on a discussion forum is just not feasible. Just as say proof for global warming, is not feasible (really) if I am studying the 'evidence' while sitting at my computer. Pretty easy to refute the data if one is not observing it, and if one is prone to say, 'this is not convincing enough, I need more.'
Isn't the burden of what the proof looks like, and is within reason (of medium we are all congregated around) on those asking for proof?
Me, I say go within. Not in willy nilly, I'm going to deny whatever I experience, and only last 4 seconds before I say that's enough - sort of way. So, spend as much time within as you would have an uninitiated person study actual evidence of global warning before they can conclude, with reasonable conviction, one way or another, that the theory is valid (or not).
There are only about 10,000 resources / guides around to 'help you go within' and to understand what that means, what to look for, what you are substantiating, how you might know it is God, of (higher) Self, and so on and so forth. The means to find the evidence are plentiful, and once found / experienced, chances are you'll have own version of means, for how another could 'get there' to observe, discern, experiment, and draw conclusions from the experience, developing a theory. Thus you will likely have desire to share, even publish findings. Yeah, it works like that.
Unless it doesn't. Or more appropriately, unless it is not allowed to work that way. Due to insistence that burden of proof is forever on the ones making the claim, even if evidence, means for evidence, and theories of what evidence is telling us, have been provided. As long as game of denial can be played, then yes, proof may always have a short fall. Just as certain claims on say global warming can have short fall for those who need more convincing, regardless of evidence being provided. They can always resort to 'lack of belief' and be done with it, saying their not accepting it, and that is on you because you didn't provide convincing enough proof. That's your problem, not theirs.
Anyway, if there is debate on this thread to be had, it is around questions asked above such as:
- How on a discussion forum does one expect proof of God to be shown to them?
- How in the physical world would one expect proof of God to be given?
- Isn't the burden of what proof 'must be' on the one who is asking for said proof?
- Do you really think the means, the place to look, and the assistance in understanding theory are completely lacking? Given the over abundance of resources?
- If after finding 'evidence' and one who originally demanded it is still insisting it is not enough / they are not convinced, who's burden is that, really?
