• 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!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Which means we can classify that "supernatural" simply is a label we put on things we don't yet understand
that is not an accepted meaning of the word
within the mind as all things are
No. If we had a "purpose" or somewhere we were going we would see a clear indication of that. For example the evolution of the computer is very specific and goes in a direction. We continually get better and better with our technologies. However the leaps in design were not obtained through trial and error such as biological advancements.

It is indicative of a process that will generate new life over time but not a process that specifically creates "us" intentionally.
If you are speaking of a completely new consciousness that is learning as it is allowed from the higher consciousness above it, then it would make mistakes. I can only say that is what you would expect. That is why we have things which are prototypes... and sometimes things on them have to be changed, sometimes they plain don't work, even though it might have been a good idea.
You have given me your opinion without telling me why you even hold that opinion. Why do you hold this opinion? If it is spiritually discerned then how was it done?

If you wish to say that the water cycle is more than just a process but is divinely produced you will have to tell me why you think that. Why is it assumed on your part that there is a consciousness present? Is it simply esoteric in nature?

Then I will always find opinions based upon supposed esoteric based claims to be lacking in sufficient evidence.
Everything is of the mind. You know nothing without your mind telling you.
It is not opinion, it is spiritually discerned. It is God given.. as an understanding. You seem to be digging for something that can't be dug... I don't know why. Perhaps you could explain
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
that is not an accepted meaning of the word
Accepted or not its the truth
within the mind as all things are
Re-word this with the context included.
If you are speaking of a completely new consciousness that is learning as it is allowed from the higher consciousness above it, then it would make mistakes. I can only say that is what you would expect. That is why we have things which are prototypes... and sometimes things on them have to be changed, sometimes they plain don't work, even though it might have been a good idea.
If you are speaking of all life on earth as a collective then I can agree. I don't see this as being evidence of a god or of higher intelligence though.
Everything is of the mind. You know nothing without your mind telling you.
It is not opinion, it is spiritually discerned. It is God given.. as an understanding. You seem to be digging for something that can't be dug... I don't know why. Perhaps you could explain
Everything we know is in our mind. Everything that we have that we call sentience is a product of our interpretation of information gathered from our nerve cells. There is a universe outside of ourselves however. This fact of our mind does not impede that.

Saying it can't be dug is simply saying you can't defend your position. It is what it is and I need to accept it or leave it alone. And that is fine for your personal beliefs but not on factual claims of our universe in a debate forum.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Accepted or not its the truth

Re-word this with the context included.

If you are speaking of all life on earth as a collective then I can agree. I don't see this as being evidence of a god or of higher intelligence though.

Everything we know is in our mind. Everything that we have that we call sentience is a product of our interpretation of information gathered from our nerve cells. There is a universe outside of ourselves however. This fact of our mind does not impede that.

Saying it can't be dug is simply saying you can't defend your position. It is what it is and I need to accept it or leave it alone. And that is fine for your personal beliefs but not on factual claims of our universe in a debate forum.
I don't see there is much I can reply on there/.... I don't even know what were talking about anymore. Perhaps you want to start again.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't see there is much I can reply on there/.... I don't even know what were talking about anymore. Perhaps you want to start again.

Im sure it has something to do with there not being a single shred of credible evidence any of thousands of man made gods exist outside mythology.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Im sure it has something to do with there not being a single shred of credible evidence any of thousands of man made gods exist outside mythology.
We have proof withing. Evidence is the faith. You are perhaps thinking of something phsisical, which my definition, you won't see
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I don't see there is much I can reply on there/.... I don't even know what were talking about anymore. Perhaps you want to start again.
There is a notion that you keep bringing up. That it is "within". Something "within" us is not verifiable and is subject to being incorrect. I feel that things we know must come from "without" as well. Otherwise we are just in our own heads.
 

walkthetalk

New Member
I share a lot of your views and am on a similar page. My mind reels thinking how our DNA came to exist through only the processes accepted by science. I believe conscious intelligence fostered the process.

Looking at western culture a few hundred years ago strict religious thinking ruled the roost. And then science advanced and a natural view of the universe started to make inroads and took over the roost. However in very recent times I'm seeing a new group making inroads in the roost; those that embrace both science and spirituality. And I see them becoming the wave of the future.

A quote from philosopher Ken Wilbur : Narrow science trumps narrow religion. Broad science/religion trumps them both.
4 things actually proves God:
1- divine revelation
2- prophets.
3- universe
4- inner counciesness.
Listen to your inner voice when you are helpless and in need.
 

walkthetalk

New Member
In the same way it's possible to categorically claim that God does exist. Both claims are nothing more than speculation, and the only truly rational position is to conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence for either, and that the existence of god(s) is unknown.
This may be an evidence that we are being tested by the Supreme being. Some will win and others will loose.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
We have proof withing. Evidence is the faith. You are perhaps thinking of something phsisical, which my definition, you won't see

Some people believe that they have dragon wings than only they can see. Does their faith in these visions make it evidence that they do?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Some people believe that they have dragon wings than only they can see. Does their faith in these visions make it evidence that they do?
You are speaking o fthe human condition now. I am speaking of something God given. There is a difference. Though perhaps in a different reality, they do, or else how do they think it in the first place :)
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.
What "counterfeit arguments" are you refering to specifically? I thhik I understand what you are trying to say, but you claim something that doesn't seem possible. You say that "the By Chance idea is hugely more improbable than a supernatural being is," but you do not explain why. I would say that the lack of scientific explanation is, most likely, due to a lack of scientific discovery. In short, we haven't yet discovered an explanation. I think it seems foolish to assume the supernatural simply because science has failed to discover a natural explanation. How do you reconcile this?
 
Top