Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

... That's A LOT of numbers. Tell me, can you even count to that much?? I sure can't.

Use both hands?

 

[JKgo]

Use both hands?

...

Hmm, nope. I tried, but curiously I ran out of fingers...

 

[Brett]

...

Hmm, nope. I tried, but curiously I ran out of fingers...

You got toes too right? You can use those also.

 

[JKgo]

You got toes too right? You can use those also.

...

Maybe later. I'm freaking out on Fallout 4 news right now...

 

[Brett]

...

Maybe later. I'm freaking out on Fallout 4 news right now...

Guess I need to buy and play the Fallout games.

 

[Exorcet]

Because it is a process to accomplish something, and once it has been accomplished it ends.

What is the end goal? Sending people to hell? God could simply let things go on forever and no one would have to be sent away.

No not exactly.
It's not about rational as much as it is relational.
I've said this before, that it is a lot like marriage in a comparative respect.
A sort of balance between the two.
In fact concerning that, let me ask you this question:
Of the two factors rationale or relationship, which do you think would be the stronger to rely on concerning fidelity, in the event you were tempted to cheat on your wife?

You can't have a relationship without establishing that the other person is there at all. The problem is God is seemingly clueless in the first step when it comes to a relationship unless the problem is that he simply isn't able to show himself.

I don't really know how to make sense of your question given that rationale and relationship are not opposites or mutually exclusive. If I have a problem in a relationship I will solve it with reason and not emotion. If I promised someone that I would not cheat on them, then I know to hold myself to that promise. If it turns out that I don't really want to hold the original promise then perhaps it's best to approach the other party and reconsider our relationship.

He did openly tell them.
"Do not eat from that tree, for in the day you do you shall surely die."
You see we are in a shared power arrangement.
He has given us the power to decide our own fate.

That is two people, which is far less than the number of people God has involved himself with (everyone). Apparently God can create people without flaws (well that's the claim even though it's not seen in the Bible) so instead of what we have now, we could have had Adam and Eve pay for their crime(?) and the rest of us just live happily ever after.

I don't know about that.
I think there are quite a few good reasons to choose God.

Those reasons all fall flat if he doesn't exist. And the existence question is why there is no reason to chase God. If he does not show himself when he absolutely can and based on what he supposedly wants, should, it's very reasonable to conclude that he's not there.

As far as conditional love that is true.
But God's love is unconditional.
Thats why I said earlier he is a lot like a mum.
Thats what Jesus's example was all about.

Supposedly God wants us to love him. That was what that line was about.

Biological life is undoubtedly magnificent, but it is also very rare and possibly unique, since we have no evidence of its existence elsewhere. Essentially, biological life is a magnificent and temporary accident which will vanish under any number of expectable scenarios, especially the death of our star.

On the other hand, inorganic life looks as though it could be comfortable almost anywhere in the universe. If we had an ounce of brains, we'd direct our own evolution towards an inorganic life-form which could thrive in a radiation rich environment.

This is like an isolated tribe in the Amazon claiming they are the only humans on Earth because they looked behind the nearest tree and saw no people. We can't say life is rare when we haven't even looked at the universe.

As for the second bit, we seem to be fine adapting the world to suit us, which is something we actually know how to do.

 

[Stylel_Code]

What do you say we find some numbers that give us some perspective on this, and make it a little less of a "personal judgement?"

There are 100 billion* stars in the Milky way, and roughly that same number of galaxies in the observable universe. So, there are somewhere around 10^22 stars** out there. It has been estimated that 5%*** of those stars are "sun-like" (similar size, temperature, luminosity). So, we're left with 500 quintillion (500 billion billion) stars similar to our own sun, that could be conducive to life.

Of those 500 quintillion stars, the US National Academy of Sciences estimated back in 2013 that around 22%**** of them have an Earth-sized planet orbiting in their habitable zone (the distance at which liquid water could likely exist). Alright, where are we at? Doing the math yields 100 quintillion (100 billion billion) Earth-like planets in the universe.

Now, if we were to get wildly speculative and say that 1% of those planets capable of sustaining life actually do have life, and in 1% of those cases, that life has evolved into an intelligent form on a similar level to humans, then we have 10 quadrillion (10 million billion) intelligent civilizations in the observable universe.

Those numbers too optimistic for you? Okay, let's say .01% of planets have life, and .01% of those life forms are intelligent. That's 10,000,000,000 (10 trillion!) intelligent civilizations.

---

So sure, looking at the percentages make life seem staggeringly unlikely. If only 1% of all stars are Sun-like and have Earth-like planets orbiting them, and intelligent life develops on only .01% of those planets, that's a roughly .00001% chance of intelligent life existing in any given solar system. So I get where you're coming from. Seems almost impossible that we're here, doesn't it?

But the raw numbers paint a very different picture. That .00001% yields, again, 10 quadrillion intelligent civilizations. Written out, that's 10,000,000,000,000,000! Suddenly, it seems almost inevitable that we're here.

In something as unimaginably vast as the universe, percentages don't really mean too much. We're talking about numbers so big, that pretty much anything that's possible has probably happened many, many, many times over. It's quite incredible to think about!

I went with the conservative end of the ranges these numbers are thought to fall in:
*It's thought that there are between 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way
**It's thought that there are between 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe
***It's thought that between 5%-20% of stars are "Sun-like"
****It's thought that up to 50% of Sun-like stars have Earth-like planets around them

Take the high end of one (or several) of these numbers, and that 10 quadrillion estimate becomes even larger!

But the problem is if you take all the planets, numbers get very high, close to infinite. 0.1% of hundreds of billions is still a lot, etc.. I think taking the problem this way we cannot find anything. Earth-like planets are also only probabilities to be at a right distance with the sun so water can remain liquid, no one knows on the nature of these planets and what it contains. I remain in doubt whether we could travel one day to these lightyears planets, but I think it's the only solution to confirm anything about these theories.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That isn't true.

Perhaps you mean to say, "You do not believe it is true".
Otherwise for one to state it as an absolute, you can only assume it's an absolute.

Not really. Your God is the God that you claim him to be. I haven't witnessed him, so I'm merely going on descriptions from you and the texts that you've specified, namely the Bible.

You perceive his actions as those of a kind and loving God.

I perceive his actions as those of a spiteful, vengeful, sadistic bastard.

I'm not judging from your claims of him being loving, I'm judging from the descriptions of his actions. When someone describes their friend as a "loving, caring wife beater" I think that some part of that isn't quite right.

When in doubt, I trust actions over words. And God's actions mostly speak pretty clearly to the sort of solutions to problems he favours.

Well I believe you are assumptively and likewise erroneously attributing intentions to god that are not true.
However, from an OT perspective I can see how one could get that impression.

But what about Jesus and the NT, what about the actions there?

You might think that, but he's not real. I might as well be mad at Santa Claus. I'm not mad at God for the simple reason that I have no evidence that there's a God to be mad at. I seem to recall that even you in the past have admitted that there's no objective evidence for God.

None that I know of.

However, as a hypothetical figure, were he to exist then yes I would be angry at God. If only for all the awful, awful things that he's done, and all the awful things that he's allowed to happen for what I perceive to be no good reason. I'm not like you, I don't take someone's word that mass genocide is in everyone's best interest. I would likely dedicate my life to making sure that humanity was free of such a dangerous being.

Hmmm, again thats a lot of assuming I'm not at liberty to do.
If I put myself in God's position, knowing what was at stake and the factors that are involved, I can't honestly say that I could have done anything differently and still been able to accomplish what had to be done.
I think too you are looking at seasons in time from the benefit of understanding only available from recent times.
And in doing so, assuming that understanding was establishable apart from the accompanied time frames over which they were actually attained.
I don't think you can honestly do that.

As it is, I can't save people from themselves, so I just get on with my life by doing the best I can for me and those around me.

You and your fellow believers can do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't start imposing upon me living my life the way I want to. If you want to go out and flagellate yourselves and moan about how us heathens are living lives of sin and we'll get our comeuppance when Judgement Day comes, then hop to it.

I'm not debating you on this issue based on judgemental grounds.
It is not my place to judge what you do.
Rather it is because of the tremendous benefits that the relationship brings, and it is that I would naturally want everyone to know and experience.
Likewise God wants the same for everyone as well if it be possible.

I cannot believe in anything I want. It is not a choice.

Here's how you can convince me otherwise: All you have to do is believe that the tooth fairy exists. Go ahead. If you can, for five minutes, successfully convince yourself that the tooth fairy really does exist, and not feel like you're lying to yourself during that time, then I'll listen to you.

Even the tooth fairy exists in a fashion.
Not in a real sense of course, but rather a principle sense.
It's not up to me to convince you.
Thats between you and God.
I'm just supposed to tell you about it.

I've already tried to believe in god (which I've mentioned before). I tried to honestly tell myself that he must be real. And the whole time, I knew I was not being honest because I didn't actually believe it. Because belief is not a choice.One thing I will wholeheartily agree with, is you cannot fake belief

I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you tried very hard.
At any rate, the Bible says "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God".
Just read the Bible and give God a chance to convince you.
And be objective to the greatest degree possible, do not prejudge what is what, but rather observe and contemplate what maybe what.

When the crime is being unconvinced of something, and the punishment is infinite misery, something is amiss.

And as you are well aware, many members of this very website have followed the bible to a T and gotten no reply. You have been asked many times to describe the process by which you were able to communicate with god, and because your answers have always been vague, no one has come any closer to finding god than they have to finding the tooth fairy.

I've already described that twice I think in this round, not including prior rounds.
I found it helpful to attend a Faith-Holy Spirit oriented church, to be able to observe people who believe and practice this relational aspect of knowing God through Jesus Christ. Get to know them, talk to them.
Sort of see what makes them tick.

The directions in the bible are not enough. The directions you have given are not enough. The fact that people's experiences with the bible are so hit and miss is just evidence that the book is so open to interpretation. When your eternal fate is at stake, it shouldn't depend on your ability to guess whether a line is meant to be literal or metaphorical, or to guess if a word has been mistranslated at some point along the many many versions.

That is just excuses.
Millions of people have found it with those instructions, so they can't be too incomplete.

Worst of all, people read books like the Koran and feel exactly as connected with allah as you do with your god. So even if I were to have a very deep experience which makes me feel like I have known god, I can't deny the fact that many many people that feel that way are undeniably wrong, which means I can't trust that experience either. People convert from one religion to another all the time. Why do you think that is? Do you think these people know a godly experience when they feel it? If not, why not?

Even if I didn't know God, I would have to agree with your assessment that some people are undeniably wrong in their concept of God.
Now what makes one different from another is what spirit it is of.
As far as converting, some people are searching for God and may try many things in that process.
I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

Lastly, I am not allied with Satan no matter my actions. If there were a god out there, nothing I do is intended to hurt his feelings or make him think I wouldn't be grateful if I thought he was real. I'm just (and this is an important word you really need to remember) unconvinced.

Well there is a difference between, not wanting to be in a certain position, but yet being in that position.
You were born in that position, and there was nothing you could do about it.
However, you do have a choice concerning whether you stay in it or not.
Again I can only recommend, to read the Bible and give God a chance to convince you.
As it says, Hebrews 4:12
"For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposingand sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart.

 

[TheCracker]

I remain in doubt whether we could travel one day to these lightyears planets, but I think it's the only solution to confirm anything about these theories.

We wouldn't need to travel to them to confirm intelligent life. The SETI project utilises radio telescopes to search for electromagnetic transmissions from other civilisations.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, powered flight was thought to be impossible. Who's to say that in another 100 years we won't have the ability to create speed-of-light transport?

 

[Famine]

I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Christians

 

[Exorcet]

But the problem is if you take all the planets, numbers get very high, close to infinite. 0.1% of hundreds of billions is still a lot, etc..

That's not a problem, that's the nature of probability. It is the best answer we can get without being able to visit everywhere and manually count. In other words to the best of our knowledge right now, the universe should be teeming with life. To think that it's just us and to base that on the fact that we have only seen us is to not understand the situation that we are in. Like I said to Dotini, the entire human race is like an isolated tribe



We haven't seen anything not necessarily because there is nothing to see, but because we only see a very tiny area of the universe.

Earth-like planets are also only probabilities to be at a right distance with the sun so water can remain liquid, no one knows on the nature of these planets and what it contains. I remain in doubt whether we could travel one day to these lightyears planets, but I think it's the only solution to confirm anything about these theories.

All we really need is a better understanding of planet formation and the foundations of life. Get the right values for the probabilities and we'll know how much life there is in the universe without having to visit every possible location.

 

[Touring Mars]

Who's to say that in another 100 years we won't have the ability to create speed-of-light transport?

That might be a tall order, but reaching an appreciable % of light speed would make relativistic space travel possible. Apparently you could even travel to the Andromeda galaxy in about 28 years, or do a return trip in ~60 (I'm guessing you'd want to stay for a while once you got there...). Unfortunately, by the time you got back to Earth, 50 million years would have elapsed and the Earth would be a completely different place - humans would have evolved to the extent that you would appear like a living fossil to them - either that or humanity and even life itself might not exist on the planet any more. On the plus side, Scotland might have actually won a major footballing tournament by then. OK, this is getting a bit far fetched now.

 

[JKgo]

Scotland might have actually won a major footballing tournament by then. OK, this is getting a bit far fetched now.

...Shots fired.

 

[Liquid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Christians

Mainly sports people if I think off the top of my head. A few of them have converted to Islam. Muhammad "Cassius Clay" Ali springs to mind. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Nicholas Anelka, Nathan Ellington and Abel Xavier. Then there's musician Cat Stevens, who is now known as Yusuf Islam.

Then there are people like George Harrison (Hinduism) and Roberto Baggio (Buddhism). Good list, quite exhaustive. To say that Christians never convert elsewhere is ludicrous. It's also more popular than ever for Islamic conversions from Christianity in Britain.

 

[Imari]

We wouldn't need to travel to them to confirm intelligent life. The SETI project utilises radio telescopes to search for electromagnetic transmissions from other civilisations.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, powered flight was thought to be impossible. Who's to say that in another 100 years we won't have the ability to create speed-of-light transport?

Well, it would take a fairly major revolution in physics. The energy costs to get anything of reasonable mass to a significant fraction of light speed are pretty prohibitive, even when you disregard all the other engineering problems.

Either we'd need to get something like total energy conversion of matter or something pretty close to it in order to move any significant amount of mass, or we have to start cheating with wormholes and Alcubierre generators. Or learn how to nullify mass, I suppose.

It's probably a safe bet that in 100 years we won't have a vehicle that could take half a dozen scientists and their gear to the nearest star to have a look around and have them come back within their own lifetimes, but anything is possible.

I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

They must not have been true Scotsmen.

 

[Scaff]

But what about Jesus and the NT, what about the actions there?

You mean the man who preached non-violence and then beat people with a cat o'nine tails and cursed a plant to wither because it didn't have fruit on it out of season?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

There is a reward either way.
The only difference is in the time frame, which could be shorter or longer depending.

There is a proven reward only one way.

The point is, yes Science or Joe or whoever or whatever, is an exercise in individual perspective.
Take away the individual and there is no anything, since you remove all perceptiveness.

Science is not about individual perspectives, no matter how many times you want to say it.

You can test what I am claiming as well.
It is repeatable from one person to the next.
DCP is one example, I'm another, as well as others who have posted in this thread.
There are literally millions worldwide.

I tested it with a childhood raised with religion. The results are dissimilar.

Lastly, it is not necessarily something you want to hear.
But rather more in the line with something you need to hear.

It's interesting you take issue with want versus need. I'll take it that we're in agreeance that no matter which, it's still the person telling themselves in their own head.

The only way you can conclude that is by biased assumption of false content
Somewhat of a drive by classification as being the same without a detailed and in depth examination of the claims.
Otherwise what evidence are you relying on upon which to base that conclusion.
And actually, more evidence to the contrary, as far as claims made testimonially.

Stop using the shotgun approach to words, it's a disservice to the language.

In non-jumble, explain why one particular version of an all-powerful entity is the correct choice in the God Lottery. There's plenty of testimonials in favour of other deities.

Nothing conclusively from a physical evidence standpoint, yes.

Nothing. Full stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Initially yes it can be percieved that way.
However, then again if someone warns you of a problem that produces negative consequences, is that truly a
slight, or do they perhaps have your best interest at heart?

If someone tells me they're going to break my legs unless I give them all my money, that's threatening, not looking out for anything. Except maybe their own interests.

Your later doctor example isn't right either: if a doctor is threatening to get me sick, he's not looking out for my best intentions.

Sorry, but oh yes I do.
There is a reason we have similar views and I already told you what it is.
We are on the same wavelength because of that factor alone.
I don't need to get in his mind, because he has already expressed whats in his heart.(spirit)
Or what spirit he is of.
I don't need to know the details of his views.
I already know the influence and perspective of where they originate.
And BTW he is not the only one that has posted in this thread that I have had the same in common with.

Details always are important. You cannot know the details of his views, because as you've said, there's no way to see into his mind. Yet we're meant to take what's in your mind as "proof"?

Quite.
But the point is, it is made out to you personally and no one is allowed to cash it, but you.
Or you are the only one who is to have control of it.

...and again, my paycheque exists.

Convenient or otherwise does not deter from the factual aspects.

@Famine already covered, very thoroughly, how that statement was far from factual.

In reality it is much more than that.
You need to go back and read my posts that explain it in more detail.

You think you are right about the big bearded man in the sky. When asked for anything resembling proof, you point to either a) there being millions of others who believe in something similar (which is not proof), or b) a 2000-year old book of extremely questionable origin, that has both been shown to borrow to stories from older religions, and receive countless edits over the years when convenient (also, not proof). Alternately, you point to the thought itself, with all this talk of "within".

None of that constitutes proof, no matter how much you seek to change the English language for your own purposes. That has been the main point of contention for many in this thread; I couldn't care less if you want to have a belief in the Christian version of God, the Simpsons version of God, or a rainbow-coloured, 19-armed version of God. It's your life. But don't argue that said deity's existence is fact, because there is no proof for any of them.

Your beliefs are proof that you have beliefs. They do not make the subject of the beliefs true.

 

[dylansan]

Even the tooth fairy exists in a fashion.
...
I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

Forgive me if I have trouble taking you seriously after this one.

 

[GBO Possum]

Forgive me if I have trouble taking you seriously after this one.

You mean you have actually been taking @SuperCobraJet seriously? He doesn't take observations, evidence, science or reason seriously, and hasn't taken any of our postings seriously by replying coherently, so why treat SCJ with serious consideration?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Actually it does. Your favourite colour is both a matter of personal perspective (a shade that pleases you personally) and faith (that it's the shade you believe it is) - but the wavelength of light required to produce that shade is neither a matter of perspective or faith. Light in that wavelength (however you measure wavelengths - our unit system is subjective, but the measurements they produce are objective) always emits that hue, whatever you call it.No - since that's not the case. You're missing one key aspect of the scientific method - and that's that one result in one instance from one individual is not sufficient to establish veracity. Individual testimony is not how the scientific method functions.

In order for an observation to become evidential, it has to be capable of being repeated regardless of the observer. Someone else, somewhere else must be able to do the same process and see the same outcome. It doesn't matter who that someone else is, nor where they are - it doesn't even matter if they're human or on Earth.

So you have a test designed to be, as you say, as objective as possible (and furthermore designed to have the best chance possible of proving you wrong) which has to be repeatable no matter who or what the observer is. What do we call something that happens regardless of who or what the observer is? Objective!

For the reasons you mention, I should have answered a little differently.
In that instead of :

Now that being the case, in reality everything is a matter of individual perspective.

I should have said:
"Now that being the case, in reality everything is a matter of individual perspective, or a collection of individual perspectives."

Again it has no affect as to the outcome as the basis for objective establishment, other than the confidence in presumption of purity.

You seem to believe there is some magic switch that gets flipped after the observation and the perception used to
establish it, that renders it something completely different than what it is.
It is still a perception.
The fact that it may contain a high percentage of objective purity does not change the fact, it is still a perception.
That is irrevocable from the equation before or after.
The objectivity if any, is wholly dependant on it.

In reality nothing is a matter of individual perspective, except belief and preference. And even then, they have objective outcomes - love is the most subjective of preferences, and we can objectively measure if someone is in love...

Well given the fact in reality, that eveything is of belief, which is dependant on perspective, I don't see how you can reasonably conclude that.

Anyway, I am curious to know, how one objectively measures to conclude someone is in love?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Christians

I didn't say people who identify as being Christians.

 

[dylansan]

I didn't say people who identify as being Christians.

You are then of course, completely capable of telling the difference between someone who identifies as Christian, and a true "spirit-filled Christian", or else you wouldn't have brought it up, right?

 

[Mike458]

I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

Yes, I have.

Me.

(and most of the people who are arguing against you)

 

[Famine]

For the reasons you mention, I should have answered a little differently.
In that instead of :

I should have said:
"Now that being the case, in reality everything is a matter of individual perspective, or a collection of individual perspectives."

Which would still be wrong...

You seem to believe

Nope.

Quick hint - whenever you use that word at someone else, it's likely to be wrong.

there is some magic switch that gets flipped after the observation and the perception used to establish it, that renders it something completely different than what it is.
It is still a perception.
The fact that it may contain a high percentage of objective purity does not change the fact, it is still a perception.

No. You're just not getting what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is not a process of invention but of discovery. We observe things, create a theory to explain the observation, design an hypothesis to test the theory, invent a test to prove the hypothesis wrong and collect results - then lather, rinse, repeat. We don't invent things, see if we're right and then pat ourselves on the back for knowing more things.

The purpose isn't to create knowledge, but to uncover what knowledge is already there. The knowledge is objective and our tests are objective to uncover it. Neither the knowledge nor the tests depend on any individual or group of individuals to observe them, and even if nothing at all does the knowledge does not change - because it is not a matter of individual perspective or belief.


Sometimes we don't even know that we don't know something. That it exists is objective, even in our total ignorance of it.

Anyway, I am curious to know, how one objectively measures to conclude someone is in love?

Neurochemistry.

I didn't say people who identify as being Christians.

Ahh, those pesky fake Scots.

So not a single person on those lists (and you've read them all) was an actual Christian who converted away from the religion? Not even Jerry DeWitt, who was a preacher for 25 years?

 

[ClydeYellow]

I know of quite a few conversions from other religions to Christianity, but I have never heard of a born again, spirit filled Christian ever converting to another religion.

That's just like saying, "I have never heard of a law-abiding criminal". Of course a Christian who is considering another religion must not be "spirit filled", else he'd have no reason to consider converting to another religion, would he?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Neurochemistry

Out of interest, can the same answer be given for why people have a belief in greater/higher beings? It's long been my opinion that tendency to believe is brain chemistry as much as desire to procreate or survive...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Yes, I have.

Me.

(and most of the people who are arguing against you)

Atheism isn't a religion though, if that's what you are referring to.

 

[Mike458]

Atheism isn't a religion though, if that's what you are referring to.

Well, I am implying that he was stating atheism as well (leaving religion alltogether).

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There is a proven reward only one way.

And which way is that?

Science is not about individual perspectives, no matter how many times you want to say it.

Obviously it is not about subjectivity, but rather the quest for objectivity.
However, there is absolutely, positively, without exception, no way to establish objectivity apart from the subjective perception of the individual or individuals.
If there is another way it can be done, please clue me in, I would really like to know what it is.
Now, my statement again concerning this is that if you remove the individual, or individuals you likewise remove the perspective required to establish, know or percieve anything, objective or otherwise.
Hence there is nothing.
That is just a simple, basic, testable, measureable, repeatable, verifiable and conclusive fact of the matter.
If you like mathematical equivalents that is a classic example:
Any number minus the same number equals zero.

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.
Now this is the closer:
The only way that it can be percieved, known, or established from a reality position, that any of the above factors occurred, is by prior perception of the individual.
So if there is no individual there is no anything.

Given the overwhelming demand by many in this thread for evidence, proof and the like, I'm really shocked at the challenge to this.

I tested it with a childhood raised with religion. The results are dissimilar.

I've mentioned this before in this thread that what I am experiencing and describing is a relationship as opposed to a Religion.

It's interesting you take issue with want versus need. I'll take it that we're in agreeance that no matter which, it's still the person telling themselves in their own head.

Absolutely and unequivically, NO.
It has nothing to do with your head other than, it is aware of it.
Or in other words you can recieve cognizant material that originates in your spirit.
Or further specifically from the Holy Spirit once you have it.
The only part your head plays is in awareness of it since it is directly connected.
And with practice it can be differentiated as to where it originates.
Now as a practical concept I fully realize that sounds a bit over the top.
It is also probably the biggest stumbling block to the carnal mind.
But nevertheless that is the confirmation process of the added dimensional reality.

Stop using the shotgun approach to words, it's a disservice to the language.

Well I would only remind you, a shotgun shell is still made up of a number of individual pellets.
Each of which carry velocity, inertia and singularity of impact.
And sometimes like a shotgun, it is the best choice for the task at hand.

In non-jumble, explain why one particular version of an all-powerful entity is the correct choice in the God Lottery. There's plenty of testimonials in favour of other deities.

First, I would say specifics as to content. Or there is at least IMO, nothing that compares to it.
Secondly, as part of that content the most astonishing comparative is in, forget the dos and don'ts of contemporary
religious observance. You cannot earn your way to righteousness. Forget about it, because it can't be done.
The cost of it is way beyond your ability to pay for it.
The only way to righteousness is through faith in Jesus Christ, who is as claimed the only fully righteous man to ever live and by being sacrificed in the prescribed manner as being guilty of sin, met the terms of payment for all sin.
Additionally as part of the acceptance and reliance on him is the receipt of the Holy Spirit as a confirmation to the covenant, as well as the power element needed in the perfection process.(Teacher, Comforter, Communicator, Strengthener, Prayer Partner, Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate)
Now those things require being able to intereact and communicate with you.
And again this whole concept is relationally based, not law based.

I don't know of any other Deity that offers anything like this.
And I have found it to be the most honest, complete, truthful, real and relatable as per our existence.
In turn I believe it is the most logical.

Nothing. Full stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

If conclusive objective physical evidence is your requirement, then you have presumed yourself apart from it right from the get go.
Perhaps you have never heard the term "word of mouth".
That is the only evidence available by which to learn of it.

If someone tells me they're going to break my legs unless I give them all my money, that's threatening, not looking out for anything. Except maybe their own interests.

Again I believe that is a misinterpretation of the situation.
If someone warns you of a impending critical circumstance, it is not to be assumed that their intentions are only of evil trickery.

I can not emphasize the following point enough:

You have been given the power to choose your own fate.
Perhaps you should stop and really contemplate that.
And for that to be a true reality there actually has to be something from which to choose.
If you are limited to only good choices, is that really a choice?
Particularly if in reality the spectrum of choice is a span of good as well as evil?

Now God says the road you are on he does not have any part in and cannot because it is in direct opposition to him.
It is completely run and controlled by Satan, and there is no good thing in it.
It's a dead end.
(And BTW, he made that statement right from the beginning.)
Now he offers all of us a free ticket to ride the road he is on that has promise, benefit, joy, life and coninues on for eternity.
If he didn't make that offer, I could see that perhaps he has had evil intentions, but not in light of the offer.

Principly it is no different than if you had money invested with Bernie Madoff, and someone told you, hey get your money away from him, he is a crook. And you say well by all indication I am doing quite well with him.
And again they say he is a crook, take your investment away from him, and I will show you where to invest it where it will be safe and give you a good return.
How is that of evil intention?

Your later doctor example isn't right either: if a doctor is threatening to get me sick, he's not looking out for my best intentions.

God is just like the doctor, he is not threatening to make you sick, you are already sick.
And our disease is attributable to spiritual genetics, inherited from the first man and woman right on down the line. And originally contracted by exercising, guess what, choice. And we are back to it again.

Details always are important. You cannot know the details of his views, because as you've said, there's no way to see into his mind. Yet we're meant to take what's in your mind as "proof"?

As far as evidential testimony as to truth, it is certainly something to consider.
However, ultimately it is something an individual has to investigate, examine, and evaluate for themselves.
It is a personal decision and designed specifically to that end.
It is a relational process, and as the old saying goes "it takes two to tango".
Part you, and part God.
Again as he says, "Draw close to me, and I will draw close to you".

...and again, my paycheque exists.

Quite.
And likewise a paycheque is made out to you, at the Bank of God waiting for you to come in and cash
it.

@Famine already covered, very thoroughly, how that statement was far from factual.

Sorry, but as per the factual aspects, I have to disagree.

You think you are right about the big bearded man in the sky. When asked for anything resembling proof, you point to either a) there being millions of others who believe in something similar (which is not proof), or b) a 2000-year old book of extremely questionable origin, that has both been shown to borrow to stories from older religions, and receive countless edits over the years when convenient (also, not proof). Alternately, you point to the thought itself, with all this talk of "within".

None of that constitutes proof, no matter how much you seek to change the English language for your own purposes. That has been the main point of contention for many in this thread; I couldn't care less if you want to have a belief in the Christian version of God, the Simpsons version of God, or a rainbow-coloured, 19-armed version of God. It's your life. But don't argue that said deity's existence is fact, because there is no proof for any of them.

Your beliefs are proof that you have beliefs. They do not make the subject of the beliefs true.

Precisely.
It is testimonial evidence for truth, but not conclusive.
However, I am still as far as truthful testimony required to tell the truth as I know it, even if it is from a "within" position.
There is nothing I can do about that now.
You can't unknow something, except perhaps by a bout of amnesia.

 

[Scaff]

Further the tree in the forest is a prime example.
If you remove the individual from the forest and a tree falls, there is no sound, no vibration, no sight, no nothing.

Are you honestly saying that if no one is present then a tree falling produces no sound waves at all?

Seriously!

 

[Dotini]

Are you honestly saying that if no one is present then a tree falling produces no sound waves at all?

Seriously!

Does reality exist if its not measured?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/