Do you believe in God?

[zzz_pt]

@Scaff @Famine @zzz_pt

Forget about that. We can discuss forever about it.

My opinion: I don't think there is any kind of god but I respect everybody who thinks that there is somebody like in many religious paperworks (Bible, Qur'an,...).

I respect them too as long as they don't try to interfere in my freedom of speech, freedom from religion and ultimately my life. Otherwise, I despise them.

ISIS, in my honest opinion which I don't want to discuss about further more, is driven by the weapon industry and has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with the islam.

That's an opinion that, as Scaff said, would get us both killed in some parts of the world.

 

[Danoff]

Then you would know in reality, how irrelevant this all is, except in relation to physical knowledge.
Sorry, different ballgame.

What about the notion of a falsifiable test to obtain knowledge is limited in any sense to "the physical". Explain why a method of acquiring knowledge about reality is somehow limited to certain aspects of reality and stops applying in other aspects of reality.

 

[Scaff]

If I say I am you, am I you?

I'm not a religion. Try at the very least to make valid analogies.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

I'm not a religion. Try at the very least to make valid analogies.

Just forget it. I should stay out of threads like this in the future.

 

[Famine]

If I say I am you, am I you?

It doesn't matter whether you are or not, only whether you think you are. If you think you're him, nothing on Earth will convince you that you aren't.

The imbeciles fighting for Da'esh think they are true Muslims and other Muslims aren't. They think that they and they alone are fighting for Islam. No-one will ever convince them that they are not, whether they are or not.

 

[zzz_pt]

^ Yep.

It's the same thing if someone believes he won the lottery. He'll behave accordingly to that belief independently of the fact that he didn't won the money. Beliefs shape behavior either they're true or false.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

It doesn't matter whether you are or not, only whether you think you are. If you think you're him, nothing on Earth will convince you that you aren't.

Okay, that is a valid point. But they still have nothing to do with moslems who are not extremists.

 

[dylansan]

Not so.
You can can go to the top of a ten story building right now and jump off, believing you can fly, and the test will prove differently, regardless of what you believe.

The point was not that it would, but that it could. The skyscraper example is definitely falsifiable because the result would be physical and hard to ignore. When looking for God however, there's no pavement to change your mind. If you already think God exists, there's plenty of things you can interpret as God. Anytime there's a nice coincidence, or you get lucky and win some money, or you avoid a dangerous situation, that's God looking out for you. The problem is, what phenomena could you observe that would lead you to conclude there is no God? Name one.

If their isn't one, then the result of your test and any like it (unfalsifiable) is a foregone conclusion, regardless of the actual truth.

Again not so.
The big difference here as I have emphasized repeatedly is you are testing in a different dimension.
The Spiritual dimension which has different tools, rules and laws.

So when testing things in the spiritual dimension, I have to believe or it won't work?

I live in the physical dimension. I make conclusions based on the physical perceptions I experience all the time. For the physical world, this works great. Now you're telling me there's another dimension where the tools I normally use to make conclusions, tools which work very very well, are useless in the spiritual world. I should learn an entirely new way of obtaining information which ignores "physical" principles like falsifiability, despite the fact that you have not even demonstrated that this spiritual dimension even exists, or that you know what rules are required to get information from it.

Why don't you just say that the spiritual dimension requires me to trust you and believe in god no matter what. It would be just as convincing.

This is actually a very good analogy of the same principle.
The principle being the parents knowing what the kid's expectations(faith in) are, will act to meet those expectations.
God operates the same way.
Except there is no pretense of a fictitious middle man, but rather the person of his son, Jesus Christ.

You missed the point, which was that even though there is no Santa, the kids think the presents prove he exists. They don't.

To the contrary, it is evidence of a very vital principle.

It's not evidence that Santa exists.

They are all physical, carnal manifestations.
The manifestation of the spiritual, is another dimension.
It is not of the physical.

You're forgetting about the taco dimension, which you can only sense with your tortilla based senses. The rules of the taco dimension are simple: You have to believe you can taste something delicious, and then the taco will reveal itself to you.

Why not?

See below.

Absolutely false.

I told myself I know god exists. I knew it was a lie. Unless you think I can just turn off the part of my brain that pays attention to truth, I don't know what you expect me to do. Should I just chant it over and over? Telling me to just believe in god is like telling me to sweat jello. It's an action but I have no control over it.

Maybe you're better at lying to yourself than I am.

You don't know things about God, because you want, and have determined a particular type of evidence base on physical rules.

How silly of me. Explain these spiritual rules again and how you know what those rules are.

So consequently you are self imposing limitations on yourself and God.
Don't forget, you have the autonomy.

Just like I have the autonomy to pee lemonade.

Let me ask you, even in the skewed Santa Claus example, you still got the gifts, didn't you?

Yeah, from my physical parents, not a spiritual Santa.

 

[Scaff]

Okay, that is a valid point. But they still have nothing to do with moslems who are not extremists.

Yes they do. Both think they are Muslims and both think the other doesn't represent 'true' Islam and both could using the texts put forward a valid argument to support themselves and discredit the other.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

Yes they do. Both think they are Muslims and both think the other doesn't represent 'true' Islam and both could using the texts put forward a valid argument to support themselves and discredit the other.

And both are human kind, both live on a planet called earth, both have two arms and two legs...

But their ideologies have nothing in common!

 

[Scaff]

And both are human kind, both live on a planet called earth, both have two arms and two legs...

Strawman analogies don't help your case

But their ideologies have nothing in common!

Really? Nothing at all?

I seem to recall a guy called Mo, he's a prophet of some kind, wrote a book they all cherry pick from (just like the influence of his earlier buddies Jesus and Moses).

No they are not identical, but to claim they have nothing in common in terms of ideologies is absurd.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

Strawman analogies don't help your case


Really? Nothing at all?

I seem to recall a guy called Mo, he's a prophet of some kind, wrote a book they all cherry pick from (just like the influence of his earlier buddies Jesus and Moses).

No they are not identical, but to claim they have nothing in common in terms of ideologies is absurd.

I give up. My English is not good enough to further discuss this. Have a nice day

 

[squadops]

Not sure if this is a statement or a question?

If its a question, well that depends on what they have cherry picked and what they intend to do to others based on it. I have no issue with any persons self-belief, never have, it a desire to enforce that belief on anyone else I have an issue with.

. /= ?

The enforcement deal is a problem on both sides, pretty much the most important statement made in this thread. 👍

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Which I did.Why?Why?According to?Why?

Simply because the physical is the physical, and the spiritual is the spiritual.

Two distinctly different dimensional realms.

You've been claiming you did a test. You can share the test that you performed that God had a chance to fail.Why?Why?No, I will happily accept your deity or any other if it makes itself known to me.I will happily accept ghosts, voodoo, fortune, magic, aliens, psychics or indeed anything that will subject itself to a test it can fail. That's literally the opposite of closed-mindedness - approaching everything with no preconceptions

Actually, thats not true.
You want a test on your terms, your way.
Sorry, thats preconception. It doesn't work that way.
It's not a physical test.
But a spiritual relational test.

I keep asking for your test, step-by-step, from atheism to spiritual enlightenment and knowledge of God. I want to do your test - I want knowledge. You won't share what that test is, except to give vague instructions like "read the New Testament" - and when pressed on which one you tell me that any will "suffice".

To the contrary, instructions in the New Testament are application specific.
And I recommended the King James translation, but all of them have the same instructions.

I know why you won't share what that test is, and I know why you keep on making up reasons why it'd be no good for me to do the test anyway. Psychics have been doing the same thing for centuries.

Thats odd, you just stated you have no preconceptions.
In truth, you now admit, you do have some.
BTW, you should have stated "you believe you know".

But at least you've now admitted that you are closed minded.

Thats one of those yes and no answers.
Yes in that everyone operates from their own basis of belief.
No in that the definition of closed minded, is in reality the unreceptive stance to new ideas and arguments.
I don't see anything new in your argument, and in fact it is the same carnal standard concept every person is born with.
Nothing new there.
As a matter of fact, I already know and accept physical standards for physical things.
However, obviously the concepts of the spiritual are new and quite a shock to you.
So who is actually the closed minded one here?

The point was not that it would, but that it could. The skyscraper example is definitely falsifiable because the result would be physical and hard to ignore. When looking for God however, there's no pavement to change your mind. If you already think God exists, there's plenty of things you can interpret as God. Anytime there's a nice coincidence, or you get lucky and win some money, or you avoid a dangerous situation, that's God looking out for you. The problem is, what phenomena could you observe that would lead you to conclude there is no God? Name one.

Thats very simple.
Where you are right now.
In your reality, there is no God.
The same place everyone is physically born into.
Thats why I said it is a series of tests, starting with being born of the spirit, and it goes on and on.

If their isn't one, then the result of your test and any like it (unfalsifiable) is a foregone conclusion, regardless of the actual truth.So when testing things in the spiritual dimension, I have to believe or it won't work?

Thats correct.
Totally different approach and concept from the physical.
And thats because it is spiritual and based completely in relational dynamics.
Realtionship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship.
That can't be emphasized enough.
And usually a huge stumbling block to the those of us that are of the male persuasion.

I live in the physical dimension. I make conclusions based on the physical perceptions I experience all the time. For the physical world, this works great. Now you're telling me there's another dimension where the tools I normally use to make conclusions, tools which work very very well, are useless in the spiritual world. I should learn an entirely new way of obtaining information which ignores "physical" principles like falsifiability, despite the fact that you have not even demonstrated that this spiritual dimension even exists, or that you know what rules are required to get information from it.

Again it's a most unique application and approach.
Your physical, carnal attributes are of little help in this.

Why don't you just say that the spiritual dimension requires me to trust you and believe in god no matter what.

In so many words that is what I am telling you.
I'm just explaining the differences that exist in the procedure and why it is not the same as the physical carnal approach.

It would be just as convincing.You missed the point, which was that even though there is no Santa, the kids think the presents prove he exists. They don't.It's not evidence that Santa exists.You're forgetting about the taco dimension, which you can only sense with your tortilla based senses. The rules of the taco dimension are simple: You have to believe you can taste something delicious, and then the taco will reveal itself to you.

No I didn't miss the point, I said the real point is in the principle.
This is far from trying to conjure up a taco via positive thinking.

See below.I told myself I know god exists. I knew it was a lie.
Unless you think I can just turn off the part of my brain that pays attention to truth, I don't know what you expect me to do.

God expects you to go one step past that.
Is carnal, physical truths, all the truth there is?
Or is there something more than that?
It doesn't eliminate that which pays attention to truth, but adds the spirit to it.

Should I just chant it over and over? Telling me to just believe in god is like telling me to sweat jello. It's an action but I have no control over it.

Maybe you're better at lying to yourself than I am.How silly of me. Explain these spiritual rules again and how you know what those rules are.Just like I have the autonomy to pee lemonade.
Yeah, from my physical parents, not a spiritual Santa.

Let me ask you a question.
If God exists, would you want to know about him?

You have autonomy to choose between choices.
And this is a choice you have that God has presented in a distinctly different format.
You can believe you will pee lemonade if you wish, but I doubt that will happen.

What about the notion of a falsifiable test to obtain knowledge is limited in any sense to "the physical". Explain why a method of acquiring knowledge about reality is somehow limited to certain aspects of reality and stops applying in other aspects of reality.

Because there are two realities, the physical and the spiritual.

 

[Famine]

Simply because the physical is the physical, and the spiritual is the spiritual.

Two distinctly different dimensional realms.

Why?

Actually, thats not true.
You want a test on your terms, your way.
Sorry, thats preconception. It doesn't work that way.
It's not a physical test.
But a spiritual relational test.

Why? Why is the tool that we use to discover all things about our universe (and beyond) not suitable in this one instance?

To the contrary, instructions in the New Testament are application specific.
And I recommended the King James translation, but all of them have the same instructions.

As I already showed you (and you didn't read), the instructions are not the same in all English language translations. I linked you to an instance of a user trying to justify not learning anything new based on a New Testament Bible verse, when alternate translations suggested that he should merely keep faith while learning new things. Those are two different instructions.


State your method, step by step, from atheism to knowledge of God.

Thats odd, you just stated you have no preconceptions.
In truth, you now admit, you do have some.

... about the existence of deities.

And technically not even about you, since what I think of you has been gathered from extensive observation of you mangling language and being evasive.

I keep asking for your step-by-step test and you won't give it. It's not even like I've asked for your controls, conditions and p-value, just the method from the very first step through to the very last.

BTW, you should have stated "you believe you know".

Nope.

Thats one of those yes and no answers.

Nope.

Yes in that everyone operates from their own basis of belief.

Nope. That's just your belief. It has been demonstrated many, many times in this thread that belief is not necessary for a number of people. You believe that it is - and you're entitled to your belief.

No in that the definition of closed minded, is in reality the unreceptive stance to new ideas and arguments.
I don't see anything new in your argument, and in fact it is the same carnal standard concept every person is born with.
Nothing new there.

Mangling language again...

You are not willing to create a test to prove your deity does not exist, because you are not willing to accept the concept that your deity does not exist. Save for the fact that creating the test would be novel for you, "new" has nothing to do with it - nor does carnality (unless you badly want to have sex with your deity).

You approach this from a preconceived mindset that your deity definitely does exist and nothing can ever prove it doesn't. That is closed minded.

As a matter of fact, I already know and accept physical standards for physical things.
However, obviously the concepts of the spiritual are new and quite a shock to you.

Neither of those things is true.

So who is actually the closed minded one here?

You. You already conceded that. But in case anyone is in any doubt...


I will accept the existence of any deity that, like all other things we know, can be falsified and repeatedly pass tests that it is given the best possible chance to fail.

You will not accept the existence of any deity that, like all other things we know, can be falsified and repeatedly pass tests that it is given the best possible chance to fail. You will also not accept that your deity can be subjected to tests that it is given the best possible chance to fail and state outright that it exists regardless of any such tests that you won't perform anyway.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Why?Why?

Simple.
That is the reality.

We were designed and created to operate in the physical dimension.
But with a spiritual, relational, connection to God.
That was sabotaged right out the gate.
So now you do not have that connection.
But it can be re-established via Jesus Christ.

Why is the tool that we use to discover all things about our universe (and beyond) not suitable in this one instance?

You are preconcieving and assuming "all things".
It is not "all things".
It is "all physical things."

As I already showed you (and you didn't read), the instructions are not the same in all English language translations. I linked you to an instance of a user trying to justify not learning anything new based on a New Testament Bible verse, when alternate translations suggested that he should merely keep faith while learning new things. Those are two different instructions.

Which link are you referring too?

State your method

, step by step, from atheism to knowledge of God.... about the existence of deities.And technically not even about you, since what I think of you has been gathered from extensive observation of you mangling language and being evasive.

Particular Bible deities only.
I hope thats not too mangled and evasive for you.

I keep asking for your step-by-step test and you won't give it. It's not even like I've asked for your controls, conditions and p-value, just the method from the very first step through to the very last.

I've given it to you, and stated it's not my method, repeatedly.
All the steps are contained in the New Testament.
What is it about that you can't comprehend?

You are not willing to create a test to prove your deity does not exist, because you are not willing to accept the concept that your deity does not exist.

And you stated you had no preconceptions or beliefs.
Imagine that.
There is only one test to prove he doesn't exist.
And that is strictly on an "individual reality", not "the reality" level.
That would be one of unbelief.
If you approach from that standpoint, yes that individual will never know he exists.
On the other hand if one undergoes the method God has prescribed, which I have, then God can be a proven reality to any individual.

Nope.Nope.Nope. That's just your belief. It has been demonstrated many, many times in this thread that belief is not necessary for a number of people. You believe that it is - and you're entitled to your belief.

No thats not just belief but "the reality".
It has been claimed belief is not necessary, but not proven.
In reality, it is the direct opposite.
BTW what is your test on that for falsifiability?
I'm real interested in that one.

Mangling language again...

You are not willing to create a test to prove your deity does not exist, because you are not willing to accept the concept that your deity does not exist. Save for the fact that creating the test would be novel for you, "new" has nothing to do with it - nor does carnality (unless you badly want to have sex with your deity).

Truly fascinating.
Another definition straight out of the dictionary, but I'm the one mangling and redefining.
BTW, here is another one for you.
Not that it probably matters to you, but #2 is the application here.
Perhaps by chance, you might not find it too mangled for your consumption.


carnal
[kahr-nl]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective
1.
pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or thebody, its passions and appetites; sensual:
carnal pleasures.

2.
not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly: a man of secular,rather carnal, leanings.

 

[Famine]

Simple.
That is the reality.

Why?

You're just stating that this is the case over and over again, but you're not demonstrating it.

We were designed

Nope.

and created

Nope.

You are preconcieving and assuming "all things".
It is not "all things".
It is "all physical things."

Why? Demonstrate that there is a difference. @Danoff asked you the same and you completely ignored it.

Which link are you referring too?

The one you ignored completely because I said it was in the Islam thread and you said Islam has nothing to do with it - thus not bothering at all to read a Christian citing a Bible verse claiming that it means he doesn't need to learn anything, when several other translations read in different ways.

Particular Bible deities only.

No, I have no preconceptions about the existence of any deity. I will accept the existence of any deity that passes a falsified test. That's why I didn't limit it to individual deities, Biblical or not.

I hope thats not too mangled and evasive for you.

Only in the sense that you carved up my post, responded to nothing and then didn't bother to respond to the request to state your method step-by-step yet again, despite quoting it.

I've given it to you, and stated it's not my method, repeatedly.
All the steps are contained in the New Testament.
What is it about that you can't comprehend?

What is it about that which is so secretive that you cannot lay out, step by step, right here in this thread like you have been repeatedly asked?

Why do you keep on just saying "read the New Testament", despite me pointing out over and over again that there is no such thing as a reference New Testament due to translation changing the raw meanings of individual verses all over the place?

Why can you not just give a straight, step-by-step method that leads from "atheist" to "Christian" for anyone?


State. Your. Method.

And you stated you had no preconceptions or beliefs.
Imagine that.

What is this even responding to? Are you somehow reading what I said to mean that I think your deity doesn't exist?

Let me reiterate that any test must start with the assumption that you are wrong. I would do a test on anything on the assumption that I am wrong. This is why we create our tests to give ourselves the best possible chance of proving ourselves wrong. This is what falsifiability is - the ability to test on the basis that what you know is false.

The line you quoted there very clearly points out that you will not perform a test on your deity on the assumption that you are wrong because you cannot accept that you may be. It's nothing to do with me, any deities, any beliefs or preconceptions, but you. Your response makes no sense - and this time not because you've typed a load of arse but because you're apparently responding to something else entirely.

There is only one test to prove he doesn't exist.
And that is strictly on an "individual reality", not "the reality" level.
That would be one of unbelief.
If you approach from that standpoint, yes that individual will never know he exists.
On the other hand if one undergoes the method God has prescribed, which I have, then God can be a proven reality to any individual.

And this is just as nonsensical.

Are you suggesting that the only test you can perform on God which God would fail is to believe he doesn't exist?

That's not a chuffing test.

No thats not just belief but "the reality".

... in your belief system.

It has been claimed belief is not necessary, but not proven.

It has. You won't accept it because your belief system won't allow you to.

In reality, it is the direct opposite.

... in your belief system.

BTW what is your test on that for falsifiability?
I'm real interested in that one.

What on Earth does that even mean?

Truly fascinating.
Another definition straight out of the dictionary, but I'm the one mangling and redefining.
BTW, here is another one for you.
Not that it probably matters to you, but #2 is the application here.
Perhaps by chance, you might not find it too mangled for your consumption.

Actually it was your entire paragraph (and all of your posts, to be frank). You're just ramming adjectives and adverbs into the middle of your sentences regardless of their suitability - rendering just about all meaning lost.

 

[dylansan]

Thats very simple.
Where you are right now.
In your reality, there is no God.
The same place everyone is physically born into.
Thats why I said it is a series of tests, starting with being born of the spirit, and it goes on and on.

"The problem is, what phenomena could you observe that would lead you to conclude there is no God? Name one."

Thats correct.
Totally different approach and concept from the physical.
And thats because it is spiritual and based completely in relational dynamics.
Realtionship, relationship, relationship, relationship, relationship.
That can't be emphasized enough.
And usually a huge stumbling block to the those of us that are of the male persuasion.

So here's the kicker. If you already believe in God before you do any "tests", why don't you just stop there since you already believe?

Again it's a most unique application and approach.
Your physical, carnal attributes are of little help in this.

"you have not even demonstrated that this spiritual dimension even exists, or that you know what rules are required to get information from it."

You respond to doubts about your claims by making the claims again. Start demonstrating your claims or drop it.

In so many words that is what I am telling you.

Then it isn't a test and it isn't falsifiable.

I'm just explaining the differences that exist in the procedure and why it is not the same as the physical carnal approach.

If I told you there was some aspect of reality you were missng, and that all you had to do to find the truth was trust me and beleive with all your heart that a certain dimension exists and contains beings who are strongly invested in our universe, would you do it? Why or why not? And actually answer this instead of making another claim you can't support.

No I didn't miss the point, I said the real point is in the principle.

You're pretending your point is the only one and that mine isn't there at all. Whatever your point is, you have not addressed mine, so I'll ask again: If your method leads to a false positive when applied to Santa, unicorns, or anything else, how can you claim it is a reliable method?

This is far from trying to conjure up a taco via positive thinking.

Possibly, but you're abysmal at demonstrating that.

God expects you to go one step past that.

I don't know what step comes after that. Perhaps you could tell me?

Is carnal, physical truths, all the truth there is?
Or is there something more than that?
It doesn't eliminate that which pays attention to truth, but adds the spirit to it.

It's your job to demonstrate these things. When every response is another claim, you will not help anyone.

Let me ask you a question.
If God exists, would you want to know about him?

Yes, simple as.

You have autonomy to choose between choices.
And this is a choice you have that God has presented in a distinctly different format.

I chose to tell myself God existed. It didn't work. If there is another choice you are going to have to be very specific in describing what it is.

You can believe you will pee lemonade if you wish, but I doubt that will happen.

Once you can explain why, maybe you'll understand.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Why?

You're just stating that this is the case over and over again, but you're not demonstrating it.

It's being demonstrated through out this thread.
But you have to have the identity of the Holy Spirit to understand and comprehend it.
As one poster already said, much of what I post is incoherent, and as I told him, yes it would be to him.

Why?

You're just stating that this is the case over and over again, but you're not demonstrating it.Nope.Nope.Why? Demonstrate that there is a difference. @Danoff asked you the same and you completely ignored it.The one you ignored completely because I said it was in the Islam thread and you said Islam has nothing to do with it - thus not bothering at all to read a Christian citing a Bible verse claiming that it means he doesn't need to learn anything, when several other translations read in different ways.

Is this what you are referring too?

"Put all your trust in God, and lean not onto your own understanding.

Confide in Jehovah with all thy heart, and lean not unto thine own intelligence.

Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence.

Hope in Lord Jehovah from your whole heart and do not trust upon the wisdom of your soul."

No, I have no preconceptions about the existence of any deity. I will accept the existence of any deity that passes a falsified test. That's why I didn't limit it to individual deities, Biblical or not.

How you do not realize that is a preconception, I'll never know.
You are qualifying the acceptance on your own preconcieved terms.
So if the test is other than on that basis, you will never know about it.
Thats the whole point.

Only in the sense that you carved up my post, responded to nothing and then didn't bother to respond to the request to state your method step-by-step yet again, despite quoting it.
What is it about that which is so secretive that you cannot lay out, step by step, right here in this thread like you have been repeatedly asked?

This is is the last time I'm going to tell you,

"it's not my method, it's God's method".
I just tested following his method.

There is a secretive aspect in that it is a covenant relationship, and has similar personal conditions like marriage does.
I'm just making the introduction, it's up to you to pursue it, or not, and it's between you and him from here on out.
He's very interested in the relationship,(with everyone) so the ball is in your court now.

Why do you keep on just saying "read the New Testament", despite me pointing out over and over again that there is no such thing as a reference New Testament due to translation changing the raw meanings of individual verses all over the place?

Why can you not just give a straight, step-by-step method that leads from "atheist" to "Christian" for anyone?

For the same reason I would not try to tell you how to get married.

Let me reiterate that any test must start with the assumption that you are wrong. I would do a test on anything on the assumption that I am wrong. This is why we create our tests to give ourselves the best possible chance of proving ourselves wrong. This is what falsifiability is - the ability to test on the basis that what you know is false.

I've already explained that is for physical tests, which don't apply to a spiritual test.
But I am intrigued here.
So lets skip down to this:

What on Earth does that even mean?

What it means is:
What is your falsifiability test for your "no belief" system that you claim, that proves it is not false?

Actually it was your entire paragraph (and all of your posts, to be frank). You're just ramming adjectives and adverbs into the middle of your sentences regardless of their suitability - rendering just about all meaning lost.

Well I guess you will have to take that up with Dictionary.com.

Please read the reply below.

"The problem is, what phenomena could you observe that would lead you to conclude there is no God? Name one.

Well I will answer that with a question to you.
What person to you know the most intimately?
OK, now tell me what phenomena could you observe that would lead you to conclude they don't exist?

"So here's the kicker. If you already believe in God before you do any "tests", why don't you just stop there since you already believe?"

I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am you asked that question.
For many people, maybe even most people, that would suffice.
But I'm not most people.
That just flat-out ain't good enough for me.
I want to know.
Or believe unto knowing not just beyond reasonable doubt, but shadow of a doubt.
However, like many of you I was convinced that the confirmation was in a intellectual or carnal knowledge of some kind.
That held me up for a long time.
But thats only natural, because it is our only cognitive resource or ability that as some have said, we rely on and have always relied on, for establishment of reality.
It's our only M.O. and as such, others as well. So it is extremely difficult to imagine anything else or an additional way to operate by.
That is what is so absolutely extremely difficult to get your head around.
As I said, I guess I'm not like most people.
Once I was convinced there was something to it, I am going to pursue it until I do get an understanding of it one way or the other.
And I'm not going to stop at anything until I do, and I don't care what it takes or how long it takes.

Besides, I mean think about it.
Here is this claimed living God of the Bible and he is appealling and actually challenging each of us to test and prove him.
What other pursuit could possibly top that as far as the ultimate experience.
None that I know of.
Fortunately, even though it took quite a while before getting the understanding of it, I did get it.
And it is spiritual and relational.

you have not even demonstrated that this spiritual dimension even exists, or that you know what rules are required to get information from it."

It is being demonstrated through out this thread, but you do not have the identity of the Holy Spirit to understand and comprehend it.

You respond to doubts about your claims by making the claims again. Start demonstrating your claims or drop it.Then it isn't a test and it isn't falsifiable.

Falsifiable is irrelvant to this application.

If I told you there was some aspect of reality you were missng, and that all you had to do to find the truth was trust me and beleive with all your heart that a certain dimension exists and contains beings who are strongly invested in our universe, would you do it?

Not necessarily, but I would take it under advisement.

Why or why not?

The reason "why not" is I would have to investigate and analize it for myself and personally reach a determination.
As I just explained above to Famine, it is a very personal aspect to it, in that is between you and the Lord, so it has to be pursued personally and worked out accordingly.

You're pretending your point is the only one and that mine isn't there at all.

Not really, I understand your point completely.
And I pointed out in an earlier post, it is not without justification.

Whatever your point is, you have not addressed mine, so I'll ask again: If your method leads to a false positive when applied to Santa, unicorns, or anything else, how can you claim it is a reliable method?Possibly, but you're abysmal at demonstrating that.I don't know what step comes after that. Perhaps you could tell me?It's your job to demonstrate these things. When every response is another claim, you will not help anyone.Yes, simple as.I chose to tell myself God existed. It didn't work. If there is another choice you are going to have to be very specific in describing what it is.Once you can explain why, maybe you'll understand.

Hopefully, my reply to your second question above, will help answer this.

 

[Famine]

It's being demonstrated through out this thread.

No, you're just stating it.

But you have to have the identity of the Holy Spirit to understand and comprehend it.

Then it's not a demonstration...

As one poster already said, much of what I post is incoherent, and as I told him, yes it would be to him.

Or to anyone who speaks English. You're pummelling all meaning out of your sentences by forcing adverbs and adjectives into them against their will. It seems that you have no grasp of the context of most words above seven letters long.

Is this what you are referring too?

That'd be "to".

And yes. Four sentences each purporting to be a perfect translation from the original same book (from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English), with four completely different meanings. One of your brethren would follow this instruction as they don't need to learn anything new, while some others would treat it as an instruction to confession.

Which of the translations would be the right instruction to follow?

Now that section is from the Old Testament, but similar translational fudging can be seen in the New Testament. How is anyone who speaks English (or near enough to English) as a first language going to know which is the right instruction?

How you do not realize that is a preconception, I'll never know.
You are qualifying the acceptance on your own preconcieved terms.
So if the test is other than on that basis, you will never know about it.
Thats the whole point.

This is the tool we have for understanding everything.

You keep on ignoring @Danoff's question why the tool is suddenly not appropriate when you say it isn't. You just keep saying that it isn't.

This is is the last time I'm going to tell you,

I doubt it.

"it's not my method, it's God's method".
I just tested following his method.

And for what is unlikely to be the last time I ask you, STATE THE METHOD, step by step, from atheism to knowledge of God.

You followed the process, you can recant it step by step. Look, I'm not a mean person, so I'll start you off:

"First I opened the version of the Bible that I like and started reading the New Testament. The first instruction within it that I followed was:"

Keep going through the individual instructions, one by one, until you get to "God". Then we can all follow it with you and be saved.

There is a secretive aspect in that it is a covenant relationship, and has similar personal conditions like marriage does.
I'm just making the introduction, it's up to you to pursue it, or not, and it's between you and him from here on out.
He's very interested in the relationship,(with everyone) so the ball is in your court now.

Not interested enough to tell everyone the step-by-step process.

I can tell you every moment that lead from me not knowing my wife to me marrying her (though it's unlikely to help you unless you also look like me and have a time machine). Why can't (or won't) you do that with God?

For the same reason I would not try to tell you how to get married.

But you're not married to my wife - I am. If you want a relationship with my wife I absolutely can tell you how to do it and if I, as you do, believe that this relationship is the only way to save your eternal soul I would explain it to you step by step.

So that's not an answer, unless you're just massively selfish and don't want to share your God with anyone.

I've already explained that is for physical tests, which don't apply to a spiritual test.

No, you've stated it, not explained it.

You have still yet to demonstrate that the two things are different and that the tool we use to describe everything is not appropriate in this one case.

Is God the only thing that can pass your spiritual test, or would Allah and David Koresh pass it too?

But I am intrigued here.
So lets skip down to this:

What it means is:
What is your falsifiability test for your "no belief" system that you claim, that proves it is not false?

That still doesn't mean anything because you're using the word "falsifiability" wrongly.

What I suspect you actually mean is "What test would you perform to prove the falsification of not having belief?" - and that really doesn't have any meaning as absence of belief is the falsification for belief. The hypothesis is always X causes Y and the falsification is that in the absence of X, Y happens anyway.

Any number of tests can be performed to show that believing in something has no effect on it. However, it's a bit rude of you to ask this of me without having shared the tests that you performed to show that God doesn't exist like you've been asked for the last month or so.

 

[Danoff]

As @Famine keeps saying...

You are preconcieving and assuming "all things".
It is not "all things".
It is "all physical things."

Why? Where in the scientific method of acquiring evidence and testing hypothesis does anything rely on "just physical stuff, not other stuff"? What about it is limited to a particular kind of knowledge?

 

[sammy neuman]

What does this have to do with God having control over Satan?

Very true. If the Bible actually is what it claims to be. And that cannot be proven from its own content alone.

My mistake, Job 1:12, sorry. For the full flavor, Job 1:1-12. I mentioned earlier that this has the flavor of a bet between Satan and God.

I agree on proof-from-own-content, and IMO most believers (including myself) have some experience, or accept testimony of such experiences as confirmation of their belief beyond "the Bible tells me so".

I find it interesting from a behavioral stand-point that the two sides of the argument are mirror-image: Science is reality/the Bible is reality. Only objective evidence is acceptable/only subjective evidence is acceptable (although some objective evidence would be nice). Literalist-believers are deluded/non-literalist-believers are deluded. If I repeat this loud enough you will realize I am right/If I repeat this loud enough you will realize I am right. What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? Nothing changes.
This is how wars get started.
Actually IMO an irresistible force and an immovable object can exist in the same universe (like matter/anti-matter) until such time as they encounter each other. If they do, the result can only be mutual annihilation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

An interesting article I turned up from Dr. Robert Winston, one of the UK's greatest scientists (in my opinion) and a religiousite to boot.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No, you're just stating it.Then it's not a demonstration...

Yes it's a demonstration, but you do not have the key to understand it.
That's just the reality, there is nothing I can do about it, but there is something you can do about it.

And yes. Four sentences each purporting to be a perfect translation from the original same book (from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English), with four completely different meanings. One of your brethren would follow this instruction as they don't need to learn anything new, while some others would treat it as an instruction to confession.

Which of the translations would be the right instruction to follow?

I'm not sure what the conflict is here.
It is just instructing one in the event of something contradicting God, go with God's ruling on it.
Or trust his ruling on it, not what your understanding may want to dictate.

Now that section is from the Old Testament, but similar translational fudging can be seen in the New Testament. How is anyone who speaks English (or near enough to English) as a first language going to know which is the right instruction?This is the tool we have for understanding everything.

Then go get whatever resources you require to determine it.

You keep on ignoring @Danoff's question why the tool is suddenly not appropriate when you say it isn't. You just keep saying that it isn't.I doubt it.

No, you just keep ignoring my answer.
It's a tool for the physical, not the spiritual.
It's just that simple.
You can doubt it all you want, but it's useless in this application.

You followed the process, you can recant it step by step. Look, I'm not a mean person, so I'll start you off:

"First I opened the version of the Bible that I like and started reading the New Testament. The first instruction within it that I followed was:"

OK, here is the first precept:

John 3 [Full Chapter]
Now there was a certain man among the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler (a leader, an authority) among the Jews, Who came to Jesus at night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know and are certain that You have come from God [as] a Teacher; for no one can do these signs (these wonderworks, these miracles—and produce the proofs) that You do unless God is with him. Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God. ...

Any questions about this one?

What I suspect you actually mean is "What test would you perform to prove the falsification of not having belief?" - and that really doesn't have any meaning as absence of belief is the falsification for belief. The hypothesis is always X causes Y and the falsification is that in the absence of X, Y happens anyway.

Then "Y" must be belief.

Any number of tests can be performed to show that believing in something has no effect on it.

I'm not talking about what effect it may or may not have, physically.
That's irrelevant.
Only that belief is a perequiste in anything.
The basis of MO for everyone.
Otherwise it is essential in establishing this application.

However, it's a bit rude of you to ask this of me without having shared the tests that you performed to show that God doesn't exist like you've been asked for the last month or so.

I've given them, you just haven't paid any attention to them.

As @Famine keeps saying...
Why? Where in the scientific method of acquiring evidence and testing hypothesis does anything rely on "just physical stuff, not other stuff"? What about it is limited to a particular kind of knowledge?

As I said the Scientist(person) can test it and recieve it, but Science cannot.
It is not replicatable, except from person to person.
Thats because it is relational and spiritual.
The manifestation and effects of it reside completely within the individual.
I have been told that tests have been done that show physical differences between those that have it and those that don't, but there is no evidential idendifier to attribute it to, since the Holy spirit is not detectable, in that manner.

 

[Famine]

Yes it's a demonstration, but you do not have the key to understand it.

No, it's just a statement. A demonstration demonstrates something. Stamping your metaphorical feet and doing the textual version of screaming "IT IS IT IS IT IS" isn't a demonstration.

Something isn't reality just because you say it is. You need to demonstrate that what you're saying is true, not just repeat that it is.

I'm not sure what the conflict is here.
It is just instructing one in the event of something contradicting God, go with God's ruling on it.
Or trust his ruling on it, not what your understanding may want to dictate.

Each of the four sentences has a different meaning. You may happily treat the variations as synonyms, but they are all different words with different meanings. They cannot all be an accurate representation of the original language used - so you need to choose which one of them is the right one...

Which is it?

Then go get whatever resources you require to determine it.

You're the one that claims to have the method. You're the one that apparently knows which is the right one and which are the wrong ones.

We're seeking to follow your method, verbatim. That means you need to explain the method.

No, you just keep ignoring my answer.
It's a tool for the physical, not the spiritual.
It's just that simple.
You can doubt it all you want, but it's useless in this application.

That's just repeating the same thing, not answering the question.

We're asking why the tool can't be used for "the spiritual" when it can be used for everything else and does not limit itself the way you're proposing to limit it. You're not answering that.

OK, here is the first precept:

John 3 [Full Chapter]
Now there was a certain man among the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler (a leader, an authority) among the Jews, Who came to Jesus at night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know and are certain that You have come from God [as] a Teacher; for no one can do these signs (these wonderworks, these miracles—and produce the proofs) that You do unless God is with him. Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God. ...

Any questions about this one?

So the first instruction is three chapters into the fourth book of the New Testament?

How did you determine that this was step 1 after opening the version of the Bible that you like? Why are the earlier books and earlier chapters of this book positioned before this first step if it is step 1? Why can you ignore all of the instructions (are there any?) that occur before this?


What is step 2 and where can it be found?

Then "Y" must be belief.

No, "X" is belief. That's why I said all of the words that were before that sentence...

That still doesn't mean anything because you're using the word "falsifiability" wrongly.

What I suspect you actually mean is "What test would you perform to prove the falsification of not having belief?" - and that really doesn't have any meaning as absence of belief is the falsification for belief. The hypothesis is always X causes Y and the falsification is that in the absence of X, Y happens anyway.

If you believe that belief causes an outcome "Y", then the falsification would be that the outcome "Y" is independent of belief and the test would be "Y is not affected by belief".

I'm not talking about what effect it may or may not have, physically.
That's irrelevant.
Only that belief is a perequiste in anything.

And you can only show that by trying to prove that belief is not a prerequisite for anything - by falsifying the statement "belief is a prerequisite for anything" to "something is not affected by belief".

The basis of MO for everyone.

... according to your belief system.

Otherwise it is essential in establishing this application.

Another sentence mashup. I suggest you avoid words longer than seven letters, because that's gibberish.

I've given them, you just haven't paid any attention to them.

You have at no point shown anyone on this forum ever any test you have done to prove that God does not exist.

So that's a flat out lie.

 

[Danoff]

It is not replicatable, except from person to person.

What you did was assume the answer (that it's knowledge), and then tell me why it fails the test (it can't be replicated), and then conclude that the test is flawed. Give me a reason that the test is flawed that doesn't require such an assumption. Your reason why the test is flawed cannot be "because it doesn't give me the answer I want". So I'll ask again:

Why? Where in the scientific method of acquiring evidence and testing hypothesis does anything rely on "just physical stuff, not other stuff"? What about it is limited to a particular kind of knowledge?

 

[GBO Possum]

Okay, that is a valid point. But they still have nothing to do with moslems who are not extremists.

One could also say that any Jew or Christian who rejects the law requiring the killing of people who work on the sabbath are extremists. The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter, and to disobey any part of it is to call the whole testament into question.

The Abrahamic God has never been noted for his patience and tolerance, hence I call rejection of his word "extremism".

I'm not seeing any wiggle room in this:-

For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. Exodus 31:15

 

[Danoff]

One could also say that any Jew or Christian who rejects the law requiring the killing of people who work on the sabbath are extremists.

Jew yes, Christian no, they get to hide behind the New Testament and say that Jesus died so that we could have a new deal with God. Only problem is it's still their God who commanded this at one point. They respond be dehumanizing people from before the new testament.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'll be the first to say sorry to the Christians. Maybe we were too fast in trying to completely remove it from our nations, and it is scary how biblically bad it is getting in parts of Britain.

Lot's of stuff to blow your mind in that book too!

Speaking about Hagar the slave who mothered Ishmael, supposed father of the arabs (Muhammad claimed he was descended from him):

Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”

11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:

“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
towards all his brothers.”

A bit later in the story, where Sarah is miraculously blessed with a child, who is named Isaac, generally regarded as the father of Jews (that's right folks, the Jews and Muslims are brothers!):

But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

If things come down to religion it can't hurt to look at the one we've all been bashing for years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
towards all his brothers.”

The "wild donkey" part is an interesting (very late) addition, it doesn't appear in early versions.

A bit later in the story, where Sarah is miraculously blessed with a child

No, that wasn't a miracle, it was the result of sexual intercourse between Sarai (later Sarah) and Abram (later Abraham), her half-brother and husband.

who is named Isaac, generally regarded as the father of Jews

By whom? Abram becomes Abraham, the Father of All Nations and is normally considered to be the father of the Jews. There are also good arguments for Jacob being considered the same in some spheres while literally Jacob's son Judah is seen as the start of Judaism-proper.

that's right folks, the Jews and Muslims are brothers!

Did you only just realise this, you seem surprised?

One thing you should definitely be aware of is that there's serious disagreement amongst scholars about the genealogy of Mohammed and whether or not he descended from Ishmael.

If things come down to religion it can't hurt to look at the one we've all been bashing for years.

Which one would that be?