Do you believe in God?

[sammy neuman]

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.

IMO, I think what he meant before you re-wrote it was: How do you know you are not wrong?

 

[GBO Possum]

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.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

 

[Imari]

Oh good, another thread where we can listen to KSaiyu rant about how Muslims are destroying the world. Le sigh.

 

[Liquid]

[Europe] was built on the backdrop of Christendom, to which even its most secular members still base its values on. We have forgotten this - or been made to forget it. In this "secular" vacuum has sprung an alien religion, one that knows only to spread by the sword. It tramples on those values, instead preaching submission to the "one true God". There's no freedom. There's no equality. There's brotherhood only amongst the ummah. Ditto this new strain of liberalism - just substitute Allah for Political Correctness and ummah for sheeple.

Redirected because well... unsurprisingly we're way off topic and not really talking about the man who was beheaded.

Your post completely ignores how Christianity spread throughout Europe. Was it through love and tolerance? No, it was through slaughtering the natives, enslaving the population, appropriating their pagan rituals and incorporating those pagan elements into Christianity to make the transition not seem so abrupt. Christianity is hardly an ultimate truth when it's been mistranslated, turned into propaganda and edited over time.

Are you forgetting the part where 'Europe' and 'the Western World' was built on a Christian caliphate? It would be hard to describe the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire as anything other than a hardline theocracy. I'd also like to argue that European/Western civilisation was built on various Greek cultures which were certainly unchristian for countless centuries before Christ was even purportedly born.

Now, you're going to reply "See? Just another attack on Christianity from a Westerner who is an apologist for multiculturalism" or something to that effect. Am I attacking Christianity and/or Christians? Not quite. I do not have a problem with someone who is a Christian and I would not have a problem with someone because they were a Christian. Nor do I have a problem with someone who is of any religious persuasion. It's your choice and conviction.

What I have a problem with is when people champion, for example, the Christian tradition of Europe but ignoring or avoiding the murder, rape and suffering it brought. As if it is somehow exempt or exceptional.

There is a great level of disrespect for indigenous populations of European lands and for pre-Christian traditions. And it goes further when used to construct artificial sentiments of nationality. George and the Dragon is lauded but David's red dragon overcoming George's white dragon on judgement day is met with tittering and patronisation. Even within these indigenous groups there is such arrogance; Christianity is tolerated yet Druidism or Paganism is ridiculed.

No, that is simply not good enough.

Yet don't misunderstand this. To say that Christianity only had a negative effect would be doing it a disservice; it would be grossly incorrect. There were many great people who changed our world for the better, who broke through and brought forward fundamental changes in thinking and science, and were led by their noble Christian beliefs.

But for every Isaac Newton, there are countless non-Christians put to death for their lack of belief or belief in something else.
For every Francis of Assisi there is a displacement of non-Christians and genocide of indigenous peoples long forgotten today because it is so long ago in the past and we've all moved on, haven't we?
For every Voltaire there is a Thomas Aquinas and some ridiculous myth along the path to sainthood.
For every William Gladstone there is a corrupt Pope atop a golden throne built on the money and false hope of millions, along with the rape of innumerable women and children.

So yes, I take exception to the notion that Europe was a lovely, peaceful Christian place until the nasty Moors and Ottomans started appearing. This:

sprung an alien religion, one that knows only to spread by the sword. It tramples on those values, instead preaching submission to the "one true God". There's no freedom. There's no equality.

Could so easily be used to describe how Europe was Christianised. History should always be taken with a pinch of salt and a dollop of perspective.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

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.

Just like gravity, you can only observe the effects of it on an individual, but you cannot observe the force itself.
But gravity is universal, this is not.
It is elective as per each individual.
So one can only demonstrate the effects of it from a individual testimonial standpoint.

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...

I already told you what it means.
The intent is what you are reading for, not some dissection of terms.
As long as it does not instruct in a contradictory manner of the intent, it doesn't matter.
So you are saying you cannot read it and understand what the intent is?

Which is 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.

You are drifting back into assumptions, again.
Whose method is it?
I only know what I found to be real again by testing the God of the Bible instruction.

We're seeking to follow your method, verbatim. That means you need to explain the method.That's just repeating the same thing, not answering the question.

Whose method?
I'm answering the question, you either don't like the answer, or cannot comprehend it.
Take your pick.

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.

Everything physical, not spiritual.
I'm answering the question, you either don't like the answer, or cannot comprehend it.
Take your pick.
Let me ask you, has Science or anyone you know of, proven God exists with that tool?

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 I like is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is the reality of "what is".
It is determined by the uniqueness, exclusiveness and specialty of instruction.
I don't recommend ignoring anything in the Bible.

What is step 2 and where can it be found?

We aren't finished with step 1 yet.
Where do you stand on the step one statement?
Do you believe that the statement is true?

No, "X" is belief. That's why I said all of the words that were before that sentence...
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".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".... according to your belief system.Another sentence mashup. I suggest you avoid words longer than seven letters, because that's gibberish.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.

Talk about a mashup of gibberish, you sure have one here.
"Belief" is an inescapable fixed asset active in every person.
All actions or MO, are based upon it, and it is like gravity, in that it is universal to all.
I've already shown by definition it encompasses the evidential as well as non-evidential.
Everyone has the same system of belief, but it is individually directed and applied.
The question whether belief has any effect on anything, is a completely separate issue.

You don't need a test to prove he doesn't exist, thats the status quo.
And yes my claim is quite the opposite.

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?

The answer one may want is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with it.
You are confusing "want" with "belief".
They are two separate entities.
From my position, there is no assuming anything.
As I said, it can be replicated from person to person.

Other stuff in this instance, is observable only in the individual once they have entered the "within" position.
It is only manifest in the individual.
The only way to know it is there is by commonality of effects, known by another "within" individual.
In other words they are the only persons who can recognize it as an evidential reality.

 

[Imari]

So you are saying you cannot read it and understand what the intent is?

Yes. That is the point.

You apparently already know the intent, so it's clear to you that all those things somehow mean the same.

To the rest of us, those are four different sentences that could all be interpreted different ways. We don't have your "knowledge" of what the intent is, hence the repeated asking for you to just be clear and spell it out in simple, unambiguous language.

Are you really so unable to step back from your belief that you cannot imagine what it might be like for someone who doesn't "know" the things you know? That might need to have things explained to them in ways that you would think trivial?

Seriously, stop assuming that everyone knows the things you "know", and just explain it to us like we're 5.

A 5 year old could build a car, if you told them every single step with absolute clarity. They don't need to understand, they just need to know exactly what to do. "Put the pieces of the car together" does not suffice.

Do that for us. Maybe some of us will finally get it if it's explained in a manner that we can follow.

Or just keep throwing word jumbles around and hiding behind bible quotes. Up to you.

 

[Famine]

Just like gravity, you can only observe the effects of it on an individual, but you cannot observe the force itself.

Citation needed.

But gravity is universal, this is not.
It is elective as per each individual.
So one can only demonstrate the effects of it from a individual testimonial standpoint.

But you're not demonstrating anything. You're not even trying. You just keep saying that what you say is reality and not demonstrating that it is. If it's reality, you should be able to demonstrate it.

I already told you what it means.

Three of the four versions don't mean what you said, which means three of the four versions are wrong according to you.

This leads to two questions. Which version of the Bible is right and how do you know the others are wrong?

The intent is what you are reading for, not some dissection of terms.

One cannot read intent accurately - and poor use of language makes that even harder.

As long as it does not instruct in a contradictory manner of the intent, it doesn't matter.

Two of the sentences do contradict - one says you should not learn anything new because God is enough and one says you should, but always believe in God.

Your colleague was reading the first of those two versions and using that sentence to justify ignorance. You are not. He is, from your point of view, wrong.

So you are saying you cannot read it and understand what the intent is?

One cannot read intent accurately - and poor use of language makes that even harder.

You are drifting back into assumptions, again.

Uhh... no? You are the one claiming you have pursued this method and found it to be true. This makes you the expert in the method - you have more experience than anyone. That means you have to explain the method and we're still stuck on how you chose the right version of the Bible before following any of the instructions in it.

Whose method is it?

Yours.

You're claiming it's God's, but we have to assume that claim is false in order to do the test properly.

I only know what I found to be real again by testing the God of the Bible instruction.

Then you, as the expert in the method, need to explain it step by step.

You could have done this five times over, but you're not doing it. Instead you're whining about whose method it is and the actuality of the spiritual reality of the objective carnality.

Just STATE THE METHOD, step by step, from step 1, so we can all follow it. As @Imari said above, a 5 year old can assemble a car if you give them a step-by-step guide (and supervision). We want your step-by-step guide for this. Like, actually want it. But you are not providing it.

Whose method?

Yours.

You're claiming it's God's, but we have to assume that claim is false in order to do the test properly.

I'm answering the question, you either don't like the answer, or cannot comprehend it.
Take your pick.

The former - because you're answering the question by restating what it is we asked the question about. This doesn't advance anything:

Person 1: That fire is hot.
Person 2: Is it? How?
Person 1: That fire is hot.

It's an answer, but it doesn't answer the question.

Nothing about the scientific method is limited to "the physical". You say that it is. Why do you say this? Answer the question without simply restating it.

Let me ask you, has Science or anyone you know of, proven God exists with that tool?

"Science" is just "knowledge". I know that grasping the meanings of words from original Latin roots is a bit of a problem for you in general given that you've still not answered how you know which Bible translation of the Vulgate is the right one, but this has been explained to you.

As for the tool, no, the existence of God has not yet been proven - or rather we have not yet found a test for the existence of God where we try to prove that an outcome is independent of God's existence and failed to do so.

I'm sure we have several thousand years of testing left.

What I like is irrelevant.

That's odd, as you're telling us that your spiritual relationship with God is based on what you like...

The only thing that matters is the reality of "what is".
It is determined by the uniqueness, exclusiveness and specialty of instruction.

Reality is determined by the uniqueness, exclusiveness and specialty of instruction?

What?

I don't recommend ignoring anything in the Bible.

What about when two different versions contradict, like the passages earlier?

We aren't finished with step 1 yet.

We haven't even got there as you've not answered any of the questions about it. They were:

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?

If I had an instruction book on anything and the first step was two thirds of the way through the book, labelled "Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 1", I'd be curious what instructions were in the first two chapters of that book and the previous two books and why they appear before step 1.

Where do you stand on the step one statement?
Do you believe that the statement is true?

Whether I believe the instruction to be true or not, you're telling me that it is the first instruction I must follow to get from atheism to knowledge of God. So after that I need a second step...

Talk about a mashup of gibberish, you sure have one here.

Unfortunately that's what happens when you glue several responses together for no reason.

What's contained in there is a raw description of how we acquire all knowledge, followed by several individual responses about you failing to show anything to anyone as usual.

"Belief" is an inescapable fixed asset active in every person.

... in your belief system.

All actions or MO, are based upon it, and it is like gravity, in that it is universal to all.

... in your belief system.

I've already shown by definition it encompasses the evidential as well as non-evidential.

No, you've shown nothing at all. You never do - you just state it over and over again.

Everyone has the same system of belief, but it is individually directed and applied.

... in your belief system.

You don't need a test to prove he doesn't exist, thats the status quo.

Actually, you do, since that's what you claimed to have provided:

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.

IMO, I think what he meant before you re-wrote it was: How do you know you are not wrong?

You neither know that you are right nor wrong, but you test on the assumption that you are wrong.

All knowledge we have is built on a mountain of ways to prove ourselves wrong that have failed - and the next test to prove ourselves wrong might succeed. But there's always a next test.

 

[GBO Possum]

I don't recommend ignoring anything in the Bible.

Exodus 31:15 is probably the most ignored biblical verse.

How many people have you put to death for working on the sabbath? None? Do you report them to the authorities? Do you ask them to stop ignoring God's will?

Do you take any action which shows you don't ignore the bible?

Exodus 31:15
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.

 

[Danoff]

The answer one may want is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with it.
You are confusing "want" with "belief".
They are two separate entities.
From my position, there is no assuming anything.
As I said, it can be replicated from person to person.

Other stuff in this instance, is observable only in the individual once they have entered the "within" position.
It is only manifest in the individual.
The only way to know it is there is by commonality of effects, known by another "within" individual.
In other words they are the only persons who can recognize it as an evidential reality.

This is non-responsive. I don't know if you're aware of that and just trying to dodge the question, or if you think you genuinely responded. I'll interpret what you wrote as you having said that you have no intention of responding to that question. Maybe you don't want to, maybe you don't understand it, or maybe you don't know how. Regardless, I can see that you won't be responding.

You know that it's ok to ask for clarification if you need it right? If you don't understand how to answer that question, just ask. We'll help you formulate your own position. This doesn't have to be adversarial. All any of us want to talk about here is the truth, and we can work together to make everyone's position as clear as possible. We've had some great discussions in this thread between religious people and atheists where everyone genuinely tried to dig down to the core difference, as collaboratively as possible.

On that note, let me try to help you answer the question I posed to you.

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?

To answer this, you need to figure out why you think the test itself doesn't apply to certain aspects of reality. You keep trying to respond as to why spiritual things fail the test. You say "it is only manifest in the individual". Stop focusing for a moment on establishing the particulars of spirituality and just focus on the test itself. What is it about obtaining independently verifiable evidence that is limited to physical stuff and doesn't apply to spiritual stuff.

Let's say you died and went to heaven. While you were there you thought to yourself, gosh it sure would be nice to taste watermelon again. Suddenly the taste of watermelon appears in your mouth. You think to yourself "I have a hypothesis, perhaps in heaven any desire I can imagine will be fulfilled". You then test this hypothesis by desiring to hear music. Suddenly the music appears in your ears. You then try to think of a harder test to falsify your hypothesis. You then try to desire to see another person who is in heaven in pain. But it won't happen. You realize at that point that your hypothesis is wrong, that any desire you can imagine is not fulfilled. It's time to formulate a new hypothesis.

This is the way humans acquire knowledge. We do it for very good reasons. Why do you think that it does not apply to certain aspects of reality?

 

[MoparMan69]

Im american who loves god and loves speaking to him, hes a father to me and my number one person to vent to.

 

[huskeR32]

Im american who loves god and loves speaking to him, hes a father to me and my number one person to vent to.

What kind of things does he say to you?

 

[MoparMan69]

What kind of things does he say to you?

He doesnt say he has ways of showing you... He helps me understand and has a way of helping me.. I believe he spoils me for what he has given me in life is crazy.

 

[huskeR32]

He doesnt say he has ways of showing you...

What?

He helps me understand and has a way of helping me..

What does he help you understand?

I believe he spoils me for what he has given me in life is crazy.

What has he given you?

 

[Famine]

He doesnt say he has ways of showing you... He helps me understand and has a way of helping me.. I believe he spoils me for what he has given me in life is crazy.

Hmm, that's odd. Why do you think he's giving you so much when you already live in a relatively disease-free developed country, while he's busy giving not even the slightest crap about kids in undeveloped but Christian third world countries?

Why is he happy to allow the existence of parasites that burrow into the eyes of children so long as he keeps giving you stuff?

 

[MoparMan69]

I am not going to sling out, ive stated my opinion i do believe in god if you dont agree then thats you. He has spoiled me by giving me a great life a great family. No were not rich but we make the best wth got.

 

[JKgo]

...I got a feelin' this might not end well...

 

[Jet Badger]

I am not going to sling out, ive stated my opinion i do believe in god if you dont agree then thats you. He has spoiled me by giving me a great life a great family. No were not rich but we make the best wth got.

The undoubtable fact that God drives a Honda renders your signature a sacrilege though.

 

[Danoff]

I am not going to sling out, ive stated my opinion i do believe in god if you dont agree then thats you.

I love this "I want to state my opinion but not talk about it" position. He didn't say he disagreed with you, he's just wondering why God sees fit to dote on you while crapping on so many others who believe in him.

He has spoiled me by giving me a great life a great family.

Why? I suppose it's not your place to ask.

 

[Famine]

He has spoiled me by giving me a great life a great family.

I have that too. I'm an atheist.

Why does God give you the same thing that I've got when you believe and I don't? Why does he not give it to some people who believe?

 

[huskeR32]

I love this "I want to state my opinion but not talk about it" position. He didn't say he disagreed with you, he's just wondering why God sees fit to dote on you while crapping on so many others who believe in him.

It's become such a predictable pattern.

Christian, upon entering thread: "Yes, I do believe in God!"

Curious person: "Why? Tell me a little more about your beliefs."

Christian: "Don't attack my beliefs! I'm out of here!"

 

[20832]

Why is he happy to allow the existence of parasites that burrow into the eyes of children so long as he keeps giving you stuff?

Beautiful Stephen Fry reference there

 

[KSaiyu]

Redirected because well... unsurprisingly we're way off topic and not really talking about the man who was beheaded.

Your post completely ignores how Christianity spread throughout Europe. Was it through love and tolerance? No, it was through slaughtering the natives, enslaving the population, appropriating their pagan rituals and incorporating those pagan elements into Christianity to make the transition not seem so abrupt. Christianity is hardly an ultimate truth when it's been mistranslated, turned into propaganda and edited over time.

Are you forgetting the part where 'Europe' and 'the Western World' was built on a Christian caliphate? It would be hard to describe the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire as anything other than a hardline theocracy. I'd also like to argue that European/Western civilisation was built on various Greek cultures which were certainly unchristian for countless centuries before Christ was even purportedly born.

Now, you're going to reply "See? Just another attack on Christianity from a Westerner who is an apologist for multiculturalism" or something to that effect. Am I attacking Christianity and/or Christians? Not quite. I do not have a problem with someone who is a Christian and I would not have a problem with someone because they were a Christian. Nor do I have a problem with someone who is of any religious persuasion. It's your choice and conviction.

What I have a problem with is when people champion, for example, the Christian tradition of Europe but ignoring or avoiding the murder, rape and suffering it brought. As if it is somehow exempt or exceptional.

There is a great level of disrespect for indigenous populations of European lands and for pre-Christian traditions. And it goes further when used to construct artificial sentiments of nationality. George and the Dragon is lauded but David's red dragon overcoming George's white dragon on judgement day is met with tittering and patronisation. Even within these indigenous groups there is such arrogance; Christianity is tolerated yet Druidism or Paganism is ridiculed.

No, that is simply not good enough.

Yet don't misunderstand this. To say that Christianity only had a negative effect would be doing it a disservice; it would be grossly incorrect. There were many great people who changed our world for the better, who broke through and brought forward fundamental changes in thinking and science, and were led by their noble Christian beliefs.

But for every Isaac Newton, there are countless non-Christians put to death for their lack of belief or belief in something else.
For every Francis of Assisi there is a displacement of non-Christians and genocide of indigenous peoples long forgotten today because it is so long ago in the past and we've all moved on, haven't we?
For every Voltaire there is a Thomas Aquinas and some ridiculous myth along the path to sainthood.
For every William Gladstone there is a corrupt Pope atop a golden throne built on the money and false hope of millions, along with the rape of innumerable women and children.

So yes, I take exception to the notion that Europe was a lovely, peaceful Christian place until the nasty Moors and Ottomans started appearing. This:



Could so easily be used to describe how Europe was Christianised. History should always be taken with a pinch of salt and a dollop of perspective.

I agree. Let's hop on the next plane to Saudi Arabia.

 

[huskeR32]

I agree. Let's hop on the next plane to Saudi Arabia.

Did you miss his point that badly? Or is that strawman just a sign that you know you've no legitimate response?

 

[ECGadget]

Just my short opinion on this (not looking to get involved in debates though!)

I am a firm believer in God. I acknowledge him and pray to him etc etc. I thank him when something good happens, and ask him to help when something bad happens. That being said, I do not say "since God has my whole life planned out I shouldn't do much". I constantly thrive to make more of myself because my faith in God does not mean I rely on him to do everything for me. I know that if I sit on my laurels, nothing will happen at all. So to me, God is someone who watches over in the way a parent does. If I do something wrong, no doubt one day he will tell me. If I get in trouble, I have faith that he will help me and of course that is when my faith would be tested. But for the most part, he is just letting me live my life, seeing what good and bad I do and how I conduct myself through both my own moral centre. Does he exist? I have no doubt about that because that is my faith. Will I be disappointed if I find out he doesn't? Well no, because I will be dead so I wouldn't be capable.

And regardless of who follows what faith, or indeed those who are athiest, as far as I am concerned I should have no quarrel with any of them just because our faith differs

And now, I shall stop because I suck at philosophical discussions!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You are the one claiming you have pursued this method and found it to be true. This makes you the expert in the method - you have more experience than anyone. That means you have to explain the method and we're still stuck on how you chose the right version of the Bible before following any of the instructions in it.Yours.

No, that means since I'm the expert you need to answer the question.
Here it is again:

We aren't finished with step 1 yet.
Where do you stand on the step one statement?
Do you believe that the statement is true?

To answer this, you need to figure out why you think the test itself doesn't apply to certain aspects of reality. You keep trying to respond as to why spiritual things fail the test. You say "it is only manifest in the individual". Stop focusing for a moment on establishing the particulars of spirituality and just focus on the test itself. What is it about obtaining independently verifiable evidence that is limited to physical stuff and doesn't apply to spiritual stuff.

Imari, S_Bridge, Mike458 and4 others like this.

Unfortunately herein lies the block in your self imposed requirement that somehow you want to insist on a physical answer to a spiritual question.
Why do you continue to insist on assuming that?
It does not exist.
The physical is the physical, the spiritual is the spiritual.
What I am claiming, has been a open invitation that millions have experienced for 2000yrs.
Science still has no clue about it.
Doesn't that tell you something?

This is the way humans acquire knowledge. We do it for very good reasons. Why do you think that it does not apply to certain aspects of reality?

Imari, S_Bridge, Mike458 and4 others like this.

Again unfortunately you do not realize that is "only one way, not the only way" humans acquire knowledge.
And it is limited to the physical.
It has no application in the spiritual.
Again, why do you continue to insist on assuming that it does?

Have any of you ever heard the term "thinking outside the box"?

I can give you a simple yet extremely crucial, vitally important principle that is applicable in the physical as well as the spiritual. God's system is one of sowing and reaping.

If you need to reap corn, do you plant beans?
So likewise if you need to reap belief, do you sow unbelief?
BTW like gravity thats universal, not exclusive.

 

[Famine]

No, that means since I'm the expert you need to answer the question.

No, it means you need to explain the method.

You are resolutely refusing to do so.

Unfortunately herein lies the block in your self imposed requirement that somehow you want to insist on a physical answer to a spiritual question.

No, you're insisting that the "spiritual" question lies outside the realm of the scientific (remember "scientific" just means "knowledge") method due to a limitation you're placing on it.

@Danoff's question is why you're placing that limitation on the method. You're refusing to answer that too.

And you're not addressing why you lied:

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.

 

[Imari]

Does he exist? I have no doubt about that because that is my faith. Will I be disappointed if I find out he doesn't? Well no, because I will be dead so I wouldn't be capable.

Did you notice that you made the assumption that if your God turns out not to be true, the only other option is nothing?

What if one of the other religions are correct, and you end up in Hades, or the bardo or something? Or maybe none of the religions have it right, but there's still something after death. Maybe we all become little Creators of our own universes after we die.

The options aren't merely Abrahamic God vs. Nothingness. In your case, it's Abrahamic God vs. every other possible eventuality, which is a lot. And conceivably there are some of those afterlives in which you'll still be conscious in some form and totally able to be disappointed. If it turns out that the Creator was a fairy cake, that might be quite disappointing.

There's also the assumption that you can't possibly learn more about God while you're alive, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[squadops]

If a monotheistic god exists there cannot be more than one by definition so, doesn't really mater if it's the abrahamic one or not. A religion can be wrong or rather not advised to follow but a god would be the god regardless. Still with the arguing religion instead of a god's existence lol.

 

[ECGadget]

@Imari yes I did realise xD
If another religion etc is right then that would hope that God/Gods would forgive me for messing up. When I meant God I did not mean God of a particular religion, moreso God overall. What I did not think about was another existance without God so thanks for bringing that one up lol

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No, it means you need to explain the method.
You are resolutely refusing to do so.

At 40 plus pages of explanation, no, we are way past explanation.
You are resolutely refusing to aknowledge the method, with more excuses of explanation.

It is time to embrace the method.
You have already stated I am the expert, so at this point you need to answer the question on the first precept.
So what is your answer?

No, you're insisting that the "spiritual" question lies outside the realm of the scientific (remember "scientific" just means "knowledge") method due to a limitation you're placing on it.

Physical or carnal knowledge, is the knowledge of Science.
That is it's own limitation, I'm not imposing it, just recognizing it for the reality that it is.
Again, that is why it is clueless concerning spiritual knowledge.
The limitation is on your side, in that you believe Science is the only knowledge.
So you are self imposing your own limitation on the existence of knowledge outside of Science, or spiritual knowledge.
That's fine if that is what you choose to do, but you will never know or understand the spiritual dimension, and the advantages of a personal relationship with God.
I already know the reality of the two dimensions having undertaken the method.

And you're not addressing why you lied:

Since you do not know what belief is, I'm not surprised you don't know what a lie is either.
Again 40 plus pages is enough explanation.
The fact you choose to ignore all of it, does not impart any legitimate defeciency on me.
As mentioned above it is time to embrace the first precept of the method and suspend the excuse making.