Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!

[Birdjaguar]

I exist Curt Sibling!

Welcome to OT God. I hope you can hang around and contribute a bit more. You're not a DL are you?

 

[puglover]

You're not a DL are you?

Self-proclaimed DL.

brought to you by "please don't ban me Gladi

BTW, I'll speak in his favor. It was a great idea, don't ban him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Religion is a human construct. The universe still awaits our exploration. We are not even a microbe close to even fathoming the universe.

Yes, religion is a human construct, but so is science. Science is just one way to observe the world. Birds have been around for a hundred million years or so and they cannot explain a lick aviation science to anyone. Many posters here make the same mistake in believing that that particularly human paradigm is the only one of value. It dominates now because with it we have been able to make stuff and do things we couldn't do before. That success is firmly rooted in its limitedness and inability to see beyond it's own edges. Science is a human toy, beyond that is has no value at all.

BTW, I could make a case that scientific evidence is just a compilation of similar anecdotal observations that have been organized to make sense. They are peer reviewed and if found worthy become "facts". Religion is often based on a collection of anecdotal experiences that have been organized to make sense. The experiences are also peer reviewed. The anti god scientists claim that because they cannot access the experience data directly, it cannot be counted as evidence. It is all about the "rules of evidence".

 

[Birdjaguar]

Self-proclaimed DL.

I missed that, thanks. And yes, such cleverness should not be punished.

 

[Taliesin]

I think God is a triple login, actually.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

Curt your not looking for proof, your inviting pilots to an airspace they dont know so you can shoot them down with ease. Youv established the rules in such a way that they are completely removing using the argument that defines what our beleif in God is. We cannot answer your question, becuase none of our answers would be "logical".

 

[Perfection]

Welcome to OT God. I hope you can hang around and contribute a bit more. You're not a DL are you?

How could God have a DL if God alone is?

 

[Birdjaguar]

How could God have a DL if God alone is?

She has a sense of humor.

 

[nihilistic]

you are attempting to gain a complete understanding of God. Such things are impossible, because God is beyond comprehension, that's why he's God, and not the President or something. You'd probably have better luck trying to fully understand women.
And our existence cannot transcend time because even science says that the earth, and thus life, has a definite beginning, it was about 4.6 billion years ago.

Well, if I was 'attempting to gain a complete understanding to said god', then in invoking your theory of god itself, you are assuming a complete understanding of reality, including your example of "full understanding of women". I don't see how if you made that kind of assumption in your argument that I cannot use essentially the same thing against it.

 

[nihilistic]

What does "existence itself" look like? Point is, all things around us had a beginning.

That's the point I was disputing: there need not be a beginning. For all we know time and matter extends indefnitely in the forward position. How is it not logical that it extends indefinitely in the reverse direction as well?

Obviously, there is something beyond our universe that started it all, ultimately leading to our debating the topic on an average little blue-green planet on the edge of some solar system.

The thing is whichever object you offset the responsility of 'creation' to must inherit the dilemma, and thus be subject to your argument again to have something older create it.

 

[civ2]

Well...
After 10 pages of thread I came to a conclusion:
1. For Atheists, God must be proven "inside" universe which is impossible since He's not just another part of it (like we all are).
Same goes to logic - we can't "bind" God to logic because logic is both subjective and "bound" to universe.
Therefore proving God "using" universe (and it's parts including logic) is futile and impossible.

2.On the other hand, the same Atheists forbid to use personal experience (which is also subjective and material and even logical) as a proof - because "it's personal or it's a hallucination".
I'd say your "science" is not less "hallucination" than anyone's experience.

3. Atheists are so "proud" of the greatness of the universe that they simply "forbid" it to be a subject to somebody higher than it.
It really doesn't matter how big the universe is - it's "function" (according to religion) is clear - to both serve the human and to glorify God.

4. Atheists take evolution and related science as granted - but deny it's their "belief" (which has no more proof than religion).
They use ridiculous answers as "how do you know Earth is round" - though I didn't see anybody here posting it's flat.
Also the error in such questions is that you CAN check the shape of Earth whilst you CAN'T check what happened before your birth - you must rely on someone's "history".
But Atheists still blindly believe their "historians"-scientists who themselves are no more "proving".
The so-called "dating" of C can't be proved a hair more than the evolution itself - out of the reach of humanity.
(Which leads to the "circle" of "proofs" in science. )
Nobody knows for sure what happened even 1-2 thousands years ago - though we have many sources which SHOULD make it clear.
Some people have doubts in events that took place less than a century ago - what about "millions" of years?

5. Atheists fail to understand an obvious thing that time is irreversable (too many "time machine" movies watched??? ) - and that clearly means it's "one-way" and therefore has the beginning.
Btw it's not that important whether it has the end - the important fact is that it has the beginning (which can be "reached" by logically retrieving events backwards.).
Even if universe would be pulsationg (which I don't believe but that's not the point) - the time is so "bound" to matter that the "pulsation" is nothing more than another series of irreversable events (that still can be joined into one big "time-line").

6. Atheists have some kind of an "inferiority complex" regarding the size of Earth compared to universe's.
But since humans are many times smaller than whales - would you say whales are more important than humans?
Size is not the parameter of importance - the "role" is.
Universe in all its glory is nothing more than a tool for humans - with an obvious conclusion that God provided us with immeasurable sources - grab and use.

EDIT after reading another thread:
7. Atheists sometimes fail to understnad that God is the Creator and He is the Almighty - meaning He created the universe but didn't "leave" it to humans.
God is the One Who created the world and the One Who observes and sustains it ever since.
Otherwise there would be two gods.

Request:
Read thoroughly before answering - PLEASE!

 

[Truronian]

Well...
After 10 pages of thread I came to a conclusion:
1. For Atheists, God must be proven "inside" universe which is impossible since He's not just another part of it (like we all are).
Same goes to logic - we can't "bind" God to logic because logic is both subjective and "bound" to universe.
Therefore proving God "using" universe (and it's parts including logic) is futile and impossible.

Well, if he is impossible to prove, then we cannot be sure he exists. Ergo belief in God is faith, and nothing more.

2.On the other hand, the same Atheists forbid to use personal experience (which is also subjective and material and even logical) as a proof - because "it's personal or it's a hallucination".
I'd say your "science" is not less "hallucination" than anyone's experience.

Well, I can explain all my personal experiences through science. can you explain all yours through religion (without reverting to we cannot understand God's work)?

3. Atheists are so "proud" of the greatness of the universe that they simply "forbid" it to be a subject to somebody higher than it.
It really doesn't matter how big the universe is - it's "function" (according to religion) is clear - to both serve the human and to glorify God.

Religious people are so "proud" of the greatness of God that they simply "forbid" it to be a subject to somebody higher than it.

4. Atheists take evolution and related science as granted - but deny it's their "belief" (which has no more proof than religion).
They use ridiculous answers as "how do you know Earth is round" - though I didn't see anybody here posting it's flat.
Also the error in such questions is that you CAN check the shape of Earth whilst you CAN'T check what happened before your birth - you must rely on someone's "history".
But Atheists still blindly believe their "historians"-scientists who themselves are no more "proving".The so-called "dating" of C can't be proved a hair more than the evolution itself - out of the reach of humanity.
(Which leads to the "circle" of "proofs" in science. )
Nobody knows for sure what happened even 1-2 thousands years ago - though we have many sources which SHOULD make it clear.
Some people have doubts in events that took place less than a century ago - what about "millions" of years?

If you chose to ignore, or if you simply fail to understand science then thats not science's problem, its yours. All the stuff in that paragraph has been rebutted ad nauseum alsewhere.

5. Atheists fail to understand an obvious thing that time is irreversable (too many "time machine" movies watched??? ) - and that clearly means it's "one-way" and therefore has the beginning.
Btw it's not that important whether it has the end - the important fact is that it has the beginning (which can be "reached" by logically retrieving events backwards.).
Even if universe would be pulsationg (which I don't believe but that's not the point) - the time is so "bound" to matter that the "pulsation" is nothing more than another series of irreversable events (that still can be joined into one big "time-line").

Relative to us reverse time is infinite (IIR the universe expanded at the speed of light, and then slowed down), and as such doesn't have a start point (more knowledgable cosmologists feel free to correct me on this point).

Regardless, stating that time needed a cause is speculation at best.

6. Atheists have some kind of an "inferiority complex" regarding the size of Earth compared to universe's.
But since humans are many times smaller than whales - would you say whales are more important than humans?
Size is not the parameter of importance - the "role" is.
Universe in all its glory is nothing more than a tool for humans - with an obvious conclusion that God provided us with immeasurable sources - grab and use.

Fine then, you get and get me some iron from Andromeda . Its not that we don't want to explore space, its that we currently can't. I find it a bit strange however that God has create all of us as some kind of "see how they get on exploring my universe" game. Surely he has better things to do?

7. Atheists sometimes fail to understnad that God is the Creator and He is the Almighty - meaning He created the universe but fdidn't "leave" it to humans.
God is the One Who created the world and the One Who observes and sustains it ever since.
Otherwise there would be two gods.

How can you be sure their aren't two Gods? You're making an awful lot of assertions for someone who cannot understand God.

 

[CurtSibling]

you are attempting to gain a complete understanding of God. Such things are impossible, because God is beyond comprehension, that's why he's God, and not the President or something. You'd probably have better luck trying to fully understand women.
And our existence cannot transcend time because even science says that the earth, and thus life, has a definite beginning, it was about 4.6 billion years ago.

Isn't it a bit advantageous for religions that they have a concept so shadowy
for people to worship? That the nature of their 'leading brand' is so ambgious
that no-one can really ask questions about it? All too commodious in my view.

Becauce, when it comes down to it, a god is a human contruct....

...Borne from human imagination.

Unless somehow people have seen/felt/touched a god and took a photo.

.

 

[civ2]

Taken from bottom link of post #64:

9. Infinity
G-d is not just big -- He is infinite. If He were only "big", then those things that are small would be further from Him and those things that are big would be closer. But to the Infinite, big and small are irrelevant terms. He is everywhere and He is found wherever He wishes to be found.

31. World Defined
Where G-d is hidden -there you see a world.

32. Higher Reality
We take the laws of nature too seriously. We think of the world as though it exists just as its Creator exists.

Therefore, we have miracles. A miracle is a state of enlightenment that says, “Our reality is nothing but a glimmer of a Higher Reality. In that Higher Truth, there is no world. There is nothing else but Him.”

36. Recognition
When G-d makes a miracle, it is so that afterwards we may look at the natural order of things and say, "I recognize this. This is not what it appears to be. This, too, is a miracle."

40. Stereo Miracles
There are two types of miracles: Those beyond nature and those clothed within it. The water of the Nile turning into blood was beyond nature. The victory of the Maccabees over the Greek army came dressed as a natural occurence —they had to fight to win.

Both types of miracles are necessary.

If we would only see miracles beyond nature, we would know that G-d can do whatever He likes --but we might think He must break the rules to do so. We would know a G-d who is beyond nature, but not within it.

If we would see only miracles that are clothed within nature, we would know a G-d that is Master of all that happens within nature.
But we might think He is limited within it.

Now we know a G–d that is at once both beyond all things and within them. In truth, there is nothing else but Him.

44. The Inexplicable
To a fool, that which cannot be explained cannot exist.

The wise man knows that existence itself cannot be explained.

50. On Computers
What is new about the computer? You walk into a room and you see familiar machines: a typewriter, a tape recorder, a television, a telephone, audio speakers, of course a calculator --but none of these are new.

Unseen, however, beneath the floors and behind the walls, are cables connecting all these machines to work together as one. There is digital technology that allows them to all speak the same language -thereby transforming them from many ordinary machines into a single powerful computer.

Now, let’s take your own life. You do business, you study, you eat, you talk --each activity seemingly irrelevant to the next. A mess of fragments.

And such, too, is the native psyche of the human being: We have minds that understand one way, hearts that feels another --and what we do has often nothing to do with either of those.

Take the technology of the computer and apply it in terms of your everyday life: Find a common meaning at which all these fragments converge, and thereby unleash their power.

Bold by me. To be continued since the post grew big already.
Use the link to free me from posting that much.
This book can provide you with lots of answers to your "hard" question.
(And NO - it's NOT a "religious book" - it was compiled just several years ago.)

 

[classical_hero]

There really is nt point to the thread, because no matter what proof, ardent atheists like Curt will not accept it.

 

[CurtSibling]

There has been no proof so far.

Don't blame me if you cannot bring anything to the table, Classical_Hero.

You are the one who wants us all to believe and respect your god, so in
that case,you must give me reason to. I don't respect what is not there.

This thread is a good opportunity to show us all what you see.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

Taken from bottom link of post #64:
Bold by me. To be continued since the post grew big already.
Use the link to free me from posting that much.
This book can provide you with lots of answers to your "hard" question.
(And NO - it's NOT a "religious book" - it was compiled just several years ago.)

I'll make an exception to the rules just for you:
Why don't you look through the book and provide me some of these answers?

Myself, and quite a few others would be interested to see it.

.

 

[civ2]

Curt
One big request to you:
Please read the mentioned book thoroughly and then tell me your opinion about the topic.
I can't post it all here - but it definitely will answer your question.
(The whole reason for that book is to explain about God.)
Some (very few) "thoughts" (I mean numbered paragraphs) are Jewish-related but the majority is understandable by anybody.
Looking forward to your answer.

EDIT:
Didn't see your last post, Curt.
The point is that "my answers" are NOT nessesarily "your answers" - we are different people.
But it will take you only some 20-30 mitutes (depends on your internet and reading skills) to read through it.
Please do it.
I'm sure you'll find enough "proof" for yourself.
And by yourself.
Anybody knows himself much better than the others - both directions.

 

[CurtSibling]

Curt
One big request to you:
Please read the mentioned book thoroughly and then tell me your opinion about the topic.
I can't post it all here - but it definitely will answer your question.
(The whole reason for that book is to explain about God.)
Some (very few) "thoughts" (I mean numbered paragraphs) are Jewish-related but the majority is understandable by anybody.
Looking forward to your answer.

Here is my answer.

I am reading five different non-fiction books already!

And!

I am not the one who has to do the donkey-work here!

Your job is to convince we heathens of your god.
Good sir, you are the one who has to impress us.

So pick up your book, and give me some answers.

Copping out and telling me to go read up on god is not going to work.

.

 

[civ2]

CurtSIBLING
That's totally immature of you.
I'm sure you won't take any "proof" simply because you don't want any.
Your answer proves that...