That doesn't work. Your essays and thinking don't show up. That's a lie. You have disparaged what you are "aware" of as that worldview repeatedly and routinely on this forum. - - - No. This thread is specifically not for that. The OP:
So far no evidence of any kind except natural physical values and functions. Let me propose evidence that god exists. We know the world functions via mathematical processes, without any sign of intentional non-mathematical interference. Thus if we assume God is a sentient object, it must be of a mathematical nature or intentionally use mathematics to make things happen. A logical reasoning? Of course this begs the question that if everything is naturally mathematical, is an intentional God necessary at all?....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They don't - and you have seen the proof, multiple links etc. No evidence of the reality of God - just endless whinging and personal attack. You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence or argument separating your God from those others. You can hardly expect others to guess what you refuse to provide about your God - it's your God: if it's not like all the others you are one who can explain why. The words you claim to prefer - "imminent", "transcendent", etc - do exactly the same thing, and if you were to willfully take their direction of implication backwards as you do "supernatural" you would create exactly the same screwed up muddle. It does not. There is no evidence or argument that anything hypothetically existing prior to the Bang operated independently of physical laws of some kind - or even that "existence" would be a meaningful term in such a situation. You have to admit the weirdly characteristic linguistic incompetence of the oA theists on these forums is kind of interesting. It's like they all took classes in bullshitting from the same rhetoric teacher. Even the short sentences are bollixed - "empiricism as the means to assess the problem"? But as the pivot away from any thread topic into bargled disparagement of science and scientific types is literally all these guys ever post, and as that interesting topic has been thoroughly and repeatedly ignored throughout this forum, threads focused on their concerns are never going to be anything but platforms for that. .
And even if this was the only evidence of God's reality even if imaginary (psycho-somatics), is this effect such a bad thing? Surely billions of persons praying every day is evidence of such an effect?
I submit this question for consideration. Given the Law of Necessity and Sufficiency, is God a scientific necessity and scientific sufficiency requirement for the universe as we know it to be, objectively?
If the scientific model of whatever we are holding up for investigation isn't evidenced as closed, all susequent discussions of the what are necessarily outside of it are just speculations.
The question is if it was necessary for God to be a motivated entity for the universe to have come into existence.
That q sounds teleological, not scientific (ie not based on a systematic observation of empirical things of this world).
And a bulb lights. Dunno how I missed the obvious, but I actually hadn't twigged to that reason for not offering evidence for the reality of your God: it would identify your God, and you would then lose what you are pretending is plausible deniability. That would threaten to pin you down. And accountability is not part of the agenda of the oA theists on these forums.
Yes. That is a common theme. No one who believes in God will come out and actually say what it is specifically that they believe. They do not have the courage of their convictions.
You have to bring the atheist attempt to dumb down evidence to a dysfunctional form to get the complete import behind the humour.
The funny thing here is that when you are specifically directed to history or philosophy (or even a dictionary definition) related to God, you lose all courage.
Point out where you think my discussionis not sensible, and I will gladly simplify it for you. Not the same thing. I’ve given what I think is good evidence. Yazata has brought it all up, so obviously it’s not that difficult to get hold of. What more do you want? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Based on the evidence he put forward, yes. Ask Yazata. Or better still, look through his posts. Who with? They don’t have to sift through it. That’s the point. Yazata didn’t have to sift through it, and neither does anyone else. Jan.
Just a thought, evidence of an idea being real Idea : E=MC^2 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Idea: God Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ideas are manifested as "real" by many means. Is the nuclear explosion any more real as the manifestation of an idea than any other idea? You witness the manifestation of ideas all the time...all real and evidenced due to their manifestation. If one considers God to be an idea then his reality is evidenced by his manifestation in the evidenced human behavior and how collective consensus as to the idea's effects the person individually. ( some profound and some not so) yet it was/is just an idea. the act of worship is universal to the human being, whether that be the worship of science, God or the tree you planted in the back yard. Worshiping wealth, money, possessions or something more altruistic. Ultimately though it is the worship of self. So....it could be extended to... evidence of God's reality is evidence of self reality. Do you exist? Ergo Sum... Are you just an idea or the manifestation of that idea? If you agree that you are the manifestation of an idea then what say you of the universe entirely? The universe is the manifestation of an idea... The big bang theory is just an idea after all...
idea: can opener Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Idea: Universe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
