Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3419)
=============================================================================================


From honest intelligent productive thinking, I really cannot see otherwise than that there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

And I wish that some posters will show me that I am wrong.

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where i am wrong.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3420)
=============================================================================================


Now I will just make commentaries on my proof for God's existence.

1. There has always been existence.
That is absolutely irrefutable.

You anyone don't accept that?

In which case, let me read your refutation of 1. There has always been existence.

.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3419)
=============================================================================================


From honest intelligent productive thinking, I really cannot see otherwise than that there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

And I wish that some posters will show me that I am wrong.

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where i am wrong.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3421)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
===========================================================


Well, here I am again, to make commentaries on my step by step proof for God's existence, on step num 2:
2. There are transient beings in existence.

This statement is also beyond refutation, because it follows from step num 1:
1. There has always been existence.

Now, if anyone at all cares to object to my way of making commentaries, please proffer your objections or comments if any at all, and we will work together to concur on whatever you and I advocate in re God exists or not, is that all right with you, anyone who cares to for us work together to advance useful knowledge for mankind?

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where I am wrong.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3422)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
===========================================================

a reply to: Pachomius


Dear readers, yesterday I said:

Now, if anyone at all cares to object to my way of making commentaries, please proffer your objections or comments if any at all, and we will work together to concur on whatever you and I advocate in re God exists or not, is that all right with you, anyone who cares to for us work together to advance useful knowledge for mankind?

Take notice of this part of the text above:

“we will work together to concur on whatever you and I advocate in re God exists or not, is that all right with you?”

I am asking myself this question, is the knowledge of God exists or not of any usefulness to mankind?

Suppose we definitely know that God exists, what usefulness does that confer upon mankind, and suppose we definitely know God does not exist, what usefulness does that confer on mankind?

For that slice of mankind that does not even have any consciousness of the issue God exists or not, then they are like animals, or even like stones, animals and stones don’t have any consciousness about any such issue as God exists or not.

So any question about usefulness of knowing definitely God exists, or definitely that God does not exist is totally irrelevant to them.

Does the slice of mankind that at least knows about the issue God exists or not, how will this slice relate to the slice that is totally ignorant and thus are like animals and even stones?

The latter slice of mankind, namely, the slice that is similar to animals and stones in re no consciousness at least of the issue God exists or not, perhaps I could submit that this latter slice might not qualify to be identified as belonging to the taxonomy, homo sapiens.

Do I hear someone among homo sapiens saying that I am into an ad hominem remark?

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where i am wrong.
.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3423)
=============================================================================================

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where I am wrong.

Dear readers, we are now into num 3 of my step by step exposition of how God exists.

Surely, there must be among you readers some who observe that my exposition is an example of circular reasoning, so according to their stock knowledge of circular reasoning, my conclusion in num 4 is not at all proven to be true.

What do I say about that?

First, I will ask them to explain to me what is circular reasoning and give examples of what is circular reasoning.

So, I am waiting.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3422)
===========================================================


Dear readers, yesterday I said:

Now, if anyone at all cares to object to my way of making commentaries, please proffer your objections or comments if any at all, and we will work together to concur on whatever you and I advocate in re God exists or not, is that all right with you, anyone who cares to for us work together to advance useful knowledge for mankind?

Take notice of this part of the text above:

“we will work together to concur on whatever you and I advocate in re God exists or not, is that all right with you?”

I am asking myself this question, is the knowledge of God exists or not of any usefulness to mankind?

Suppose we definitely know that God exists, what usefulness does that confer upon mankind, and suppose we definitely know God does not exist, what usefulness does that confer on mankind?

For that slice of mankind that does not even have any consciousness of the issue God exists or not, then they are like animals, or even like stones, animals and stones don’t have any consciousness about any such issue as God exists or not.

So any question about usefulness of knowing definitely God exists, or definitely that God does not exist is totally irrelevant to them.

Does the slice of mankind that at least knows about the issue God exists or not, how will this slice relate to the slice that is totally ignorant and thus are like animals and even stones?

The latter slice of mankind, namely, the slice that is similar to animals and stones in re no consciousness at least of the issue God exists or not, perhaps I could submit that this latter slice might not qualify to be identified as belonging to the taxonomy, homo sapiens.

Do I hear someone among homo sapiens saying that I am into an ad hominem remark?

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where i am wrong.
.

.
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3424)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
===========================================================


a reply to: Pachomius

Dear everyone, here is a comment on circular reasoning I have just contributed in an internet dictionary,

Please everyone, don't accuse anyone human to be into circular reasoning: because you yourselves might really NOT have the correct meaning of circular reasoning.


Here is an example of the wrong application of circular reasoning:


Marius Dejess* proves the existence of God by first presenting his concept of God, thus:


1. God in concept is the permanent and self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

2. Then Marius Dejess invites atheists to with him go forth into the world to seek for evidence of an entity that corresponds to the concept of God in num 1.

At this point atheists object that with the definition of God, Marius Dejess is already into circular reasoning, therefore whatever his conclusion, it is of no probative value, for Marius Dejess is into the fallacy of circular reasoning.

So Marius Dejess asks atheists, what is your concept of God Who you say does not exist?

Atheists answer that for them (atheists), they don't need to have any concept of God because they don't believe any god(s) exist.

Marius Dejess now tells them atheists, "You know, dear atheists, you are now into arguing outside the circle that surrounds the issue God exists or not, because you do not have any concept of God - hahaha, I call that the fallacy of arguing outside the circle that surrounds the issue God exists or not."

Now atheists say that for them God is a flying spaghetti monster.

But Marius Dejess tells them, "Still no good, you are still arguing outside the circle of the issue God exists or not, because no human in his right mind has for a concept of God, a flying spaghetti monster."

Conclusion: Atheists don't really know what is the fallacy of circular reasoning at all, atheists in effect are into nothing but evading to address the issue God exists or not, by describing God with ridiculous images.


*Marius Dejess aka Pachomius

examples.yourdictionary.com...

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3423)
=============================================================================================


Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where I am wrong.

-----------------------


Dear readers, we are now into num 3 of my step by step exposition of how God exists.

Surely, there must be among you readers some who observe that my exposition is an example of circular reasoning, so according to their stock knowledge of circular reasoning, my conclusion in num 4 is not at all proven to be true.

What do I say about that?

First, I will ask them to explain to me what is circular reasoning and give examples of what is circular reasoning.

So, I am waiting.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3425)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
===========================================================


Dear readers, let us return to my commentaries on my step by step proof for the existence of God:

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where I am wrong.

On num 1 - There has always been existence, the diametrically opposite of that proposition is "There has never been existence," which one is true? Only the first proposition is true, the second proposition cannot be true, because if it were true, then we should not be here in existence right now, why? Because non-existence cannot ever change into existence (and also existence can never change into non-existence).

On num 2 - There are transient beings in existence, you and I are the evidence to the fact and truth that there are transient beings, no one in his right mind can deny that and neither refute that, that you and I have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

On num 3 - Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being, the question should be asked by everyone who has a good brain, where is this permanent self-existent being? My answer to the question, He is everywhere, that is how and why He can create everything that is not Himself and operates everything that He has created.

On num 4 - The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending, this conclusion is what I might call the enlightenment that should flash into the mind of every human homo sapiens with a good brain.
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3424)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
===========================================================


Dear everyone, here is a comment on circular reasoning I have just contributed in an internet dictionary,

Please everyone, don't accuse anyone human to be into circular reasoning: because you yourselves might really NOT have the correct meaning of circular reasoning.


Here is an example of the wrong application of circular reasoning:


Marius Dejess* proves the existence of God by first presenting his concept of God, thus:


1. God in concept is the permanent and self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

2. Then Marius Dejess invites atheists to with him go forth into the world to seek for evidence of an entity that corresponds to the concept of God in num 1.

At this point atheists object that with the definition of God, Marius Dejess is already into circular reasoning, therefore whatever his conclusion, it is of no probative value, for Marius Dejess is into the fallacy of circular reasoning.

So Marius Dejess asks atheists, what is your concept of God Who you say does not exist?

Atheists answer that for them (atheists), they don't need to have any concept of God because they don't believe any god(s) exist.

Marius Dejess now tells them atheists, "You know, dear atheists, you are now into arguing outside the circle that surrounds the issue God exists or not, because you do not have any concept of God - hahaha, I call that the fallacy of arguing outside the circle that surrounds the issue God exists or not."

Now atheists say that for them God is a flying spaghetti monster.

But Marius Dejess tells them, "Still no good, you are still arguing outside the circle of the issue God exists or not, because no human in his right mind has for a concept of God, a flying spaghetti monster."

Conclusion: Atheists don't really know what is the fallacy of circular reasoning at all, atheists in effect are into nothing but evading to address the issue God exists or not, by describing God with ridiculous images.


*Marius Dejess aka Pachomius

examples.yourdictionary.com...

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3423)
=============================================================================================


Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where I am wrong.

-----------------------


Dear readers, we are now into num 3 of my step by step exposition of how God exists.

Surely, there must be among you readers some who observe that my exposition is an example of circular reasoning, so according to their stock knowledge of circular reasoning, my conclusion in num 4 is not at all proven to be true.

What do I say about that?

First, I will ask them to explain to me what is circular reasoning and give examples of what is circular reasoning.

So, I am waiting.
.

I'd advise One to reconsider the question.

Do 'You' exist? Are you really certain? Can you prove it?

Who knows what God really is? Who knows Himself or Herself truly?



^_^

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3427)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
==================================================

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
I'd advise One to reconsider the question.

Do 'You' exist? Are you really certain? Can you prove it?

Who knows what God really is? Who knows Himself or Herself truly?



^_^

Dear iammrhappy86, thanks for coming over.

Now, you want me to answer this question:

Do 'You' exist? Are you really certain? Can you prove it?

In your question there are words we have to work together to concur on their meanings, the ones in bold and italic below:

Do 'You' exist? Are you really certain? Can you prove it?

For unless we are agreed on their meanings, I fear that you and I could be talking past each one's head.

What do you say?
.

a reply to: Pachomius

Talking past one another suits me fine! =P

However, you seem to take this to heart, and so I'll entertain you.

Let's forego with the proof; I feel it takes too much away from the beauty of the mystery.



So then, we are left with this.

What does it mean to 'Exist', or how is Existence defined.

As for certainty, I would accept an unshakable faith as any other material proof one might possess.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3429)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
==================================================


Dear iammrhappy86, here below are my concepts of what is existence and what is God, from my just posted message in another net forum, to God-deniers who are to my observation the most fanatical and bigotical characters in my whole history of sojourn in net forums, see quote below.

Okay, what is it to exist, and what is existence, and what is it to be certain?

To exist for us humans is to be in a personal status in which we experience everything and anything whatsoever at all, if you don't experience you don't exist.

Existence = Read in the quote below, for what it is.

To be certain = For us humans it is to be in a personal status in which we are sure to not get killed or to not die with anything at all that it exists or it does not exist, i.e. we are ready to bet our life on it.

Okay, let me read what it is for you to exist and what is existence, and what it is to be certain.

5 minutes ago

#1,863


Okay, here are my concept of what is existence and what is God:

Existence in concept is anything at all that we experience directly with our senses and consciousness, and/or indirectly by our honest intelligent productive thinking on what it is from what we know with our senses and consciousness.

God in concept is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.
.

So, dear my adversaries here, you now and here present your concept of what is existence and what is God - and not from dictionaries.

Please cease and desist already from talking no end, just you first produce your concept of what is existence and what is God - can't you understand that!

.

Reply
Report Edit

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3430)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================


Paging, paging, iammrhappy86, please report to ats net forum, Pachomius is waiting with bated breath to resume his exchange with you.

.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3431)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3430)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================

Paging, paging, iammrhappy86, please report to ats net forum, Pachomius is waiting with bated breath to resume his exchange with you.

.

In brief words, this is how I know from the study of existence that God exists, God in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending:

First, let us consider that existence is an isolated system, i.e. nothing can get out, and nothing outside can get in, and in fact and in truth there is no existence outside of the isolated system that is existence.

Next, inside this isolated system there are transient beings, for examples, we humans are transient beings, for we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

Now, transient existence implicates the existence of at least one being which is permanent and self-existent, any human member of the taxonomy homo sapience aka intelligent being, can and does see that - unless he has undergone total lobotomy of his brain, in which event he cannot and is not in this discussion.

Conclusion: God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

So, please everyone with a working brain, tell me what is wrong with my explanation on why God exists.
.

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3432)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================

Addressing all visitors to this my explanation (quote below) how the study of existence leads to the existence of God:

If you see it to be an example of the fallacy of circular reasoning, please come over and we can talk about it, okay?

In brief words, this is how I know from the study of existence that God exists, God in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending:

First, let us consider that existence is an isolated system, i.e. nothing can get out, and nothing outside can get in, and in fact and in truth there is no existence outside of the isolated system that is existence.

Next, inside this isolated system there are transient beings, for examples, we humans are transient beings, for we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

Now, transient existence implicates the existence of at least one being which is permanent and self-existent, any human member of the taxonomy homo sapience aka intelligent being, can and does see that - unless he has undergone total lobotomy of his brain, in which event he cannot and is not in this discussion.

Conclusion: God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

So, please everyone with a working brain, tell me what is wrong with my explanation on why God exists.
.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3431)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3430)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
================================================

Paging, paging, iammrhappy86, please report to ats net forum, Pachomius is waiting with bated breath to resume his exchange with you.

.

In brief words, this is how I know from the study of existence that God exists, God in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending:

First, let us consider that existence is an isolated system, i.e. nothing can get out, and nothing outside can get in, and in fact and in truth there is no existence outside of the isolated system that is existence.

Next, inside this isolated system there are transient beings, for examples, we humans are transient beings, for we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

Now, transient existence implicates the existence of at least one being which is permanent and self-existent, any human member of the taxonomy homo sapience aka intelligent being, can and does see that - unless he has undergone total lobotomy of his brain, in which event he cannot and is not in this discussion.

Conclusion: God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

So, please everyone with a working brain, tell me what is wrong with my explanation on why God exists.
.

Nothing is wrong with your statements.

I've nothing to add; and so it seems we're in agreement.

To know the Father's existence is great; to Know the Father personally is best.



Have a great day my friend.

^_^

originally posted by: Pachomius
Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3419)
=============================================================================================

Here is my step by step exposition of how God exists:

1. There has always been existence.
2. There are transient beings in existence.
3. Transient beings necessarily implicate the existence of a permanent self-existent being.
4. The conclusion is obvious, there exists God, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

Please, everyone, show me where i am wrong.

Step 1: this assumption begs the question of what "existence" means. If it means physical existence, i.e., the space-time continuuum, then according to the Big Bang theory space-time did not exist before the Big Bang. In fact, there was nothing; no matter, no time, no space for any kind of physical existence to be meaningful. On the other hand, if it means superphysical existence in the higher realms of consciousness described by various of the world's ancient religions, then even these did not always exist, although one must be careful of how the word "always" is defined, because these realms exist outside of time as it is normally defined but are not eternal in the sense implied by this word because they are stages in the ever-coming into manifestation of God - an unfolding that occurs out of time. Step 1 is therefore wrong both scientifically and from the perspective of the mystical traditions within religions, which speak of the ontological gulf between realities that preserve the duality of subject and object and the non-dual, subjective state of God's self-awareness. If in Step 1 you postulate an existence other than the phenomenal one of His created beings, then you are begging the question by assuming the very thing you wish to deduce, namely the reality of God as the first-cause source of all existances, including the physical.
Step 2: This conflates the meaning of the word "existence." It is necessarily true if it refers to physical reality, for the latter is transient, according to the Big Bang theory, and therefore so must be its inhabitants.
Step 3: This statement is a non sequitur, a fallacy designed to provide the step towards completing the illusion of a logical proof of the existence of God. It is not true a priori, i.e., there is nothing necessary that is implied by the temporary nature of mortal beings.
Step 4: this is not a conclusion in any logical sense of the final inference to be made from a set of self-evident propositions. The only example here of the latter is the proposition in Step 2.

Having said this, I must put on record that my research over 50 years into the parallels between the mystical traditions of religions and their connection with current scientific theories of cosmogenesis has provided me with overwhelming mathematical (and therefore undeniable) evidence of a transcendental source of all existence - both physical and superphysical - that religions call "God."

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not. –Title of thread (3435)
=============================================================================================

a reply to: micpsi
--------------------------------------------------


Dear mickpsi:

Please forgive me, but you have replied to an earlier text* from me.

Please read the latest text on my explanation why and how God exists, this latest text is available in the following links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Feb, 22 2021 @ 07:57 AM

www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Feb, 22 2021 @ 04:11 PM

www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Feb, 22 2021 @ 07:39 PM

And please revise your previous post** which you regrettably directed to an older text of mine.

Here is the latest explanation from me on why and how God exists, as follows:

In brief words, this is how I know from the study of existence that God exists, God in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending:

First, let us consider that existence is an isolated system, i.e. nothing can get out, and nothing outside can get in, and in fact and in truth there is no existence outside of the isolated system that is existence.

Next, inside this isolated system there are transient beings, for examples, we humans are transient beings, for we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death.

Now, transient existence implicates the existence of at least one being which is permanent and self-existent, any human member of the taxonomy homo sapience aka intelligent being, can and does see that - unless he has undergone total lobotomy of his brain, in which event he cannot and is not in this discussion.

Conclusion: God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending.

So, please everyone with a working brain, tell me what is wrong with my explanation on why God exists.
.

.

*www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Feb, 13 2021 @ 09:04 AM

**www.abovetopsecret.com...
posted on Feb, 22 2021 @ 08:49 PM

.

I wrote a letter once inviting people to come and visit.
When they finally did I was at the liquor store when they
arrived. As far as I know not one person grew angry or
doubted my existence. They just sat down and waited for
me to return.

a reply to: Pachomius

To exist for us humans is to be in a personal status in which we experience everything and anything whatsoever at all, if you don't experience you don't exist.

Your same argument could be applied to the I in our dream state. The I that evaporates into nothing when we awaken. If God is everything and has partitioned his will to all, then we could indeed be partitioned from the all and not know it. Realising it only when we awaken to a higher state of consciousness in which we become one with the all.

So those believing that an external God does not exist might be more correct than those believing in a separate entity called God.

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
I'd advise One to reconsider the question.

Do 'You' exist? Are you really certain? Can you prove it?

Who knows what God really is? Who knows Himself or Herself truly?



^_^

Your right to define a debate you both need to agree on definitions. Like what is god would be a huge one. Problem is my beliefs and your may contradict each other. All you can do is broadly define who or what god is. My argument earlier was anything that can cause some change in the universe exists. By this definition god would exist because he has impact on people that believe in him. Now is it able to go beyond that i dont know in fact no one does unless he just showed up one day.