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

a reply to: Pachomius

That is not proof god exists. And has no more proof than stating random chemicals made up a biological mixed that lead to single cell organisms, mutating to multi-cell organisms, leading to plant and animal life, leading to humans life. And that humans are nothing more than biological machines created out of chaos and time.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

It is a fact that you and I exist and have a beginning.

Bad logic. God can exist without you. Your chain of false logic makes it about you, and can be said god only exists because you exist. Your fabrication because you want to justify your existence.

God exists because he exists.

Exodus 3:13
Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

a reply to: neutronflux

That's so not true.

How you even dare to come up with such fallacies. You must not be ashamed of anything.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Proving God would be proving The Kingdom of God

Sounds like a Haiku or Zen poem.

Not much more useful either. Just as vague.

The scene continues with the monk saying something that ends with "here no bull can hide", and O'Neil responding with:

"Oh, I don't know about that."

That's the part I initially was reminded of.

The Universe is proof that God exists.
If you need more 1st hand proof, there are quests that can be undertaken.

Also: If it looks like a duck, it' probably a duck.

a reply to: rom12345

Nowadays they are making the statement God doesn't need the universe to exist to debunk your claim.

Where the sense in that is I don't know. It's unbelievable.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Shrugs....

The words of Pachomius

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

This individual is not wanting to learn the truth about the reality of the true God, and have a personal relationship with the creator of humankind.

The individual wants to literally treat god as a concept, conceptualize and pigeon hole god into their definition, beat anyone down that doesn’t go with the teaching of caging god in Pachomius’ concept / definitions, and calls anyone seeking god (not Pachomius) religious. All the while Pachomius skips faith, talks about a systemic approach to proving of god’s existence, but ignores the established systemic approach to proving a theory called the scientific method. All the while sucking the Holy Spirt out of God. Or the soul out of God’s existence.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't understand what all this fuzz you are making is about. Don't be so hard on yourself.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't understand what all this fuzz you are making is about. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Pointless comment. Nice try.

a reply to: neutronflux
How did you use the scientific method to find God?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
How did you use the scientific method to find God?

How would Pachomius use a systematic system to prove god?

By Pachomius

Come one come all, present one objection against my systematic proof for God's existence, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

a reply to: neutronflux
I am asking you how you used the scientific method......as it is you who keeps going on about it.
Show us how you did it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
I am asking you how you used the scientific method......as it is you who keeps going on about it.
Show us how you did it.

I believe in God by faith.

You need to ask the person cited posting

Come one come all, present one objection against my systematic proof for God's existence, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

And ask Pachomius what method of systemic proof the individual is using.

Now I asked you:
What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

a reply to: neutronflux

What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

I have no idea.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

I have no idea.

And I have no idea how you systematically prove god.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

But I guess Pachomius supposedly does?

a reply to: neutronflux
This thread would not be 38 pages long without you trying to more than just guess.....I guess.
Lol.

a reply to: whereislogic

Everything is good. It takes time to grow. People of 80 years old supposedly have a different understanding than when they were teenager.

Prove me wrong. It's all good.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

I have no idea.

And I have no idea how you systematically prove god.

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's been posted here several times.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

What’s more systematic than the scientific method?

I have no idea.

And I have no idea how you systematically prove god.

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's been posted here several times.

Then by all means cite your theory concerning god, and post your research.



However....

Evidence of absence

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g., an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and simple absence of evidence (e.g., no careful research has been done) can be nuanced. Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it were there.[3]

Or more simply put...

Absence of evidence
is not evidence of Absence
Lawrence I. Bonchek, M.D., FACC, FACS
Editor in Chief
jlgh.org...

I believe in God by faith. My relationship with God is my evidence for my soul.