Irrefutable evidence that God exists.

Originally posted by GD21D
So let me get this straight. Irrefutable proof is available,

Yes. Irrefutable proof is available.

it just can't be revealed at the expense of faith? Well isn't that just convenient.

Yep, that would be one of the side effects. No, not faith in God. Faith in anything or anyone. Faith in totallity would be questioned, not by anyone else, but by you.


Asking for irrefutable proof is like demanding judgement day be here and now.
Do you really want your judgement day here and now? I don't think so.

reply to post by Hydroman


so ur nature is god?? that make plenty of sense of course since god is evil concept and fact proven by its matters which is u, or ur nature

Originally posted by absolutely
so ur nature is god?? that make plenty of sense of course since god is evil concept and fact proven by its matters which is u, or ur nature

Nah, what I was saying is that if "everything" is god, isn't that what we also call "nature"?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by absolutely
so ur nature is god?? that make plenty of sense of course since god is evil concept and fact proven by its matters which is u, or ur nature

Nah, what I was saying is that if "everything" is god, isn't that what we also call "nature"?

yep i confirmed ur nature is god nature

reply to post by absolutely


cmon u cant mean being out of different thing then everything??

Originally posted by Hydroman
I think there is already a word for your god: Nature.

This demonstrates what the debate is really about: Is that Nature "intelligent" or "automatic"?

Namaste.

reply to post by smithjustinb

God is the universe and the universe is alive. We are the living universe. Our forms take the shape of it. My eyes are black holes and my face is a galaxy of stars and light. At least, that's the shape of our forms. We are made in the universe's image.

So your god is creation. Well now, my God is mightier than yours for he existed before creation because he created the universe.

This thread feels like it was designed to get stars from the secular world. This thread also smells like new age.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by smithjustinb
God is not a religion. God is not a man in the sky. God is not supernatural. God is the creator of life forms. God is an architect that shapes what we look like, not by an act of will necessarily, but just by the fact of what God is. So, the presence of God causes life forms to take the shape that they do and causes them to take shape at all. So we are because God is.

etc...

If that's the case, why bother calling it God? Why not call it by the definition already agreed upon—The Universe?

Finally, we may be able to discontinue this discussion about "what god is" and move on to something that hasn't always been so obvious.

Why not call it the already agreed upon -- 道 (Tao)?

edit on 2012/4/22 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Call God 道? Why would you do that if they are different things? If you have an apple would you go about calling it an orange?

Guess who (y)our subconscious is? Is it the consciousness' subconscious... or is it the subconsciousness' consciousness? Is it the rider's horse or the horse's rider? Is it the horse's carrot or the carrot's horse? Is it the carrot's bacteria or the bacteria's carrot? Is it the sun's energy or the energy's sun?

Namaste.

Subconscious and the consciousness are two separate nouns and have different meanings. The rider is a rider, and the horse is a horse. The carrot is a carrot and the horse is a horse. The carrot is a carrot and the bacteria is bacteria. The sun is the sun, and energy is energy.

Nouns are used to describe separate objects. God is a noun and can be found in the dictionary. Zeus was a god, Odin was a god and Vishnu was a god; but could there ever be The God? Similarly, is there such a thing as The Human or The Zebra? No, because they're ideas, or better yet ideals, and God could only ever exist as an ideal. And everyone's own God, is merely their ideal god.

Hence the reason they stand in defence of their ideal—theists and atheists alike.

reply to post by smithjustinb



You said "irrefutable evidence" and your OP was opinion.

ATS deserves better speculation and analysis.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

So your god is creation. Well now, my God is mightier than yours for he existed before creation because he created the universe.

This thread feels like it was designed to get stars from the secular world. This thread also smells like new age.

Do you have irrefutable evidence to support your claim that your god is mightier, or will it be chaulked up to faith?

reply to post by smithjustinb


Well Done.

An absolutely excellent objective presentation of this 'irrefutable' evidence.

I actually agree with you and call this 'thing' 'The creator'. It's not the God of the bible. It's what the Lakota Indians speak of.

The misleading title hurts your OP.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Ehhhhhh ehhhhhh wrrooooonnngggg... God is not an architect... That is what the Freemasons believe... Also an architect works with materials that already exist. Try again guy.

Originally posted by Enemyc0mbatant
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Ehhhhhh ehhhhhh wrrooooonnngggg... God is not an architect... That is what the Freemasons believe... Also an architect works with materials that already exist. Try again guy.

How do you know that smithjustinb is wrong? What if God is an architect because God is light and made everything out of himself. I am saying WHAT IF? How do you that your idea is right and why would an idea be wrong just because Freemasons may believe it?

Originally posted by ILikeStars

Originally posted by GD21D
So let me get this straight. Irrefutable proof is available,

Yes. Irrefutable proof is available.

it just can't be revealed at the expense of faith? Well isn't that just convenient.

Yep, that would be one of the side effects. No, not faith in God. Faith in anything or anyone. Faith in totallity would be questioned, not by anyone else, but by you.


Asking for irrefutable proof is like demanding judgement day be here and now.
Do you really want your judgement day here and now? I don't think so.

No, irrefutable proof is not available. The proof you claim is nothing more than your opinion. By all means your entitled to your opinion, but don't claim your opinion as fact. Personally (and this is my opinion) I wouldn't think god to be one to rely on cheap tricks or games to see inside someones soul. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, but don't be so conceded to believe that you have all the concrete answers based on faith alone. It fly's in the face of reason. With the perspective of faith, no amount of evidence could change your opinion of your beliefs.

The amount of these threads that make it to the front page astounds me.

Changing the definition of God unofficially to yourself doesn't suddenly prove a thing my friend.

To claim anything existing, or the ability to recognise that things exist is proof of God is no different from me saying something like:
Banyabanunya is real! 100% proof. If life exists, this is proof of Kolaba'an, which Banyabanunya is responsible for. See guys? 100% irrefutable proof of Banyabanunya! Atheists can believe this too!

The difference is my example doesn't refute itself like yours does, as God is the name of a deity, and atheists believe there are no such things.

All you have done is tell us you are a pantheist. I don't see any evidence in your argument that would be considered irrefutable.

Even if there was, I could simply retort, "my God is superior to your God, and I believe my God exists". Is your God still God then?

reply to post by smithjustinb


I believe that humans evolved from crabs. So if you believe in evolution you believe that your part crab person.

Crab people, crab people, crab people....

Using the term God sounds like the Christian God in
the Bible. I am not into any form of organized religion.
My religion is between myself and the Spirit of the
Creator.

reply to post by arpgme


Because god being oneness, the almighty, the all powerful... Does not create things with things that are already in existence. The so called god would then be a second god. God does not need material to create. God is the material with which all is created. Therefore God could not possibly be an architect.

If you looked up the term logic online you would learn that there is a big difference between a sound argument and a valid argument. You could also look up something called denying the antecedent, which could be illuminating. Bottom line is that I cannot accept your conclusion, because the premises that lead to that conclusion are flawed.