Page 81 of 112 [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 ... 112  Next

sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

26 Mar 2015, 1:26 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.



Canadian1911
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Posts: 150
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

26 Mar 2015, 3:02 pm

sophisticated wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.


How in the hell can it be proven?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603

26 Mar 2015, 3:47 pm

Canadian1911 wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.


How in the hell can it be proven?


One DOES NOT seem to understand, friend.

GOD MAKES GOD'S PRESENCE KNOWN TO FOLKS,

WHO SEEK GOD, WITHOUT NAME.

AND UNTIL one 'SEEs'

as in 'Experience'

THIS FORCE OF VERB,

SOME FOLKS, NAME AS GOD,

AND FIND GOD,

FOR ALL PRACTICAL INTENTS

AND PURPOSES

GOD
DOES
NOT
EXIST

IN one's LIFE.

GOD'S ThERE..EVERywHeRE...

One JUST HAS not FOUND GOD YET,

ApparenTly.

AND TRULY SOME SOME FOLKS SIMPLY DO NOT,
NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY LIVE THIS TERRESTRIAL
LIFE IN ONE LIFE.

AND YEAH, the Noise of Human Abstract Language and
CULTURE IS THE BIG CAMEL AND THE hole of the needle
closing in on the perceptual reality of experiencing and
understanding what the three letter word GOD actually
IS AS VERB OF FORCE PERCEIVED
AND EMPLOYED
TO
MAKE
REAL LIFE
HUMAN MIRACLES
COME TRUE..

THAT I have already evidenced
ad-nauseam for what THAT
HAS/IS DONE/DOING
FOR ME
HERE
OVER
AND
OVER...
AND UNTIL
one experiences
IT.. IT IS like being
blind and
deaf..
to fuller reality of ALLTHAT
is AKA GOD
and
FULER Human Potential.

THE journey is one's own.

The paths are one's own.

IF IT IS TO BE IT IS UP
TO ME..

'i JUST DID/DO IT'..

i HAVE NO CONTROL
OVER WHAT
OTHER FOLKS
WILL NOW..
WITH OR
WITHOUT
THE POWER
OF
UNCONDITIONAL
LOVE..
AKA AS THE
FORCE OF
GOD
MANIFEST
IN
HUMAN BEING.
YES! GOD! HAS/IS
MORE THAN ONE
FRIGGING 'SHADE
OF
GREY'
OR
'COLOR'...
i 'mean' 'DUH'!..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Mar 2015, 4:12 pm

sophisticated wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.
I agree that the necessary existence of an uncaused First Cause can be proved but it requires the use of reason... which is about as popular for Materialist ideological zealots as bicycles are for fish.

After that we have to begin to venture into theology. An utter waste of time with bitter, twisted ignoramuses who imagine that because their ideological prejudices don't want it then it doesn't exist. Pigs have no use for pearls because they can't wallow in them or eat them.



daniel1948
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2015
Age: 71
Posts: 62
Location: Spokane, WA

26 Mar 2015, 7:06 pm

Lintar wrote:
Everyone has faith in something. Even atheists do. They have the unshakeable faith that they are right...


That's just nonsense. Faith is belief without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence. Now, there may indeed be some atheists who have "unshakable faith" in some aspect of their personal philosophy, but atheism is the lack of faith. There are many kinds of atheists, but most look to evidence to shape their world view. And a belief or world view based on evidence is the opposite of faith. Most atheists disbelieve in God because the evidence leads them that way, and most are always open to new evidence. A good atheist is at heart a scientist, and scientists are always testing their ideas and allowing those ideas to evolve with the evidence.

It's only religious people who have closed minds and refuse to alter their beliefs, since those beliefs are not based on evidence, but on inherited dogma.

izzeme wrote:
-snip Daniel -

i agree with that, and i got a few other options; mainly aimed at why there is evil and suffering in the world, and why God doesn't fix that.

1) God doesn't exist:
This one is obvious; if he doesn't exist, he can't fix anything.

2) he wants to fix it, but is unable to:
in this case, he is not omnipotent, and not worthy of the name 'god', not by biblical definitions

3) he can fix it, but doesn't want to:
here, we got ourselves an evil god, all gods followed by monotheistic religions are 'good', so those religions are wrong. also, i would not follow this guy

4) he neither can or wants to:
in this case, he is both evil and not omnipotent, why worship this guy?

all 4 options give me a clear reason to not worship 'god', and has effectively made his existence irrelevant (i still dont believe he exists, for the reasons summarised by daniel1948)


I think the above are merely restatements of what I said. Except that I do not use the word "evil" because that implies some sort of objective universal morality. I prefer to use the word "cruel" which is purely descriptive and value-neutral.

Note that a god who cannot build a better world or fix this one, while clearly not the Christian God, could still be a god. The Greek and Roman gods were immortal, with lots of cool super-powers, but were not omnipotent. You worshipped them because (supposedly) they could mess you up real bad if you didn't.

If you insist on classifying a cruel god as "evil" you are implicitly making the claim that humans are important enough to warrant moral protection. Since most humans kill animals for food, a God who kills people for fun is no more "evil" than humans are.

BTW, am I the only one who finds aghogday's posts to be utterly unreadable due to the bizarre formatting and random blocks of capitals? It's like he cut letters out of a magazine and threw them haphazardly on the page.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:12 pm

daniel1948 wrote:
I'm going to disagree with this. A proof would not have to be revealed simultaneously to the entire world. If there were an all-powerful, all-knowing God, he could prove his existence by some means we have not yet thought of, and could allow that proof to be disseminated gradually. Since he has not done so, we are left with a few possibilities:

1. There is no such thing as a god. This is the possibility that seems most likely to me, given what follows.

2. He just has not gotten around to it yet. This would imply that he does not care about all the people who've lived and died in ignorance of his existence. Such a God seems like kind of a jerk.


A jerk? Tell me something Daniel, do you care about, or are even aware of, the insects you tread on whenever you walk on grass? Why would God care about us? Do microbiologists 'care' about what they see through their microscopes? Do they feel compassion for the little critters?

daniel1948 wrote:
3. He just doesn't care whether anyone believes in him or not. Since Christianity explicitly states that he wants us to believe in him, this God is not the Christian God and Christianity would thus be false.


Yes, the Christian god is false, and the same goes for the Jewish and Islamic ones. That does not mean, however, that atheism is therefore true by default. Other possibilities, other options, exist.

daniel1948 wrote:
4. He wants us to believe in him without proof or evidence, therefore does not provide proof of his existence. This is what many Christians claim. I've mentioned this concept before: That faith is belief in the absence of evidence, or even against the evidence. Many Christians consider that faith is most pure when the evidence is strongly against. But a God who demands that we believe without evidence, and even punishes us for non-belief or for wrong belief when all the evidence is against his existence, is clearly a psychopath. Since Christianity asserts that God is purely good, this fourth possibility, if true, would mean that Christianity is false.


'...proof of His existence', you say. I was told before that atheists don't do this. I don't recall who it was, but when I raised the objection that atheists like to demand more than is actually reasonable (i.e. for proof rather than evidence) I was told by that person that atheists don't do this.

daniel1948 wrote:
The lack of clear, unambiguous proof for the existence of God does not prove that there is no God.


Obviously.

daniel1948 wrote:
But it does prove that Christianity is wrong in its description of God. Christians could remedy this if they were to admit of a God who is not all-powerful. A bumbling God could be consistent with the world as we see it. Or they could remedy it if they gave up the idea that God likes humankind best. A God who does not give a hill of beans for humans, who regards us the way we regard mosquitos, would be consistent with the world as we see it. There are other aspects of Christianity that, if abandoned, would eliminate the contradictions. There still would be no proof of God, but at least their religion would no longer be demonstrably false.


Hey, we agree! :D



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:20 pm

daniel1948 wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Everyone has faith in something. Even atheists do. They have the unshakeable faith that they are right...


That's just nonsense. Faith is belief without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence.


Who told you this? Was it Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett by any chance? Was it Hitchens? Harris?

No, what you claim here is simply not true. What you have outlined here is NOT faith, of any kind. You obviously have not examined this issue in any true depth, obviously preferring to parrot the simplistic cliches of the militant atheists in our midst. Faith is as I described it.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:30 pm

Atheists often say that they would become believers in God if, for whatever base reason, God were to directly appear in front of them, face-to-face, and say 'Ta-Daaa!'

Let's be honest here. I would be willing to bet all I have that even if this did happen, they still would not be convinced. They would make up some lame excuse like, 'Oh, that wasn't God, I was just high', or 'I was hallucinating - yeah, that's it'. There is absolutely nothing in heaven or on earth that will EVER convince the hardened atheist that God is real. They have far too much to lose, in so many ways. Their perceived autonomy is one, the thought of their life actually meaning something and having a purpose, being too much for them to handle emotionally. They don't like being told how to live, what to do (that's just too 'authoritarian' for their libertarian tastes), and the thought that morality may actually be absolute, and that some things are just intrinsically wrong regardless of opinion, taste, and all else that is seen to matter, is one that they would find to be far too 'inconvenient'.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:43 pm

daniel1948 wrote:
It's only religious people who have closed minds and refuse to alter their beliefs, since those beliefs are not based on evidence, but on inherited dogma.


Aw, rubbish! What crap. What about atheists who have closed minds? Don't they exist as well?

daniel1948 wrote:
I think the above are merely restatements of what I said. Except that I do not use the word "evil" because that implies some sort of objective universal morality. I prefer to use the word "cruel" which is purely descriptive and value-neutral.


Oh no, a moral relativist. Nope, morality really is objectively real and absolute. Tell me something; the premeditated taking of another life, one not done in self-defence or for any other mitigating reason (ex. in order to prevent the deaths of others in a hostage situation). Just for the 'fun' of it. Is such an act wrong? Yes, no, or 'it depends'?

daniel1948 wrote:
Note that a god who cannot build a better world or fix this one, while clearly not the Christian God, could still be a god. The Greek and Roman gods were immortal, with lots of cool super-powers, but were not omnipotent. You worshipped them because (supposedly) they could mess you up real bad if you didn't.


Lots of cool superpowers?!?! How old are you? The Greek and Roman gods were not gods at all. That's why we use lower-case 'g'. 'God' is not Graeco-Roman (or Babylonian, Aztec...). The old classical gods are irrelevant, because we all know they do not really exist. We've moved on since then.

daniel1948 wrote:
If you insist on classifying a cruel god as "evil" you are implicitly making the claim that humans are important enough to warrant moral protection. Since most humans kill animals for food, a God who kills people for fun is no more "evil" than humans are.


As Spock may say, this is not logical. Humans ARE important, or are you now going to tell me that you yourself are not? I don't know where you got the idea that God may 'kill people for fun'.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603

26 Mar 2015, 8:50 pm

daniel1948 wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Everyone has faith in something. Even atheists do. They have the unshakeable faith that they are right...


That's just nonsense. Faith is belief without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence. Now, there may indeed be some atheists who have "unshakable faith" in some aspect of their personal philosophy, but atheism is the lack of faith. There are many kinds of atheists, but most look to evidence to shape their world view. And a belief or world view based on evidence is the opposite of faith. Most atheists disbelieve in God because the evidence leads them that way, and most are always open to new evidence. A good atheist is at heart a scientist, and scientists are always testing their ideas and allowing those ideas to evolve with the evidence.

It's only religious people who have closed minds and refuse to alter their beliefs, since those beliefs are not based on evidence, but on inherited dogma.

izzeme wrote:
-snip Daniel -

i agree with that, and i got a few other options; mainly aimed at why there is evil and suffering in the world, and why God doesn't fix that.

1) God doesn't exist:
This one is obvious; if he doesn't exist, he can't fix anything.

2) he wants to fix it, but is unable to:
in this case, he is not omnipotent, and not worthy of the name 'god', not by biblical definitions

3) he can fix it, but doesn't want to:
here, we got ourselves an evil god, all gods followed by monotheistic religions are 'good', so those religions are wrong. also, i would not follow this guy

4) he neither can or wants to:
in this case, he is both evil and not omnipotent, why worship this guy?

all 4 options give me a clear reason to not worship 'god', and has effectively made his existence irrelevant (i still dont believe he exists, for the reasons summarised by daniel1948)


I think the above are merely restatements of what I said. Except that I do not use the word "evil" because that implies some sort of objective universal morality. I prefer to use the word "cruel" which is purely descriptive and value-neutral.

Note that a god who cannot build a better world or fix this one, while clearly not the Christian God, could still be a god. The Greek and Roman gods were immortal, with lots of cool super-powers, but were not omnipotent. You worshipped them because (supposedly) they could mess you up real bad if you didn't.

If you insist on classifying a cruel god as "evil" you are implicitly making the claim that humans are important enough to warrant moral protection. Since most humans kill animals for food, a God who kills people for fun is no more "evil" than humans are.

BTW, am I the only one who finds aghogday's posts to be utterly unreadable due to the bizarre formatting and random blocks of capitals? It's like he cut letters out of a magazine and threw them haphazardly on the page.


I write free verse poetry, dude.

Just ignore it, if you like; doesn't hurt my feelings

and I do not mind being different, AT ALL, HAHA!..;)

Not all folks are cut out to understand it, obviously.

But I run in INTERNATIONAL POETRY CIRCLES WHERE EVERY word is easily understood BY Folks who have the 'right-brain' interpretive skills to understand human metaphor, per the English language that doesn't HAVE TO FOLLOW THE QUEEN VICTORIA RULE, of PROPER ENGLISH.

I FIND normal language quiet the bore, as I am a technical writer for the government, for years, and can write like a robot as well, as anyone here, if I care to be bored.

It's just an advanced kind of one of many more types of Human Intelligences, BEYOND STANDARD IQ INTELLIGENCE, including the REAL LIFE intelligence in perceiving and understanding GOD; ALL innately, instinctually, and intuitively.

And honestly, If you do not understand that relative human free will, faith, hope, and belief are real life human emotions, THAT EMOTE HUMAN ACTION, REGARDLESS OF CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS RULE AND A THREE LETTER WORD TO IMPRISON A FAKE ANTHROPOMORPHIC GOD, truly you are missing a big piece of the human pie to do real life HUMAN miracles like the one below.

When you can do this, come back and tell me how much you understand about REAL FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL life, 'Grasshopper'..;)



Until then, good luck...:)

And if you are

EVER able to do

ANYTHING LIKE this,

OF this human real life magnitude in

flesh and blood physical achievement,

YOU WILL UNDERSTAND GOD,

as that is the only WAY to do it,

WITH the INTERNAL HUMAN higher power of GOD

or frigging anabolic steroids

that is NOT MY WAY OF ALL NATURAL,

SUPER HUMAN LIKE STRENGTH,

WITH THE HIGHER POWER OF GOD,

AS MY FUELING FORCE

FOR almost everything I do in real life miracles.

ANYWAY, HAVE A NICE NOW, I can only hope that all people will enjoy life,

as much as I do now WITH REAL LIFE SUPER HUMAN STRENGTH,

GRACE, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, AND FEARLESS COURAGE.

And yeah, I'll pray too, FOR THAT FOR YA,

AND folks who know how to 'work it' baby

are successful at that too; but it only works

with receptive participants in the 'game' of

GOD's HIGHER POWER IN REAL LIFE HUMAN 'STUFF'.



And with all that said, here's a little theme musicK by Boston..;)

To make my now, AT LEAST, for now..;)

The higher Power of GOD only works

for those folks who seek it,

find it, employ it, develop it, utilize it, and practice IT

CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH THE TRUE HIGHER POWER OF GOD

MANIFEST IN HUMAN BEINGS IN EMOTIONS

OF RELATIVE FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, BELIEF

THROUGH IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY

THROUGH PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE

DRIVING MIND and body balance

regulating emotions, integrating senses,

increasing cognitive executive functioning

through greater focus

and short term memory;

and then next thing ya know,

ya might be a real LIFE SUPERMAN LIKE ME,

NAMED A LEGEND OF DANCE, in ones' metro area.

TRUST ME, STRANGER THINGS HAVE,

CAN, AND WILL HAPPEN, at least,

WITH THE POWER OF GOD.

GOING against it is only another PERSON'S loss in life,

And choice, per whatever WILL a human being can develop.

And truly the greaTEST emotional power IS the GIFT OF ALL UNCONDITIONAL LOVE,

PER THE GOD OF NATURE'S GREATEST POTENTIAL GIFT TO all of HUMAN NATURE TO EXERCISE AS A

potential TRUE REAL LIFE HUMAN HERO, like the dude Jesus, if he really does exist, then....

All in 'JUST' my very educated and experienced opinion, NOW,

of course..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:53 pm

Lintar wrote:
Lots of cool superpowers?!?! How old are you?


I just now checked your age. 66.

Okayyyy... :?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,069
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 8:55 pm

Lintar wrote:
Oh no, a moral relativist. Nope, morality really is objectively real and absolute.


Bullshit, look throughout history and you will see most definitely that morals are subject to the contemporary zeitgeist. There is absolutely no evidence that morals are anything but subjective, there is evidence that altruism is an Evolutionary Sustainable Strategy, but other than this there is zero evidence for any objective morals.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,763
Location: temperate zone

26 Mar 2015, 9:10 pm

sophisticated wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.


He didn't say "communication had to be direct". He said "proof" had to be direct.

For everyone to be convinced God would have to materialize in front of everyone as a giant the size of Godzilla on the Oprah Show- and would have to give out free new cars to every TV viewer of him.

No middle man. No having to rely on hearsay about what some ancient prophet said God said to him. And no having to pick and choose from rival prophets (you may hold with Moses, and Jesus, but not with Mohammed, nor with Joseph Smith). Just god right there doing his God thing right in front of you.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 10:21 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Oh no, a moral relativist. Nope, morality really is objectively real and absolute.


Bullshit, look throughout history and you will see most definitely that morals are subject to the contemporary zeitgeist. There is absolutely no evidence that morals are anything but subjective, there is evidence that altruism is an Evolutionary Sustainable Strategy, but other than this there is zero evidence for any objective morals.


So can I assume your answer to the question I posed is, 'it depends'?

'Evolutionary sustainable...' - No, that is pure bull#$%^ What does 'evolution' have to do with what is intrinsically right? Evolutionary psychology cannot account for, because it actually counts as evidence against it, altruism. When an individual sacrifices his/her life to save someone else, knowing in advance that he/she will die but taking the plunge anyway, how can one say that this particular act in any way is supported by the notion that what this person was doing was 'genetically programmed', or 'aided the survival of the species', or whatever other lame excuse naturalists like to bamboozle the simple-minded with?

Now, I am not saying that biological evolution is not true, but I am saying that it cannot account for so much that we know is real (ex. abiogenesis, altruistic behaviour). Not everything can be attributed to Darwinism you know.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Mar 2015, 10:27 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
The existence of God/gods/spirits/goblins/etc. cannot be proven in an objective, "logical" sense.

In order for this to happen, this Supreme Being would have to reveal Him/Her/Itself to all 7 billion people in the world at the same time.

It's an article of "Faith"--this belief in God.

It cannot be proven empirically--either side of the argument.

It's fun to argue, though, right? :lol:


The existence of God can be proven.

As for his nature, then this is something only He can tell us about.

And communication does not have to be direct, it can indirect through messengers and prophets.


He didn't say "communication had to be direct". He said "proof" had to be direct.

For everyone to be convinced God would have to materialize in front of everyone as a giant the size of Godzilla on the Oprah Show- and would have to give out free new cars to every TV viewer of him.

No middle man. No having to rely on hearsay about what some ancient prophet said God said to him. And no having to pick and choose from rival prophets (you may hold with Moses, and Jesus, but not with Mohammed, nor with Joseph Smith). Just god right there doing his God thing right in front of you.


Do you really think that even this would convince the sceptics? God could bite them on the bum and they would still try to tell themselves, 'Oh, I was just hallucinating, because God can't really exist, that's silly'.