I should say I cannot prove God exists to anyone else.
Truth in the mind of others is really truth?.. Doesn’t truth then lose it’s meaning, if it is just relative?
Yes you include everything but you exclude exclusivism.
Than why should one believe you?
Yes. If Club29 can talk with “God”, then Club29 can ask “God” how many pounds I weigh, and then tell me right now about that exact number.
But, if Club29’s “God” is a psionic-construct consisting of pure circular reasoning… 
then his “God” is both “useless”, “nothing” and “ineffably, absolutely amazing”, all at the same time.
Dan you show your ignorance yet again. I’m not sure I really even need to disprove your points made here, I think even atheist can see the faulty reasoning. But, because I think there’s a chance you could possibly be this ignorant or stubborn, to look of it as a joke, I will critique your critique here.
If God were to tell me how many pounds you way, which for one would be useless, it would only secure his existence, and my free will would be gone. Instead God is beyond our comprehension, and once in a while we can understand his genius. He leaves the option open.
Take for instance, some supernatural event. They happen, but it’s still not proof. This person may say, “Wow, God does exist” then they turn around a few weeks later and wonder if it was just their imagination playing tricks on them.
Would you perhaps consider that if you asked someone to do something for you, and they didn’t, that they were useless? Especially someone in authority? You see Dan, it’s statements like these that are useless, and if you’d spend a bit more time on them you could figure them out for yourself, but instead, you’d rather play the foolish jester.
Alun,
I’m not sure if you realize what you’re saying. You’ve told me that certain things are false, but they really aren’t. You are still positing that this is true, so isn’t something false then? You keep using either or logic whether you realize it or not. Do you see, that even this statement is excluding that maybe certain things are false, but they are really true? Where are you? Where are you standing? You are affirming that truth is Relative, but does it actually make sense to you?
Let me show you something:
“If truth is relative, then does that statement include itself or exclude itself? If that statement includes itself that must mean even that statement is relative which means it isn’t always true. If it excludes itself it’s providing for itself a nimbus of positing an absolute while denying they actually exist.”— Ravi Zacharias
So now where do you stand?
I’ll try.
I’m guessing you weigh 275lbs, dressed in dirty sweatpants, eating a meal of dry cereal from the box and diet coke straight from the bottle. You haven’t had a shower in a week and are using a fork to scratch your backside as we speak…
My psychic powers are so accurate they’re scary. Right?
WAIT!!! STOP!!! We have somthing…
Now Club, Forget everything said on this forum except what I am about to tell you in the above statements you made.
Oh and Dan~ shame on you for jesting (though it was rather funny).
Anyway Club: Lets breakdown and explain what you just said.
Exactly!!! And why would you need to?
The real question you should ask yourself is why do “You Feel” you “Have to”?
Your belief does not requir anyone else to believe in it for it to exist corect? Your God as you believe is omnipotent Correct? Then Why and what in hell would give you the notion to argue so Fiercly about his existance? You “Know” he exists so why do others oppinion upset you so or get you into such a rut for you to argue so strongly and fitfully that you can not see the truth were it right in front of you?
Oh and on this note of “Truth” What is truth? Is “your” truth someone else’s? Is their truth yours?
What is truth?
I’ll tell you:
Truth is exactly that, what you want and believe it to be. If you believe your God is the omnipotent God of the Universe…Than he is…For “YOU” Your Truth’s are not everyone elses jsut as mine are not your’s.
Let me give you an example:
One of my truths is that I am a Daemon not Human and I loath and despise your kind…While at the same time I pity you and in pitying your pethetic species find in myself the urge to nurture you in what ways I can. (Oh how generouse of me destroyer of worlds to take pity on you) I know…Shut up. It really would be so much easier to eradicate you and put you out of your misery. But…
Just kidding about the last part…Or was I? mwahahahahahahahah.
Anyway, The point is truth is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure you have herd this but now you know what it means.
It means the truth of somthing is just as you see it. If you see me as kind generouse and loveing than in your eyes and in truth I am.
However, if anoth see’s me as a tyranical, psychotic maniac, Than in their eyes I am thine also.
So if both of these “truth’s” are the truth and I am each thing, Than what is the truth? Am I loving compashionate and careing or am I a murderouse lunitic?
The meaning of truth is to understand “Why” it is true, not the statement itself. A statement is just that. But to “understand” Why it is the way it is, that my friend is truth.
Ned,
From Ijehova Defense atornies at law to stand up comedian…
I rather like the change…
I cannot prove God to you, because that is impossible. Look, I prove logical truths to you and you still deny, as well as you deny truth exist anyhow, so why then would it matter?
Truth is in the eye of the beholder?
I’m pretty sure the saying is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. But what do I know, I’m just a Christian.
How old are you? Do you go to school anywhere by chance? Because I have trouble taking you seriously when you use, “muhahaha”, and mispell 4 words in the same sentence.
You’ve just ignored my arguments, which proves you don’t care to know truth, you’d rather go on believing it’s all relative, so why are you talking to me about it when it doesn’t matter to you?
I will repost this argument yet again, because I don’t want anyone to miss this, and your careless tangents are just obscuring the real truth:
“If truth is relative, then does that statement include itself or exclude itself? If that statement includes itself that must mean even that statement is relative which means it isn’t always true. If it excludes itself it’s providing for itself a nimbus of positing an absolute while denying they actually exist.”— Ravi Zacharias
I’m not sure how many more times I’ll have to repost this to prove my point, but it’s there, so read.
pure circular reasoning.
I don’t see how, elaborate.
Are you just trying to sound redundant? I’m just defending and telling you what I think is logical in it’s metaphysical roots.
Furthermore, God can’t be useless if he is any bit useful, he can’t be nothing if he is something.
But if I’m missing something please explain.
I’m in no position to dispute whether or not gods exist.
I’m in no position to describe what and who each of these gods are.
What I am doing – is questioning the validity of “your god”.
Can’t it help you to perform any sort of “magick”, or is it just an idea in your head?
I could just as easily claim to “know” and “communicate” with the supriem creator of the universe, call myself “Christian”, claim to “know the truth”, etc., but without substance, these are useless claims at best [lies and madness, usually].
What is magick? Does magick exist? Can’t magick just be information yet not revealed to the mind? So it seems as magick?
Is madness ignorance? Isn’t a person only mad if his beliefs are faulty Or perhaps does something to obstruct the norm?
Personal testimony. I can claim I’ve spoken with God, you can claim you’ve seen a ghost. Now basically, I can’t disprove that you may have saw a ghost, because I’m not sure if they exist, but I cannot disprove this.
It could very well be true I’m talking to God, it’s only your belief that I haven’t, truth still stands apart from it don’t you see?
Let me explain something to you. You could say this same thing about Logic. If logical premises are false, than so is the logical argument. Now before you can even begin to discuss a logical argument, you must assume that logic itself is true. Before an atheist, agnostic, or theist can even begin to posit a logical argument, they must be able to prove the premises are true, and those premises are true(substance). As far as I’ve shown, something has to be true, because even when we say we don’t know, we can’t escape that truth. As it seems truth can’t be escaped, we know truth exist. And to the best of our knowledge, we can make certain truths certain to the point of certainty(substance). So as you can see, you argument can soon be broken down to whether or not truth exists yet again.
What I’d like to know is, if you can’t prove nothing can create something, something that would seem a logical impossibility wouldn’t it? Does that mean it can’t happen or hasn’t happened? No, it’s just yet another one of those things we don’t understand, and maybe we never will.
Dan~
Why are these the only two options? The mere fact that you spelled magic with a 'k' is a clear sign that most people would think you have serious issues based on your own beliefs- you apparently live in a world of make believe where staring at candles, burning incense, and bogus water-crystal experiments let you think there's such a thing as magic. Fine. Let's pretend for two seconds that it's not all a crock. That wouldn't be bad enough. THEN you turn it around and turn into Joe Rationalist and assume that everything about Christianity is a psychological crutch, claims to miracles are bullshit, and the theology is bunk. Why? I suspect because you've heard it too many times (though never listened once), and what some retard says on the internet just chimes with you better than something that's been around a while.
But that's speculation, what's really a problem is your apparently hypocrisy here. So which is it? Do we live in a world of fantasy and wonder where whatever crazy crap you've fallen into is true, and also whatever I believe might be true as well, or do we live in a Rational, boring world where everything odd is bullshit?
Glad someone appreciated it. I must have been really bored.
Religious systems are more flexible than you give them credit for. Your position, on the other hand, is fairly well locked in. And if I had to choose between a mobile, flexible system and your point of view, it would be an easy choice.
This is a typical response to someone who has apparently never attended a seminary class. You’d be in for a rather rude awakening if your intent is to equate a religious system with the notion of “the simple mind.” Whereas the average person on the street believes in evil/good/the unexplainable on a level you may find simplistically irritating, please be reminded that on a much higher level, the things you suggest as simple are being debated in a far more diverse and complex arena. As if answering your post with a few paragraphs would alter your position. Not likely. But that is because in its simplistic presentation, it is not possible to satisfy an opposing point of view. Not enough information. Just a small rant. Ciao.
Religious systems are more flexible than you give them credit for. Your position, on the other hand, is fairly well locked in. And if I had to choose between a mobile, flexible system and your point of view, it would be an easy choice.
This is a typical response to someone who has apparently never attended a seminary class. You’d be in for a rather rude awakening if your intent is to equate a religious system with the notion of “the simple mind.” Whereas the average person on the street believes in evil/good/the unexplainable on a level you may find simplistically irritating, please be reminded that on a much higher level, the things you suggest as simple are being debated in a far more diverse and complex arena. As if answering your post with a few paragraphs would alter your position. Not likely. But that is because in its simplistic presentation, it is not possible to satisfy an opposing point of view. Not enough information. Just a small rant. Ciao.
Religious system = simple mind for a modern human because many of the major religions originated at least few hundreds or thousands years before and the minds of those people that developed these religions is primitive compared to the 21st century people (no offiense but that’s how evolution works). For those people who lived in the 1st century, the religious practices of the Neanderthals would have looked primitive. I believe that expecting a 21st century human to respect the primitive system that is at least 2,000 years old ( and unchanged during this long time) is rather rude.
They couldn’t help but think that the devil or evil spirits caused physical and mental illness in those days, because they did not have things such as microscopes.
Today humans are blessed with more knowledge then ever before, but monistic faith promotes a sort of puritism/perfectionism in faith, where the person appearantly has to “stand firm” to the old “pure” ideas.
What I see club29,
Is that YOU are the only one argueing with me. Noone else on here has opened an oppinion about this post about me other than to agree if at all.
You and only you are the only one not seeing what is there.
You and only you are the only one who is blinded by their own logical and illogical falicies.
You and only You are the only one Argueing. Read the whole thread and then open your mind and see if you can drop the vail of answers bound by logic and belief.
To ask a question but say the answer can’t be right if it is or is not this or that, is to completely disregard the question and truth of the answer.
To find an Answer, one canot limit the Question. And to find the Question one canot limit the Answer.
Truth is Truth, whether it is what you want to hear or not and will remain such. The only choice you have is to “Believe it, or Not to Believe it”.