Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Post deleted

Regarding God?????

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

No, just different types of proof/proofs. Aquinas offers several philosophical proofs for God's existence (I would link but I can't yet). You have lots of "courtroom" proof for God's existence like documentary or testimonial proof. Mathematical or axiomatic proofs are a subset of philosophical proofs, but I guess these are all philosophical in origin. You could have empirical proof of a miracle, but I don't know how that could also prove God's existence - just the supernatural, generally-speaking.

That is not SOLID CONCRETE FACTUAL evidence and much of what you are talking about is just someone else's experience of phenomena.

The universe is replete with phenomena, but you need to really answer the question "which God"? Is it one God or many, or is it just about wholeness and connectedness?

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

True, philosophical proofs for God's existence don't necessarily prove the God of the Bible. Further proofs are required to connect those concepts.

"Solid concrete factual" evidence is a mix of different kinds of evidence. Facts, for example, can be concrete or abstract, even "solid" is a somewhat abstract term, especially if we're talking about platonic solids. You can prove something exists without using empirical evidence, if that's what you mean by "solid concrete factual".

Where it comes to proof of God, it is a very slippery slope and it also depends on one's understanding of themselves and the nature of the universe and how it all fits in.

God can NEVER be proven, if born out of religious context.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

How would you prove that statement?
"God can NEVER be proven, if born out of religious context."

Because it has NEVER been proven after eons of speculation.

Most religion is about separation of humankind from God as supreme being creator. It creates conflict of mind and therefore conjecture, especially since there are several religions all vying for superiority of belief.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I don't think that is true, but - in terms of proofs - I think that's the appeal to ignorance fallacy, plus a conclusory statement.

I have read that logical fallacy one recently. It is used as a law student aid.

Regarding God, belief is automatically a fallacy, because there is NO logic behind it, especially when it comes from religion. The delusion of the belief is a fallacy right from the start.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Ironically, yours is a statement of a faith-based belief, because it is demonstrable that logic can be used to prove God's existence. Such logic was provided, not only by the religion (Christianity), but also by the ancient Greek philosophers.

Belief in God is provable by logic in several different ways. There are many different logic proofs for God's existence, but the Prime Mover argument is perhaps the easiest to state quickly. Here goes: Everything that moves was put in motion by the action of another body. This leaves us with two options: (1) Either there's an endless chain of causality tracing back to infinity, which is not logical due to its incoherence, or (2) there was a Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause - God.

A similar argument to this refers to the source of all life, since every life was created from life. Biology holds the principle that spontaneous bio-genesis is not possible (naturally). If all new life comes from pre-existing life - where did life come from originally? What was the Uncaused Cause of Life? Again, logically, there is either a supernatural source for life, God, or there's an endless chain of causality.

Have to say a lot of what you wrote sounds like roundabout rhetorical blather to me and is not founded on connection, just conflated conjecture that is only seen as truth regarding this God thing of religion.

Until it can be proven "whose" God, then it is a waste of time trying to prove that there is evidence of a supreme "separate" superior being.

Desire is what drives the universe and there can be NO argument for this, no matter how much it gets derided or denied.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

ToastedCheese said... Have to say a lot of what you wrote sounds like roundabout rhetorical blather to me and is not founded on connection, just conflated conjecture that is only seen as truth regarding this God thing of religion.

Until it can be proven "whose" God, then it is a waste of time trying to prove that there is evidence of a supreme "separate" superior being.

Desire is what drives the universe and there can be NO argument for this, no matter how much it gets derided or denied.

expand

The Prime Mover proof is from Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. If it sounds like "blather", I can only recommend further reading and exposure to philosophy.

The 2nd paragraph is an example of moving the goal posts.

"Desire is what drives the universe" – that's another belief statement. Maybe true, maybe not, but not fact-based.

scottsmith81 said... The Prime Mover proof is from Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. If it sounds like "blather", I can only recommend further reading and exposure to philosophy.

The 2nd paragraph is an example of moving the goal posts.

"Desire is what drives the universe" – that's another belief statement. Maybe true, maybe not, but not fact-based.

expand

Well, I don't see you dealing in facts, only bloated pseudo-intellectual musings and these ancient philosophers were only dealing with complexity of meaning with sense of superiority behind knowledge headspace without understanding mind.

I don't see you understanding.

Try reading the Vedas and Upanishads instead.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

ToastedCheese said... Well, I don't see you dealing in facts, only bloated pseudo-intellectual musings and these ancient philosophers were only dealing with complexity of meaning with sense of superiority behind knowledge headspace without understanding mind.

I don't see you understanding.

Try reading the Vedas and Upanishads instead.

expand

No, lol, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas are not pseudo-intellectuals; they are some of the greatest minds in human history. If you're just not there learning-wise, your orbit of understanding will be understandably small.

Right, the Vedas and Upanishads are statements of faith or even myth, not fact. I have read them. They share characteristics with the form and genre of myth, unlike Biblical writings.

scottsmith81 said... No, lol, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas are not pseudo-intellectuals; they are some of the greatest minds in human history. If you're just not there learning-wise, your orbit of understanding will be understandably small.

Right, the Vedas and Upanishads are statements of faith or even myth, not fact. I have read them. They share characteristics with the form and genre of myth, unlike Biblical writings.

expand

Then focus on your fairy tale biblical writings and musings from pompous archaic elitist philosophers and you can continue to limit your mind and outlook. That is on you!

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

His will

To be honest, you don't actually have to believe in a God if it doesn't work for you.

As to answer your question, I have no idea.

I don't know your circumstances, but if you're typing from a computer, then probably have advantages over 80% of the rest of the world.

I don't mean any of this in a judgmental or chastising way. I struggle with having a better additude and being grateful myself.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

I like how deep inside you have a good heart unlike your friend Toasted Cheese. Toasted Cheese is evil incarnate.

---

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Toasted Cheese is evil incarnate.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I struggle with having a better attitude and being grateful myself.

We all do Mr. Hutch, but you do a great job of realization and knowing the essence of compassion.

You have no need to become better, because what is better and compared to what and whom? All concept and I can only speak for myself, but I am grateful for your insights and emphatic approach on many issues.

Most of us just need to realize that its all made up mind stories and that we are perfectly imperfect as we are and to just realize our own self-worth.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 President Trump is a HERO, and will win in a landslide in November!

God created earth to serve as a bad example. It will be used as a teaching tool in the next life where we will be able to see it in 4+D Smell-O-Vision.

I believe in alternate universes. They are used to construct what-if scenarios branching from any point in history. What has already happened in this one is the true reality.

---

[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]  

Sorry sweetie,god did not put us on this shihole,God gave us free will and we made this place a **** hole.

---

Gone

That answers nothing about why he chose this planet out of the billions there are.

There are planets that are huge compared to earth so it makes no difference what we did to it out of free will.

Pleasantly surprised to discover you’re not religious.

This planet isn’t that bad. It’s actually quite literally ideal for life.

---

Vlad did nothing wrong.

It’s actually quite literally ideal for life.

I see it as a sanctuary and humans are the custodians of it.

They ain't doing that good a job, ergo, aren't exactly ideal for it.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

He wants you to worship Him.

---

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

---

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Goes ways are not are ways