It is what I am talking about.
Show it, if you can, or can you not see it?
If you can show that God is real, I will believe in God's existence.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good for you. If only that was what we were talking about....
Just look around you--and see it, if you're willing.
If something is real, don't you believe it?
* I am not obliged to prove that I know the presence of God to you in your arbitrary court of law.
* But you compel me to ask, by what technique of logic do you claim to know that I do not know-God?
I can demonstrate, with evidence, that the person I love actually exists. That's the difference.
Evidence, please.
That is only evidence for a belief. We are asking for evidence that God is real.
You dodged the point, I wasn't talking about the person you love, I was talking about love itself. God is love. One knows love without needing to prove or define.
Without understanding what light is (which we can see), we can't understand Xrays and microwaves.
What I'm trying to point out is that a blind man who has never seen before will not be able to relate to sight.
You are always welcome to make as many naked assertions as you please. I'm happy to leave you to your imagination.
However, if you actually want to be taken seriously, you do, in fact, need to own up to your burden of proof.
I shouldn't have to explain this to a (presumably) adult male human.
Once again, the burden of proof is yours.
Your claims to 'knowledge' are utterly indistinguishable from imagination. Until such time as you can demonstrate them - without using either logic or science, since you've categorically written them off - they can and will be dismissed out of hand.
You dodged the point, I wasn't talking about the person you love, I was talking about love itself. God is love. One knows love without needing to prove or define.
God is love.
They arnt dismissed out of hand by fellow believers, God is logical and distinguishable to us. If you want to find God yourself you will need to find him for yourself.
You dodged the point, I wasn't talking about the person you love,
God is love.
One knows love without needing to prove or define.
They arnt dismissed out of hand by fellow believers, God is logical and distinguishable to us.
They arnt dismissed out of hand by fellow believers, God is logical and distinguishable to us.
Then you should be able to show how the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Where is that argument? Where is the evidence?
"The magical and mythological parentage of natural religion does not invalidate the reality and truth of the later revelational religions and the consummate saving gospel of the religion of Jesus. Jesus life and teachings finally divested religion of the superstitions of magic, the illusions of mythology, and the bondage of traditional dogmatism. But this early magic and mythology very effectively prepared the way for later and superior religion by assuming the existence and reality of supermaterial values and beings.
Although religious experience is a purely spiritual subjective phenomenon, such an experience embraces a positive and living faith attitude toward the highest realms of universe objective reality. The ideal of religious philosophy is such a faith-trust as would lead man unqualifiedly to depend upon the absolute love of the infinite Father of the universe of universes. Such a genuine religious experience far transcends the philosophic objectification of idealistic desire; it actually takes salvation for granted and concerns itself only with learning and doing the will of the Father in Paradise. The earmarks of such a religion are: faith in a supreme Deity, hope of eternal survival, and love, especially of ones fellows.
When theology masters religion, religion dies; it becomes a doctrine instead of a life. The mission of theology is merely to facilitate the self-consciousness of personal spiritual experience. Theology constitutes the religious effort to define, clarify, expound, and justify the experiential claims of religion, which, in the last analysis, can be validated only by living faith. In the higher philosophy of the universe, wisdom, like reason, becomes allied to faith. Reason, wisdom, and faith are mans highest human attainments. Reason introduces man to the world of facts, to things; wisdom introduces him to a world of truth, to relationships; faith initiates him into a world of divinity, spiritual experience.
Faith most willingly carries reason along as far as reason can go and then goes on with wisdom to the full philosophic limit; and then it dares to launch out upon the limitless and never-ending universe journey in the sole company of TRUTH.
Science (knowledge) is founded on the inherent (adjutant spirit) assumption that reason is valid, that the universe can be comprehended. Philosophy (co-ordinate comprehension) is founded on the inherent (spirit of wisdom) assumption that wisdom is valid, that the material universe can be co-ordinated with the spiritual. Religion (the truth of personal spiritual experience) is founded on the inherent (Thought Adjuster) assumption that faith is valid, that God can be known and attained <-----the Urantia Book 1955."
What are truth and proof? What is there to be true or to prove if consciousness and existence don't exist as you said they don't when denying the axioms?
Do you now recant your objection to the axioms?
Recant? Frankly, I never bought into Rands claims from the beginning. Existence is effect, not cause. Your benign philosophy is centered in the primacy of an effect and the consciousness of existence in the effect. It's confusing to contemplate just how to even answer such a distorted observation of reality.
Then you should be able to show how the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Where is that argument? Where is the evidence?
That's the difficulty of talking to Atheist, we don't have a premise that logically leads to a conclusion that will satisfy you. That's not the path that man takes to God, its not something that we worked out in a mathematical equation that is testable. "Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known."
"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality."
Reverse psychology. You never answered my question.
Existence is a stolen concept since you deny the axiom of existence. What is so confusing about saying that existence exists, consciousness is awareness of what exists and wishing doesn't make things so? Why is that a distorted view of reality? That is confusing to you? Those concepts are self evident to children. When you so hastily called the Objectivist axioms "false constructs" you denied that existence exists which is all that the axiom is, an affirmation of what is self evident. Now you contradict yourself and say that "existence is effect" after denying that existence exists. Does that make sense to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?