Proof of God

[ydoaPs]

Someone has gone and done just that and it will no doubt upset both sides of this debate.

 

Then let's see it.

[too-open-minded]

Do I need to whip out the contradicting bible verse's?

Edited September 29, 2012 by too-open-minded

[Moontanman]

Do I need to whip out the contradicting bible verse's?

 

 

If some one's gonna whip it out then "I say whip it... whip it good" I've seen a lot of threatening to whip out "it" but no "it"... lots of threats of "it" and threats supposedly from "it" but so far no "it"...

 

Oops should have been in reply to this one too...

 

Then let's see it.

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by Moontanman

[too-open-minded]

Exodus 15:3

 

Romans 15:33

[cindy313]

For those who seek the meaning of l

This message is in two sections:

 

1. Right reasoning in seeking truth

2. Proof of God through:

 

Science

Archeology

Predictions

 

Unlocking the Mysteries to life

 

In order to unlock the mysteries to life, a person needs to be teachable / correctable. Without constructive criticism or being teachable and open to receive knowledge, a person can never understand truth as they ought. For light brings truth, and if a person refuses to be taught light, neither can they receive the truth.

 

A person needs to see and understand for themselves the error they are in, this then makes them more receptive to everything.

 

These errors are subject to the following things:

 

A person has to understand that they haven't been exposed to the fullness of knowledge that exists in all creation. They have to realize that the knowledge that they have, (often given through the world system, mainstream media etc., which is subject to limitations / control) is only a tiny fraction compared to the fullness of knowledge that exists.

 

Simply said, a person must acknowledge that their knowledge is not everything that is out there, and that their decisions and choices are therefore subject to this limited knowledge.

 

Knowledge unlocks the mysteries to life, however to attain knowledge, one must first understand the following points:

 

• The unexplained isn't unexplainable

• False interpretations don't mean false revelation

• Understanding context

• Understanding language

• Understanding people's motives

• Interpreting difficult information in the light of clear information

• Don't build a whole thesis on obscure information

• Understanding the nature of "seeming contradictions"

• Truth is found in what is revealed and not in everything recorded

• Understanding the law of progressive revelation

 

1. The unexplained isn't unexplainable – It is a mistake to assume that what has not yet been explained never will be or can be explained. It is a grave mistake to give up further exploration on anything you seek answers to. The unexplained should actually be your motivation to find an explanation.

 

For example, many unexplainable natural phenomena that scholars or scientists once had no answer for, have now been answered through the unyielding patience of v"No one can buy or sell without the mark 666" (Rev 13:16-18)

This prophecy has already been partially fulfilled, as for about 50 years no one in Europe or America can buy anything without a barcode which contains the number 666 in all commercial barcodes. This is only a prelude to the fulfillment of the 666 mark, which shall probably be some sort of chip implanted in the hand or forehead. People are using 666 for just about everything, and many don't even know it.

 

Many people are also being chipped with the Verichip (which is not the actual chip) from ADS (Applied Digital Solutions), which is much like the chip / mark prophesied in Revelation, and works in the same way as the final 666 chip should work – no one shall be able to hold a job without the 666 mark – so everyone is 'forced to receive the mark' to buy / sell / pay off their loans etc.

 

Phases to get to the chip:

 

Phase 1: Price Stickers

Phase 2: The Barcode

Phase 3: Replace Cash with Cards

Phase 4: RFID tags

Phase 5: The Implantable RFID Chip etc

 

Images:

 

• The Jacobs were the first family to be chipped

• The Verichip by Applied Digital Solutions.

• 'Chipmobile' – Verichip is on a mission to chip America !

• 2012 Advert from Vodafone Greece, the Logo shows three chips reading 6-6-6. According to this prophecy, one day the final chip shall be an everyday thing, where you can't buy nothing without it - adverts for the chip shall become an everyday normal thing, advertising convenience for the chipee – much like credit cards were advertised as a good thing.

 

Who has been chipped and why ?

 

People throughout different countries and for different reasons have already been chipped. The Bible says that "It forced all people to receive Mark". The strategy for getting whole nations to receive the 666 Chip is: "malicious intentions presented through non-malicious means"

 

This is through applying fine sounding reasoning or arguments to justify their plans. Key reasons used to cause people to get the chip are: Security, Efficiency, Identification, Access

 

These are words which are used to play on people's insecurities and weaknesses, causing them to see a 'need' to be chipped. Someone described it in the following way:

 

"It's a simple concept, really: You inject a miniature radio frequency identifier the size of a grain of rice between your thumb and forefinger and with a wave of your hand, you unlock doors, turn on lights, start your car or pay for things."

 

People have already been chipped with 'prototype' chips !

 

Who has been chipped:

 

• An entire family

• Many millionaires

• Security agencies

• People who work in high security buildings

• Army officials, Military etc

• Plans are underway to Microchip every Newborn in the U.S. and Europe

• Medical patients (e.g. senior citizens) for immediate access to their medical records

• Pets and large herds of cattle and sheep for efficient tracking

• High Government officials - Mexico's attorney general and at least 160 people in his office have been implanted with microchips that get them access to secure areas of their headquarters.

• Plans to chip every Western Citizen (America / Canada / Australia / Europe Etc) are currently in progress - with plans for the rest of the world after this.

 

what does the barcode matter?

[SamBridge]

What if god was actually one of those Q beings from startrek just playing a trick on us? Then everyone can be happy, we have an omnipotent seeming life-form that people can point to and an explanation for why little good came from it.

Edited April 21, 2014 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

what does the barcode matter?

I don't think you're going to get an answer since that account hasn't been active since 2012.

[`hýsøŕ]

sorry if this sounds too insulting but i dunno which is the more unbearable, your 'proof' of god, or the fact that you put a space before every exclamation mark you use

[John Cuthber]

What if god was actually one of those Q beings from startrek just playing a trick on us? Then everyone can be happy, we have an omnipotent seeming life-form that people can point to and an explanation for why little good came from it.

Who created the Q?

[Moontanman]

Who created the Q?

 

 

The Q Evolved from lesser beings millions of years ago...

[tar]

The R.

[Phi for All]

The R.

 

Pirates, every one of them.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The Q Evolved from lesser beings millions of years ago...

Turtles all the way down?

[wanghankun]

someone ban the poster for preaching.

[ydoaPs]

someone ban the poster for preaching.

!

Moderator Note

If you believe a post violates the rules, please use the report function to report the post in question. In the report, make sure to tell us which rile is violated and how the post violates said rule.

[wisejanesm]

In the beginning, forgot to mention - dark energy. Her more than anything in the universe.

[dimreepr]

What?

[MonDie]

This knowledge should then cause a person to realize that what they may consider false or wrong now, may actually be proved true at some future point.

A good talking point. It's acknowledged that theories may be overturned later. What if they disprove some A that was used to disprove B, thereby undercutting the falsification for B?

If any theory may be overturned, then any falsification may be overturned, hence any falsified theory may be un-falsified. What tells us which idea should be thrown out anyway? The criterion of falsification tells us nothing about which ideas should be thrown out when a contradiction is found.

I'm personally partial to the coherentist approach, the support for an idea being the vast web of ideas that can be constructed atop it without internal contradictions. The idea that is more deeply embedded in this web of knowledge is the one that is preferential kept, leading us to ditch anything that contradicts it.

But regardless of what you think of the coherentist approach, we need a standardized way to determine which idea should be ditched when two ideas are found to contradict. Taking this into account, why do we talk as if any theory may be overturned at any time by some falsifying observation? In fact, you cannot falsify anything with a strong conviction unless the idea it contradictions has support that is at least as strong as the falsification, since we can't trust the falsification unless we can trust that the contradicting idea, the falsificaton, will not itself be overturned later on.

 

2. Do we really live our lives as if our ideas may be falsified at any time?

 

Do you really live your life as if the theory of gravitation might be false? Are you so wishy-washy that you would jump off a building hoping that you're wrong?

 

Apologies. I really wish I could finish this essay, but I just don't have the time right now.

[Phi for All]

2. Do we really live our lives as if our ideas may be falsified at any time?

 

Do you really live your life as if the theory of gravitation might be false? Are you so wishy-washy that you would jump off a building hoping that you're wrong?

 

This is why I trust science rather than believe in it. The entire theory of gravity is highly unlikely to be falsified. Bits of it might, because we gain our knowledge and understanding in bits, apply them and see if they agree with reality. Theories improve in this way.

 

Religion has always suffered from falsification. How many Catholics suffered in the afterlife because they ate meat on Friday? Did they get a pardon when the Pope decreed it was now okay not to eat fish?

[barfbag]

Religion has always suffered from falsification. How many Catholics suffered in the afterlife because they ate meat on Friday? Did they get a pardon when the Pope decreed it was now okay not to eat fish?

 

 

This is not really on topic is it?

 

The Opening Poster is discussing if proof for god is possible and people automatically look at religions that are thousands of years old as justification for their beliefs.

 

"I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon"....

 

This is like an argument a child would use to disclaim a god.

 

Scientifically we have learned that Pork is a dangerous food that requires thorough cooking and lots of hand washing to stay alive. Is it surprising our ancestors thought of Pork as evil when their families start dying from it.

 

I think if anyone wants to think of or discuss a god type entity much care would be required to think practically how such an entity would operate. Would entity have a beard and cane? Would the pearly gates exist in actuality or thought if it existed at all?

 

@ Phiforall,

 

We already know many people have faith. We asked for scientifically valid supportive evidence for the existence of any god.

 

 

 

Okay. Sounds fair. Show us the proof no god exist. Oh... Is it cheating to use reverse logic? Shouldn't someone claiming god does not exist have some sort of proof, or does that only work if I stand on that side of the fence?

 

 

 

@ Mondie,

 

These are not idle notions you are tossing about. This discussion has plagued mankind since the dawn of time. Are we created or evolved, or both?

 

I think of god as apart of everything and all in a Russellian Science type way. I also see mass consciousness as a possibility within the framework.

 

No math or science can prove that a god does not exist, and even popular opinion would not rule out a god. God is mostly ruled out by those who feel intellectually superior to those who believe (popular opinion is obviously out here) in god.

 

So if any or all here wish to choose god does not exist then that is a choice based on your opinion. It is not backed up by facts (neither is gods existence). It is also not popular opinion as most of mankind is religious.

Edited July 2, 2014 by barfbag

[Moontanman]

This is not really on topic is it?

 

The Opening Poster is discussing if proof for god is possible and people automatically look at religions that are thousands of years old as justification for their beliefs.

 

"I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon"....

 

This is like an argument a child would use to disclaim a god.

Sarcasm.. do you speak it?

 

Scientifically we have learned that Pork is a dangerous food that requires thorough cooking and lots of hand washing to stay alive. Is it surprising our ancestors thought of Pork as evil when their families start dying from it.

Pork kills you when you eat it? Citation please..

 

 

 

 

Okay. Sounds fair. Show us the proof no god exist. Oh... Is it cheating to use reverse logic? Shouldn't someone claiming god does not exist have some sort of proof, or does that only work if I stand on that side of the fence?

No, the positive claim is "god exists" Do I have to prove bigfoot doesn't exist before I can say I don't believe there is sufficient evidence that bigfoot exists? Atheism is not asserting god doesn't exist, it's asserting there is no evidence for gods existence so the default position, until such evidence is presented, is there are no gods

 

 

 

 

 

These are not idle notions you are tossing about. This discussion has plagued mankind since the dawn of time. Are we created or evolved, or both?

The only evidence we have is that humans evolved...

 

I think of god as apart of everything and all in a Russellian Science type way. I also see mass consciousness as a possibility within the framework.

You can think of god as anything you want, there is no problem until you assert it as fact.

 

No math or science can prove that a god does not exist,

Again the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.

 

and even popular opinion would not rule out a god.

Popular opinion is meaningless. Millions of people believe they've abducted by aliens does that mean I have to believe until we can prove there are no aliens?

 

 

God is mostly ruled out by those who feel intellectually superior to those who believe (popular opinion is obviously out here) in god.

This is nothing but a strawman argument.

 

So if any or all here wish to choose god does not exist then that is a choice based on your opinion.

No it is a choice based on available facts.

 

 

It is not backed up by facts (neither is gods existence).

That would really depend on what god you are talking about, the god of the bible is evidently not real.

 

 

It is also not popular opinion as most of mankind is religious.

 

Again popular opinion is meaningless..

[Phi for All]

This is not really on topic is it?

 

The Opening Poster is discussing if proof for god is possible and people automatically look at religions that are thousands of years old as justification for their beliefs.

 

"I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon"....

 

This is like an argument a child would use to disclaim a god.

I think you need to reread a bit. Nobody is disclaiming that a god could exist, so yes, it's an argument a child might use. We call it a strawman.

 

@ Phiforall,

 

Okay. Sounds fair. Show us the proof no god exist. Oh... Is it cheating to use reverse logic? Shouldn't someone claiming god does not exist have some sort of proof, or does that only work if I stand on that side of the fence?

 

 

Where did I claim god(s) doesn't exist? When I say I find no evidence of the existence of god(s), why do you feel the need to change my meaning into "God doesn't exist"?

 

There is no "proof" either for or against the existence of god(s). I didn't claim there was. My point, from the beginning, is that you can't expect some kind of scientific approval or disapproval for what is inherently a supernatural phenomenon. We can't observe any god(s), we have no evidence that they exist or not because their very nature precludes consistent testing.

 

The scientific answer is, "We don't know".

[barfbag]

@ moontanman,

 

Pork kills you when you eat it? Citation please..

 

 

That is not what I had said, but if you doubt Pork has any dangers to it then eat up. I am fine with your opinion.

 

Eat...

 

If you wish to further your scientific investigation of Pork I suggest Nature Magazine. It is a well known fact that Pork is one of the least healthy meats prone to parasites and disease. This sort of common knowledge is abundant however and it is surprising anyone did not know this.

 

 

The only evidence we have is that humans evolved..

 

.

Which is then being turned into evidence against possible evidence.

 

@ Phiforall,

How many Catholics suffered in the afterlife because they ate meat on Friday? Did they get a pardon when the Pope decreed it was now okay not to eat fish?

 

 

You can sum a position up as relating to religion above, and yet if I said something comparable, like "I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon",

 

Both statements refer to the pope as if that human could make decisions for god, and yet mine is supposed to be straw man?

 

Well if (as you claim) you are not parodying the notion of god you certainly threw a jab at the pope.

 

You were the one getting all Catholic in this discussion, yet religion is not really the topic.

Edited July 2, 2014 by barfbag

[Moontanman]

@ moontanman,

 

 

That is not what I had said, but if you doubt Pork has any dangers to it then eat up. I am fine with your opinion.

 

Eat...

 

If you wish to further your scientific investigation of Pork I suggest Nature Magazine. It is a well known fact that Pork is one of the least healthy meats prone to parasites and disease. This sort of common knowledge is abundant however and it is surprising anyone did not know this.

Being well known is not a citation... cooking pork to well done negates any disease problems, those diseases you seem to be so afraid of occur in most meats is not cooked properly, why single out pork exactly?

 

 

.

Which is then being turned into evidence against possible evidence.

How about you save us some time and tell me what evidence there is for anything but evolution?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Moontanman

[barfbag]

How about you save us some time and tell me what evidence there is for anything but evolution?

 

 

I don't profess evolution is false. I am stating that things cannot be proven either way on many things. I personally am convinced through life experiences or insanity that telepathy and precognition both exist, so I will not be happy with explanations that discount the idea of Mass Consciousness and God.

 

You have no more proof that there is no god than I have of there being one. I doubt I would ever convince you, and I am pretty set in my views also.

 

I think God is a part of everything and it's about experiencing. I think creation happens slowly through evolution, but the balances in nature that are necessary to create life are here.