Can anyone show a single piece of viable evidence a GOD exists?

oh but it IS less valid if it's someone else's headvoice. apparently.

why they still use such things to try to distinguish their religion is hard to know. that is to say when your average believer knew nothing of other cultures but what seeped through demonisation filters, this idea might have washed. today, when christianity is broadly understood to be just another religion, of many, all equally valid and 'unique', it's quite strange to see it.

 

Well, There you go folks... a final admission that Christianity and all the other religions are "valid and unique".

 

equally valid is not a quantification, dear. in order to do that one must add the appropriate quantifier - in the case of religions, that would be the word 'hardly'.

the word unique was given quotes to indicate it meant something like the opposite.

the upshot being that no religion is entirely unique, and all are hardly valid.

 

Because there's no proof that it actually was a God who did the works people claim. And people have been claiming all sorts of things in the name of God. Former pedophiles and criminals (who were not known to be so at the time) have often spoken about how God helped them, inspired, or led them.

We don't know if they are lying, yet people use these testimonials as truth or evidence of God. That's how it works. Becuase we can't prove God doesn't speak to people in their heads, he exists, and they can go on peddling this belief without even bothering to provide more evidence. This is a problem...

 

You forgot the qualifier "equally". If any are invalid, they are all invalid.

 

It's a problem for anyone who claims that God exists. Simply saying God is unknowable doesn't solve it.

 

You seem to forget that "invalid" was not part of the declaration. Eat your pudding.

 

He didn't have to. Why don't you look up "equally" in your dictionary.

But I haven't eaten my meat. How can I have any pudding if I don't eat my meat?

 

Don't need to use a dictionary on that one. What you fail to recognize is that a person usually writes or otherwise declares what he/she intends to write and writes what they intend to declare. Without a showing of any other intent, then it stands to reason that what the person stated is what the person intended to declare and nothing more. You are attempting to add to the language of what was declared.

 

And by including the adverb "equally", his intent was to make a comparative declaration about religions. By leaving it out, you are attempting to portray it as an absolute statement, which anyone can see it wasn't.

 

Two problems with your comments above. Both are related to presumption. You are presuming what "his intent" was and you are also presuming that I was "attempting to portray it as an absolute statement," Please show proof of claim to substantiate your presumptions.

 

Wow, changing one's quote. tsk tsk. Probably against the TOS.

BTW - I see you have been taking a page from my book with the Merry Christmas. Kudos.

 

So report me to the Moderation Staff. Your book? Since when did you obtain a monopoly on the use of words?

 

It shows the level of honesty that has to be used to justify. Changing one's quotes, is dishonest. Everyone can see the original post.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I report it? It may get deleted and then the dishonesty would be erased.

- - - Updated - - -

And you changing his quote, is a direct portrayal to change his intent. Since you don't know it either.

 

Then you are admitting that the alleged offense is no offense. Thank you.

 

nope, not at all

You may want to check that intuition of yours again. For if it truly is the "HS" inspiring you, not so sure dishonesty is a trait that goes with the "HS".

 

You can bank on this one... If I do not say that the HS has instructed me to say any particular thing, then it is being spoken through my secular human side. BTW: In my 65 years I have found many things that provide inspiration to me... So don't get your hopes up thinking that you have me figured out. You might want to check your presumption generator... it fails you quite often.

 

Modern Science has pretty much established that Truth exists.

It is the same thing for us all, whether we accept it or not.
Truth is something humans can imagine in their minds, in pieces and in part.
In itself, is god-like because for men, it defines Reality.

Reality is the one creative force that brings Truth with it, as it unfolds again and again.
Reality, then, is defined as evidence of a creator, an authority to which all life must bend and bow.

 

You wouldn't have free will if there was evidence of a God that could incinerate you with a thought. For that matter, if He could bless you with a thought.

 

I would argue the opposite. Modern science can never prove that something is true. It can only show that something is false. Modern science can show that something is likely. But it can never prove that something is absolutely true. Absolute truth does not exist in science. Thinking that something is absolutely true (other than cogito ergo sum) is actually completely irrational.

 

Unless God gifted you with free will. You have the capability to incinerate your neighbor yet I doubt you will.

- - - Updated - - -

These limitations to science make me wonder exactly how we will look upon "modern" science 2,000 years from now.

 

absolute certainty is a vanity desired by children or the emotionally young.

meantime, I imagine that in 2000 years we will laugh fondly at how 'limited' we were, and be thankful that science adapts happily to new information. If we look back and decide that a a single point in the distant past was the motherlode of useful information, then we deserve to become extinct.

 

Thankfully EVOLUTION tends to rid Humanity of stupidity over time....but there are always those holdouts...

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Truth is subjective.

Reality is Fact.

AboveAlpha

 

How many stupid people are there still on the planet Earth? It would seem that evolution has failed in that regard.

 

Oh...stupidity is rampant.

But the moron who sticks a pair of tweesers in an electric receptical dies.

AboveAlpha