Post proof a god exists.

On that note....... is that being of light who meets people who have a brush with death........ in line with the Ancient of Days...… or opposed to the ultimate Creator?

A lot of people who may have the Jewish and Christian scriptures nearly memorized.... would find some aspects of the following four paragraphs highly offensive?!

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

 

Truly well said Reva!

I recently watched an excellent film on Netflix entitled "Hellbound."

The film began with the heaven vs hell evangelism style of Pastor Ray Comfort but...… about seventy percent of the film was interviews with Christians who had came to the conclusion that G-d was working out some sort of way to save everybody........ eventually!

This is also exactly what I have concluded as well.


http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...eventually-led-back-heaven-paradise-love.html


Universal Salvation, is everybody eventually led back to heaven/paradise/love?



Mr. Christian Andreason, when attempting to put his astonishing near death experience into terms that all of us can relate to presented a powerful case...that yes....we will eventually all be "saved" and brought back into a state of mind of light and love!

For the time being it seems that differences in opinion over various doctrines is one of the greatest tests that we religious people face?!

Christian Andreason, Chapter 3:

http://www.near-death.com/andreason.html

 

Rev...you have your beliefs and that's fine.....but regardless of what you personally believe no one has any PROOF or even viable evidence that a GOD exists.

AboveAlpha

 

there you go on that sub-routine again. We have already discussed that issue and definitively, the 'Bible' does fit the definition of "viable" when you use the term viable as in "viable evidence". So try your luck on some other forum. Remember... viable equals
"vi·a·ble
adj.1. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable:

and practicable equals

"prac·ti·ca·ble
adj.1. Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See Synonyms at possible.
2. Usable for a specified purpose: a practicable way of entry."



I am almost certain you recall that discussion.

 

As far as anyone claiming the Bible to be viable evidence or proof....the problem with that is there is nothing in the Bible and nothing outside the Bible that exists to back up or be used as viable evidence or be used as a PROOF that any of the Supernatural Occurence Claims made in the Bible actually happened as described.

In fact there is much more evidence and actual PROOF that much of what is claimed in the Bible to be false.

As example....the claims in Genesis such as the 6 Day Creation....have been conclusively proven to be fiction.

Another example is the story of Noah...and although in 5600 BC the massive flooding of the Black Sea Basin when the land that once existed and seperated the Med. Sea from the Black Sea collapsed allowing the higher in elevation Med. Sea salt waters to pour into the Fresh Water Black sea Basin...which expanded what was at the time a large Glacier Lake into a much larger Salt Water Sea.....although such a FLOOD might seem to people living in that region as a Flooding of the Earth.....

....we KNOW that it is not possible for every land mass on Earth to be covered in flood water as even if all Water Ice melted on Earth this would only increase sea levels by about 270 feet.

The reality is the Bible tells stories to teach morality....most of it's stories do not exist as a reality and none of it's stories of Supernatural Events have any existing viable evidence or proof to back their verasity.

AboveAlpha

 

Yeppir those are about the same ole arguments that you presented previously, however, they are still incapable of escaping the definitive meaning of the term 'viable' and/or 'practicable'. As for the term "proof" which you have chosen to act as a reinforcement to 'viable evidence' : Proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Your arguments are outright pitiful in that attempt to compel the mind to accept the assertions as true. Evidence???? You have not presented any evidence to support your feeble arguments. Remember, belief is a difficult thing to overcome and when the person who is attempting to overcome a 'belief', that person had really better be prepared to be a whole lot more convincing than you have displayed.

 

How cute. You and presumably scientists have devised a mechanism that cannot be tested under all conditions.conceivable. Such condition as observing the inner workings of the device. That seems to be a convenient way to bypass the requirements of the scientific method which requires observation.. in this case the observation of the inner workings. Geee... you can't observe its inner workings because if you do, it won't work anymore. LOL

 

Not one person can prove God exists, just as not one person can prove the tooth fairy exists. Only God can prove he exists and since he hasn't we can derive 3 possible outcomes.

1. He doesn't care. He created the world and has since moved on not giving a rat's as$ about us pathetic humans.
2. He wants 80% of the population to go to hell. Apparently he has the power to reveal himself to all of us which would destroy every other religion and atheism but he'd rather keep quiet and send the majority of humans to hell.
3. There is no god.


Which one works for you.

 

There is a fourth option (and possibly many others): 4: He wants mankind to exercise free will in determining who they will serve (Him or Satan), and when it is all over and done with, it will be His free will that wins the battle.

 

What more do I need?

Do we exist or not?

 

The gods can prove they exist whenever they decide to.

If they choose to remain in hiding, I'll respect that.

I could make up stuff, but it's entirely their call, and not my concern.

 

He ,eans "Scientific Proof" of God here, which ignores your complaint that the proof be non-science grounded because you deny sience as a valid system of reasoning.

What he wants is something as I suggested he consider:
The Copenhagen Interpretation, says an Observe MUST exist BEFORE the Big Bang Creation, or the Wave Functions of the Fundamental Elements will just not collapse into the Universe for us.

You deny this science "proof" for God because you, first, deny all Science, either way.
He denies the Science of Copenhagen [which is the one widely accepted RULE for Quantum Physics], and tries he tries to use Parallel Universes as an idea to replace accepted science.

 

We are "thinking" so we KNOW that exists.

Everything else we have used sensory nerves to build up our science that explains everything else for us, ... including the idea of what we look like and how the seven senses all verify this Reality we construct and believe in.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation for Quantum Physics REQUIRES an Observer in order that the Fundamental Particles Wave Functions collapse into the Universe.

"He" is The Creator of Gen 1:1.

 

Well CD... those are interesting thoughts but irrelevant as they are merely your opinion of what "he" is suspected by you to have said.

 

Incorporeal.....why is it you never apply your theory of "proof" and "evidence"...


to claims about the Bible be literally true or historic?

 

?
The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Double Slit Experiment decided for us all that Wave Functions exist but do not materialize unless they are "Observed."

Based upon that formula, the FIRST waves of elemental particles, those BEFORE the materialization called the BIG BANG had to be "observed."

That is Science supporting a "creator."

 

NO IT IS NOT. Stop misconstruing quantum mechanics. Your interpretations of scientific phenomena is WRONG and you should feel bad for how wrong it is.

 

The Copenhagen experiment did not make any decisions for me, so why are you attempting to say that it did make a decision for me?

 

75 pages of words and no "god" has shown up.....



no proof there is a god, no evidence of a god...nothing....





words do not produce god....they can't , they haven't , they never will....

 

Yes,...
You claim you believe in a God who said spread the Good News.
Bu you instead attack believers if they see science corresponds with the Bible, because you actually worship pseudo-religion that just KNOWS "everything" even if science facts disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Science has said a Creator was required according to the Copenhagen Interpretation which insists on an OBSERVER BEFORE THE WAVE COLLAPSES OF THE Big Bang could take place.

 

No, it doesn't. Why are you lying?

 

A "creator" can mean many things ALL of which I would need proof of.

YOU have provided NO proof that it's your "god " or A "god" that they're talking about.....


I just CREATED lunch...it doesn't mean I'm god....

 

"science facts"? Really? You do realize that science facts are only science facts because the people who depend on them accept them as true, don't you? So it still boils down to a system of beliefs. Either religious beliefs or scientific beliefs. Where is the PROOF?

 

For like the HUNDREDTH TIME....Observation is not necessary for the existence of Quanta.

AboveAlpha