Evidence For The Existence of God

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 196
#31
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@Goldtop
my evidence is in your title. your subconsciousness allowed you to use a title "God" as a means to  communiqué with others who knew THEE BEING you are asking about. some for some against. yet everyone including you are engaging about THEE BEING for the title God to bestowed upon.

therefore the best evidence is; 1) your seeking of THEE BEING exists and 2) from the replies they to have sought for THEE BEING. thus everyone here has "given will" to seek out THEE BEING WHO CREATES.
Topic's author
#32
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
God is universally recognized as being The Ultimate Reality,
With Dictionary in hand, he raises it up and conquers the entire universe in one fell swoop.

Look on his works, ye mighty and despair.

Topic's author
#33
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@eash
Nope didn't get any of that.
#34
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
If God is the subject of theology, you don't poo poo away theology as being irrelevent to this discussion.

Yes, God is universally recognized as being The Ultimate Reality, and this is an understanding that crosses the divide of cultural and religious tradition. 
That is demonstrably incorrect:  There are many Buddhists which do not believe in a god much less the 'ultimate reality' you advocate. Plus, as already stated, theologians do not agree on a definition of "god". "Universally recognized" is a gross overstatement.


For you to poo poo it away as if you had even a basic level of education regarding the subject is assinine, because that is what we are discussing. If you won't accept the basic premise you are wasting your time. Believe whatever deluded thing you want to about God if it confirms your own silly superstitions concerning the subject.
The subject was the universe and what existed before it.  This is theoretical physics (not theology) and to appeal to non-experts (theologians) is a logical fault. 


The only atheist argument against God is to redefine what God means. Otherwise, denial or even uncertainty regarding the existence of God is revealed for what it is. Manifest foolishness.


I've not defined (or redefined) "God". On the other hand, you have a fairly unique definition for god.  Its hard to see how this accusation applies to me and not yourself.

Since our conversation is apparently not finished, perhaps you'd be so kind as to address my post #27?  My questions are sincere and relevant.
#35
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne


Jesus said "blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God"

The eightfold path is a method of heart purification so that you can "see" God for yourself.


Buddhism is not truly atheistic. It is atheistic in the same sense that Christians were callled atheists in ancient Rome.





#36
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I do not have a unique definition for God, you only say that because you are uneducated in these matters. This God has been taught for thousands of years.
#37
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
Do you realize "Blessed One" in the scripture you've provided refers to the Buddha and not a god?



#38
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
 do not have a unique definition for God, you only say that because you are uneducated in these matters. This God has been taught for thousands of years.
So you say, but I have demonstrated your definition is not near as universal as you believe and you've done nothing more than submit (demonstrably false) bald assertion on this front. Accept facts.

#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
We already have a label for that: reality. I have no problem accepting reality exist. However, calling it "god" doesn't add anything to it and I wonder why we would do this. Let's say we were to accept reality and god were the same thing...then what?  Do we just call reality "god" instead of "reality"?  What edification does this achieve?  

Firstly, I am talking about God, not god. Thry have different meanings. This is an English problem that doesn't exist in all languages.

It is a reality that Donald Trump is the president of The United States of America. Before he took office, this was not reality. After he leaves office this will not be reality. The Ultimate Reality always is reality, it isn't time dependent.

In fact, if a reality is contingent on anything at all it is not The Ultimate Reality. Without hot there is no cold. Without light there is no darkness. God is a singularity, it is not a contingent existence. Yet, everything is contingent on God.

God is the uncreated. God is distinct from creation.

It is important to distinguiish God from simple reality because it is reality in the truest sense.
#40
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne



Do you realize "Blessed One" in the scripture you've provided refers to the Buddha and not a god?



"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
#41
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
ouch.

#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
So you say, but I have demonstrated your definition is not near as universal as you believe and you've done nothing more than submit (demonstrably false) bald assertion on this front. Accept facts.
The concept absolutely is universal, and there is a reason why one of the major overarching themes of the New Testament is that "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life"


You don't know the spirit is Truth. If you knew this, you would see God in all these diverse traditions.

The Tao? It means the same thing as God. Anyone with an understanding of theology can read the tao te ching and see this as being obvious.

God is not a fabrication. If everyone forgot and people were to start over again, God would be rediscovered because it is THE TRUTH.




#43
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned
Unless you're adding "God is Nirvana" to your definition, this is irrelevant to your argument.

#44
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
From the spelling of the word God to the different levels of reality. 
Things we do to get from simply believing in God to actually knowing the bloke. 
From joining a religion through lying to yourself. To GOD.... can i get a AMEN.
#45
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Unless you're adding "God is Nirvana" to your definition, this is irrelevant to your argument.



Not relevent?

You aren't very perceptive are you?


If I was the old bearded man at the top of the hill, I'd whack you on the head with the knobby stick and say "TRY AGAIN! More water from the well, spill no drop!"


#46
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The concept absolutely is universal, and there is a reason why one of the major overarching themes of the New Testament is that "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life"
What does the NT have to do with the god you advocate? Nothing in "Ultimate reality/Truth" suggests a god-concept  of any specific religion. The leaps you make are logically unfathomable. 

#47
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm sorry I'm losing you. Maybe you should read over what I've been telling you this whole time more slowly and contemplate for a moment.
#48
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
Not relevent?

You aren't very perceptive are you?
I'll just point out no attempt to show relevance has been made.
#49
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Nothing pleases me more than people who are baffled that I am a Christian. It means I am not building on another's foundation.


At the same time, nothing saddens me more than people who have such a warped view of the faith that they don't recognize that what I am preaching is Christian theology.


God help us all.

#50
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
You have not lost me, friend, so much as you've lost yourself. You advocate, at best, for a deistic god with your definition. If you were able to establish its validity you would have done nothing to establish the god of Christianity true anymore than the god(s) of Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Perhaps your definition should reflect the Christian god if that's what you mean by "God".


#51
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is really hard to teach people who already think they know.

Oh well. 


#52
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
Firstly, I am talking about God, not god.
The fact that you have a nickname ("God") for your god does not mitigate anything I've said.

It is a reality that Donald Trump is the president of The United States of America. Before he took office, this was not reality. After he leaves office this will not be reality. The Ultimate Reality always is reality, it isn't time dependent.

Reality is dynamic just as you describe the Ultimate reality. When Trump is no longer in office reality will no longer be "Trump is president". It will change as existence changes.

#53
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
It is really hard to teach people who already think they know.


Indeed. I hear it is especially hard to teach when you pretend to have knowledge you lack. ;-p
#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne


You have never heard that God is The Ultimate Reality.

This is why I can't believe you have any knowledge of this subject. This is theology 101 stuff, and without this understanding there really isn't anything.

You are talking about a god or gods. The capitilization is not arbitrary, in English god and God are two seperate words.

In Chinese It is the difference between shen and The Tao. In Arabic it is the difference between illah and Allah.


Look, you might be a fantastic marine biologist, but you are talking about geology to a geologist. The rocks already have names, you would be better off believing me when I tell you the names rather than making up your own.

I'm talking about The Ultimate Reality, and this is what God means in the context of monotheistic theology. That is what is called God. All us monotheists agree on this. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Baha'ists, monotheistic Hindus, etc. I already showed you how this concept is integral to Buddhism through the words of Buddha himself, and I already just pointed out that the concept of The Tao is the same in China.

Know that I am happy to educate, but we can't really go anywhere if you are going to pretend to be knowledgeable on this subject. 


For most people, the only proof required to demonstrate the existence of God is to accept what it is we are refering to when we say God. The Ultimate Reality. To take God as anything else is superstition.





Topic's author
#55
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You have never heard that God is The Ultimate Reality.
Only by you. I've never seen anyone else make that claim despite the fact you believe it's a universal concept.

You must also therefore believe that every thought bubble that enters your mind is on everyone else's mind too.

*hint*

They're not.
#56
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Goldtop
Do you think that might be indicative of other misconceptions you may have?
#57
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
You're mistaken about the universe, reality, and/or truth being the realm of theology. What you're attempting to do is something akin to conflating "God" with geological strata and then considering theologians experts in geology. It doesn't work like that. 

Other than this, I have said all that needs to be said about your argument. 

Topic's author
#58
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Plisken
There you are again, hit and running? You left last time with a myriad of questions unanswered, you just disappeared, conveniently. Now that all those questions are buried in threads past, you feel it's okay to emerge again without taking any responsibility for your words? Is that how cowards operate?
#59
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Goldtop
¿whaT

Are you trying to convey justificaton to call me a coward?

If it's convenient, would you please answer the other question before I forget about it?  A simple yes or no should suffice.

Topic's author
#60
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Plisken
would you please answer the other question before I forget about it?

I don't think anyone owes you answers when you run away after questions are posed to you, right?