"Proof of God"

Originally posted by @black-beetle
It is neither incomplete nor incoherent. It is an old Jewish tradition to write not G‑d's name in a place where it could be discarded or erased. Although I reject all the religions, I write not G-d's name out of respect for the people whose religion is centered on the belief that G-d is the creator😵

"God" is not a name of any God, it's just a word for a "God". So I don't see how it is being respectful. But it's your thing I suppose, a bit like you feel you have to put a 😵 at the end of every single post for some reason. If it makes you happy, then 😀

Originally posted by @divegeester
"God" is not a name of any God, it's just a word for a "God". So I don't see how it is being respectful. But it's your thing I suppose, a bit like you feel you have to put a 😵 at the end of every single post for some reason. If it makes you happy, then 😀

This is not the case according to the Jewish tradition, and I apply this view as I already explained you. For further information you can look here:
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
😵

Originally posted by @xyyz
When you have a complete model, the universe today, you can do the math and calculate that since the universe is expanding, it must have expanded from something much smaller. And the equation showed it started from a singularity. As far as what happened at any time before that doesn't matter because the laws of physics breaks down at that point so the answer i ...[text shortened]... t; who made God? Saying He always was and always will be doesn't answer with a factual response.

I'm sorry but models and math do not produce something so factual you can know what
took place billions of years ago. It is no different than our experiments using test tubes
when we put things in we keep things out, so the product of our experiments are still just
limited to our own experiments design. They do not mean we correctly identified what we
think took place billions of years ago, even if we do our math properly. Our conclusions as
well thought out as they could be, doesn't mean they translate into a refection of reality. It
only means our math is correct about that experiment only using only what we put in and
kept out.

The singularity by definition is not where everything came from, it is everything supposedly
in a small space sitting some place also without an explanation of where it too came from.
So the question of where did everything come from is not answered by saying look it all
started there at this place (place being something) and sitting there was this so called
singularity (also something).

You have not addressed where everything came from you just said everything looks like
this now, and it used to look like that, evolution all over again, but even there you are not
offering an explain about anything useful. You cannot talk to what took place before the
so called Big Bang occurred, there is silence because nothing can be offered to the
existence of creation. Science doesn't have one, it can only muse about switching from a
universe that is a few billion years old to one that now has to be eternal for some reason
or another, blind faith in science.

God wasn't made, God was, is, and is to come eternally the same. Speaking about a
created thing the universe, and the Creator doesn't mean that limitations of one, have to
be applied to the other as well.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
From the perspective of one who rejects them all, they are all the same. That is not the
case with God who created the universe. God has done several things that set Him apart,
from creation, the flood, choosing Abraham then promising him a child in his old age,
having Isaac, having Jacob over the his brother, gave promises to their children brought
in ...[text shortened]... s the Almighty has done.

There is no god besides the Most High, who was, is, and is to come.

It is not my perspective that Hindus believe that the gods of their pantheon are different manifestations of the same supernatural entity. It it their perspective.
My perspective is that all the religious beliefs must be discarded, regardless of the religion on which they are grounded.

Hindu's perspective, your perspective and my perspective are different😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
It is not my perspective that Hindus believe that the gods of their pantheon are different manifestations of the same supernatural entity. It it their perspective.
My perspective is that all the religious beliefs must be discarded, regardless of the religion on which they are grounded.

Hindu's perspective, your perspective and my perspective are different😵

Again what the Hindus believe about gods doesn't mean that is God it only means that
is what they believe. Their perspective as yours are limited the to them and you, neither
of which means they have a clue about God. He isn't dependent upon me, or anyone else,
we have our being in Him, our thoughts about Him are only accurate when He reveals
Himself to us. Once that break took place between man and God there has been a
separation between God and man that was destroyed in Christ.

I get you want to make everyone's view of God equal to all other views, that simply isn't
true, if there was really no god at all it would be, or if we all were so powerful our thoughts
could conjure up any reality of god, or any god could reveal themselves to us then yes.
That however isn't the case, we all can have opinions with one no better than the next,
but that isn't the same thing as saying all views of God are equal. God doesn't depend
upon man for absolutely anything at all, we are sustained by Him, we were made by Him,
we will answer to Him and as such nothing about us is so important that we can alter Him,
or force Him into anything.

We cannot within ourselves pull God out into reality, God is the One reality that is, He
either reveals Himself to us or we miss Him. In Christ He revealed Himself to us in a
form we can grasp, since He became one of us, then when He left He promised His Spirit
to dwell within us so we could become like Him. This is all on what God did for us, not us
conjuring up God.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How do you know that life doesn't need God to exist?

Good point. I don't. How do you know that it does?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
It is not my perspective that Hindus believe that the gods of their pantheon are different manifestations of the same supernatural entity. It it their perspective.
My perspective is that all the religious beliefs must be discarded, regardless of the religion on which they are grounded.

Hindu's perspective, your perspective and my perspective are different😵

Spoken like a true European.

First it is everyone must be this religiin because it is the group's religion.

Now it is everyone must give up religion because it is the new European worldview.

For some reason Europeans have a great need to force others to believe as they do.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I'm sorry but models and math do not produce something so factual you can know what
took place billions of years ago. It is no different than our experiments using test tubes
when we put things in we keep things out, so the product of our experiments are still just
limited to our own experiments design. They do not mean we correctly identified what we
...[text shortened]... and the Creator doesn't mean that limitations of one, have to
be applied to the other as well.

And you have not given me any proof of God. Epicurus wrote: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If a God is responsible for everything, why does He stay so silent, so indifferent?

Originally posted by @eladar
Spoken like a true European.

First it is everyone must be this religiin because it is the group's religion.

Now it is everyone must give up religion because it is the new European worldview.

For some reason Europeans have a great need to force others to believe as they do.

This hardcore atheist scarab is unable to see how and by what means you came to this conclusion. Kindly please quote my post, or my posts, that made you end up with this view😵

Originally posted by @xyyz
Good point. I don't. How do you know that it does?

You said, " Life is not proof of God, because life does not need a God to exist."

Yet now you say you don't know, so which is it? Why would you say life does not need God to exist if you don't know that?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Again what the Hindus believe about gods doesn't mean that is God it only means that
is what they believe. Their perspective as yours are limited the to them and you, neither
of which means they have a clue about God. He isn't dependent upon me, or anyone else,
we have our being in Him, our thoughts about Him are only accurate when He reveals
Himself t ...[text shortened]... in us so we could become like Him. This is all on what God did for us, not us
conjuring up God.

Did I say that whatever the Hindus believe about the gods of their pantheon is in accordance with whatever the Christians believe about their supposed creator of the universe? I said not such a thing.

I pointed out to our sonship that the countless so called divine manifestations of the Hindu pantheon are, according to this religion, different manifestations of the very same supernatural entity that is understood as G-d by the Hindus. I pointed this out because he was thinking that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, which is simply a false assumption.

I am well aware of the core religious concepts of both Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions. I am well aware of the fact that the believers of each different religion are sure that the keepers of the "Absolute Truth" are solely themselves, and that all the other people of the world are "delusional", "antichrists", "children of Satan", "dishonest" and any other Eladarism and Dasaism one can picture that comes and go in Spirituality forum every given Monday.

And you are well aware of the fact that this scarab is an atheist. I do not care at all "to make everyone's view of G-d equal to all other views", because I know that each religious person cultivates her beliefs strictly according to the dogma of her religion/ denomination. Yet, this means nothing to me: I evaluate all the religions as products of theoplacia and I do not accept them as viable theories of reality.

So I cannot see what exactly you try to articulate;
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You said, " Life is not proof of God, because life does not need a God to exist."

Yet now you say you don't know, so which is it? Why would you say life does not need God to exist if you don't know that?

I said life doesn't need a God to create it, and that is true. Under the right conditions a chemical reaction will change amino acids into energy absorbing cells (life). But an uncaring and indifferent deity (to our universe) would be the same as no God, would it not? Seem that way to us anyway. If life needs a God, and any God exists. He is keeping that from us. So as far as we are concerned, we can have life, which we do, without a God.
Why hasn't He given proof of His existence and clear all this up? He could speak with ISIS and other terror groups, "You have got it all wrong. Stop killing innocent people in my name". To all the other religions and faiths He could say, "Only one group has got it right, and I want everyone to fall in line with them". Imagine all the things we could achieve if everyone was on the same page!

Originally posted by @xyyz
I said life doesn't need a God to create it, and that is true. Under the right conditions a chemical reaction will change amino acids into energy absorbing cells (life). But an uncaring and indifferent deity (to our universe) would be the same as no God, would it not? Seem that way to us anyway. If life needs a God, and any God exists. He is keeping that from ...[text shortened]... l in line with them". Imagine all the things we could achieve if everyone was on the same page!

Everyone being on the same page would indeed make the world a better place. (Although I suspect all the fun would be had in the margin).

Originally posted by @xyyz
I said life doesn't need a God to create it, and that is true. Under the right conditions a chemical reaction will change amino acids into energy absorbing cells (life). But an uncaring and indifferent deity (to our universe) would be the same as no God, would it not? Seem that way to us anyway. If life needs a God, and any God exists. He is keeping that from ...[text shortened]... l in line with them". Imagine all the things we could achieve if everyone was on the same page!

A short while a ago I asked you how you know that life doesn't need God to exist and you said "good point. I don't". Are you going to keep on changing your stance whenever it suits you?

There are quite a number of problems with the Urey-Miller experiment. Maybe you should educate yourself on the issue.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/

Originally posted by @dj2becker
A short while a ago I asked you how you know that life doesn't need God to exist and you said "good point. I don't". Are you going to keep on changing your stance whenever it suits you?

There are quite a number of problems with the Urey-Miller experiment. Maybe you should educate yourself on the issue.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl/

And I asked you how you know that life needs a God, and received no response. Because you can't answer, correct? Faith in a deity does NOT prove, or even hint of a God. It is a narrow minded view that can't accept the possibility of a God-less universe.Science shows how life came to be, that is all, doesn't try to disprove anything, facts are facts. I leave it open to the possibility of a God, but I am asking for facts, and there are none. You have the close-minded view that there HAS to be a God, will never even consider the opposite, and for that, I feel sorry for you.
As far as the Urey-Miller experiment, nowhere does it say that a God must be present for this to happen. Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions. You have a weak argument