Can any of you prove the existence of God?

If you can't then why should anybody believe that God exists?

This thread again? You've already been told that only you can prove God to yourself, so why insist on this? Do you want to prove God to yourself at all?

>>17823374
>only you can prove God to yourself
How would I do that? Oh right do I have to just decide to wishfully believe in God? "I want God to exist so I'll just decide to believe that he does, despite there being no grounds or evidence for my belief whatsoever"?

>>17823302 (OP)
If you seek after God diligently you will find Him.

My son, if you will receive my words
And treasure my commandments within you,
To make your ear pay attention to wisdom,
Incline your heart to discernment;
For if you call out for understanding,
Give your voice for discernment;
If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will understand the fear of Yahweh
And find the knowledge of God.
— Proverbs 2:1-5

God does hide His "face" from lovers of evil, though.
You should seek Him with a contrite heart.

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
— James 4:8

But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.
— Isaiah 59:2

Regarding "proof" for the existence of God, there is nothing absolutely conclusive.
God uses the system of faith in His mercy, such that lovers of evil remain ignorant and don't incur greater wrath upon themselves.
However, God has given us His creation as a testimony of His existence and nature.
Understanding causality and entropy should lead you to God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:18-20

>>17823449
>If you seek after God diligently you will find Him.
Where? Like if you told me "seek after unicorns diligently you will find them" then again I would ask, where?

You're not providing a proof of God. You're not providing reasons to believe in God. You're not providing any EVIDENCE of God. Maybe there's no evidence because God doesn't exist?

>>17823449
Expanding on causality and entropy, using what we observe in this universe can give us some intuition about its origins.

It's unlikely to be a finite, solitary universe (as in there was literally nothing - not even empty space - and then the universe came to be), because that would imply effect without cause.

An infinite cyclical universe (one that has always existed, but mutates in a cycle) is also unlikely, because to return to the original state, entropy must decrease violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

However, combining these two to have an eternal cause for this finite universe resolves both issues: the effect has a cause and entropy does not decrease.

You can then reason about the nature of this Eternal Creator.

All the best and God bless.

>>17823457
Apologies, I was slow.
Please, see this: >>17823473
All the best.

Let's start with a definition:

God: the totality of existence conceptualized as a single entity.

Done problem solved, I totally bypass causality and first mover nonsense. No proof is necessary, it's self evident.

>Meh...but you can't do that!
Fuck you asshole, I'll do what I want

>>17823302 (OP)
Sure
You are inert matter imbued with consciousness, meaning, and life. How did that happen?

>>17823524
God is spirit imbued with consciousness, meaning, and life. How did that happen?

>>17823556
He is eternal and uncaused. You are mistaken yourself as a being the same as God, which is absurd. It's like asking why the cosmos doesn't share the makeup of yourself.

>>17823524
Evolution completely explains this

>>17823302 (OP)
God exists and He created man in His own image. Anything further than that is pretty much mythology to drive the point home for NPCs, it won't be provable. I won't prove Noah's flood happened. If you can't do God without talking animals and shit, you're an NPC. However, the first two premises are trivial to prove. First, existence of the mind greater than your own, the living thing greater than you. A self greater than yours, a truth more true. That's manifest in every grain of sand, every moonrise and every mistake. Every place in this world, every material, every event has a depth and strength you could wrestle for your whole mortal life and not master. Every corner of creation is a treasure-hold of eons, knowledge and physical perfection on dimensions you don't understand. All you need to know God is to be conscious of your own lack, your smallness in the face of all that.

As for being more human than human, simply apply the previous principle to humanity. Anything humans have done at scale is incomparably superior to your opinions, including all the most odious things. Everything humans do is a treasure-hold of eons. Everything. You can't comprehend this, there's not even enough time. It would take a million lifetimes to be equal to the intelligence that dwells in humanity, that guides your step. The father.

>>17823579
The universe is literally proved to be eternal and uncaused. God's not necessary.
>>17823473
The universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions. You're behind on your understanding of modern cosmology

>>17823658
Evolution does not explain how nonlife became life

>>17823721
you know rot is alive right? That's what early life looked like. leave some big shiny mineral deposit lying around and you'll get reactions happening on it, eventually some of those reactions get more complex in bigger piles of material.

One thing i would like to mention is how when you ask christians to prove their faith they just point to the bible.
How fucking stupid must you be to do this unironically.
>yeah my faith is correct and my prove is that my faith book says it is correct
Like what the fuck

>>17823743
If it were possible to explain everything to everyone, religion wouldn't exist. The book approach makes sense in a pre-internet world.

>>17823729
oh so we're just exiting science now okay

>>17823743
Not muslim but what bothers me about arguing with christians about their faith is also the obsession they have gotten with islam. You say something about christianity and they immediately chimp out and say "you wouldnt say that about islam" "how old was aisha" again. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Plus, i very rarely see muslims shit on christianity the way these christians (of whom most are just crusader larp chuds) do. Its very pathetic

>>17823743
What >>17823374 is the actual answer, but I can't transfer my experiences to you and you aren't willing to try and meet Him yourself, so we instead point to the Bible because our experiences prove it to be true.
Another man can not have a spiritual awakening for you just like he can't breathe for you.
>>17823658
Evolution is not an explanation for the things he spoke of in the same way that the a can of paint doesn't explain a painting.

>>17823768
I'm not a scientist. It doesn't take a genius to see how complexity comes from entropy. You just need an energy source produced by some larger-scale event, a volcanic plume or seam of radioactive metal is indistinguishable from free energy in mortal lifespans. Then you've got free energy. It can just heat the primordial soup forever with no consequences, but human experience indicates putting energy into a system continually has unexpected results. Complexity increases instead of the logical steady decrease of entropy. The fact that life emerged to help break down an incredibly nutrient-rich, energy-rich earth's surface is no more surprising than rust on bare steel.

God is a man with holes in his hands

>>17824052
Enjoy Hell.

>>17824052
Oh ya...I know where your goin bud.
Hope your little edgy comment was worth it pal

:) <- me knowing where your going

>>17823302 (OP)
There are a lot of things that you cannot prove the existence of, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, you cannot prove the existence of numbers, does that mean they don't exist?

>>17824145
It's a question of what's required to prove a given thing. It won't take much to prove numbers exist because they're simplistic. Proving God exists is impossible because any general God would ironically fail criteria set by the atheist, it has to be the god of his enemy, and any specific God would exclude the majority of interpretations throughout history.

doesnt exist, im in some fucking crackup server with a bunch of secular religious fanatics that believe in some weird shit though.

its good entertainment. call themselves "Ascenders"... lol

discdotgg uJP3Zcf3 if you wanna raid and fuck with them.

Its low hanging fruit but slightly fun watching them cope and seethe

>>17824145
Numbers are descripions we use; there isn't a numer floationg out there and it's irrelevant to the question

>>17824511
Strictly speaking, according the Bible itself, God does not exist because God is not a physical being.
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
There is this idea that atheists have that God's existence can be proven like he is a can of soup or a parked car, something you can point to and say "There it is." God is not like that, the Bible is not like that, Biblically literate Christians are not under the impression that God is like that.
So when you say, prove the existence of God, how should I go about doing that? Physically speaking it's impossible, but my point is that physical proof is unnecessary, because my argument obviously exists despite not being a physical object and you would accept that as true.

>>17824525
God interacts with the world and does magic; there is no excuse why e couldn't be proven, you are coping.

>>17824539
Proven how.

>>17824587
By studying his interactions with the maerial world; it wasn't that hard was it?

>>17824590
You're just gonna say that any interaction God had with the world didn't happen, so what is the point?

>>17824602
According to christianity it does though; so that can be investiaged; if there isn't enough evidence it's your problem

>>17823302 (OP)
when she was forced into reality she became broken by the truth.
when she became alive she found herself bathing in hot oil.
she is unable to live. she is unable to resolve herself into my life.

my ego became reintegrated and I met God as a result.
I am an angel who lost somatic agency.
I couldn't handle the implications of the embodiment I desperately needed.

im not alright.
when the truth came out it broke the system. the system shut down.

I lost all sense of control because I couldn't work with anything. I had no options.
when you have zero options to resolve the most important situation in your life, you die. I died back then.

my cognitive-emotional identity failed to reconcile the truth of my inner self with the reality of my presentation.
my life structure wasn't built to support truth.

>>17824608
Truth is there no matter how much you try to change it, you only change yourself, not the truth.

>>17824606
It's not my problem because I am not the one doubting. It is quite literally your problem.

>>17824821
Saying that magical claims with no evidence behind them are false is not a "problem", lol. It's just what non-retarded people do.

>>17824821
It's a problem if you want to use more than "trust me bro"

>>17824821
>It is quite literally your problem.
It isn't; you have the burdain to present evidence

>>17824829
>>17824840
>atheists win every argument against every medieval interpretation of religion
>defeat in detail for thousands of extinct faiths
>God still exists
how could this happen??

>>17824928
Look, you're the one with a false belief and no way to find out

>>17824944
What's my false belief

>>17823302 (OP)
>Can any of you prove the existence of God?
That entirely depends what methods and criteria you find valid. If you find mystical insight valid, then yes. If you restrict yourself to methodologies which are used for physics and material science, then no. But that doesn't mean God is beyond proof. It just means you will have to acquire the proof yourself instead of having it mediated by someone else.

>If you can't then why should anybody believe that God exists?
For a myriad of reasons, the main one being because it's true and because it's the source of all truth to begin with. The secondary ones being that theistic paradigm performs better in every single aspect compared to atheistic ones, or at least that is my experience and that's what I think the historical data suggest.

>>17823302 (OP)
There are 2 dimensions to your experience, rationality and faith.
Belief in God is acquired through faith, not reason.
If you could "prove" God, there would be no need for faith.
Simple as

>>17824928
Do you believe fairies exist?

>>17824955
>For a myriad of reasons, the main one being because it's true and because it's the source of all truth to begin with.

>I believe it because I believe it is true
Christ isn't sending his best apologists

>>17824965
Do you believe gender exists? lol

>>17824970
Can god put a female soul in a male body with a miracle?

>>17824968
>>17824968
I didn't reference belief. If you want to reduce statements about reality to statements about belief about reality, we can do that... but then you're just adding an extra layer into the discussion where you can hide from the actual points peresented.

>>17824973
Dunno I've never seen a miracle

>>17824977
Does god have the capbility to do that or not?

>>17824975
You just asserted god is the souce of truth without proving that statement or proving god exists in the first place

>>17824979
The real answer for me is souls don't have dicks. God doesn't have a dick either. The ability to relate outside one's own biology is too strong for souls to have genders.

>>17824982
I know. That wasn't the goalpost set by OP.

It would be incredibly convenient if you could just post two sentences online and in response receive a methodical set of proofs for one of the most profound questions humanity has ever asked. But naturally this wasn't going to go this way. The first part of >>17824955 details why.

>>17824990
You didn't answer; is god capazzble of changing that fact about souls? Yes or no

>>17824994
Then the tooth fairy exists because she's the source of all truth

>>17824995
I meant to say, in my interpretation it's not possible. Plenty of illusions and half steps are possible, but God would have to create a new world with gendered souls in it, I guess giving birth to themselves like separate species instead of connecting.

>>17825001
one job

>>17823449
>Finding god is based on faith and morals thats why the most deciding factor of what religion a person belongs to is where he is born and its also why low crime countries like northern european ones tend to be less religious

>>17825001
I don't think so. But instead of placing the burden entirely on you to investiage and think this through, I'll do it myself. Anything else you want to recommend?

>>17825005
>God would have to create a new world with gendered souls in it
So he can do that; can you prove od would need to create an entirely different word for that?

>>17825007
Feel free to disprove my assertion

>>17825016
I guess he could create gendered humans in this world, same difference. What would that even be like, I picture males looking like skinny midgets made out of wood, living in trees. Women would be like rolls of bread dough in plastic wrap.

>>17823302 (OP)
There is no proof. There is only circumstantial evidence, which is enough for most people to at least be open minded to the possibility, but many will refuse to even accept that it is even evidence

>>17824960
Faith is arrived at by way of reason though. You can only have faith in something if there is a discernible pattern to justify it. You can have faith that your wife will be loyal to you if she has been loyal in the past, or you can have faith that your son will pass his exams if he's proven himself to be academically capable. Faith isn't just randomly believing in something without reason.

>>17825036
Not really. Reason is inadequate to fully describe anything let alone everything, let alone specifically things you don't understand. This is hard for young people because they have no frame of reference, but humans created language. These words carry our sin, or whatever you call it. Our imperfection.

>>17825039
Good point. Despite the contingency argument being pretty convincing, human reason really is just a tool to figure out the next practical step in a process, it's not an accurate world-modeling tool.

>>17824511
>there isn't a numer floationg out there
You were saying?

>>17825043
https://youtu.be/jXi7f9k0djI&t=54

>>17823662
>The universe is literally proved to be eternal and uncaused
I'd like to see that proof, because all estimates state that the universe has existed for a finite period, usually 13.7 billion years, and has an unknown cause

>>17823556
If God created the universe and all of the laws of physics, then he would not necessarily be bound by those physical laws since he predates them

>>17823729
What kind of material is known to rot?

>>17823789
>find in page "islam"
>2 results
>find in page "muslim"
>2 results
>find in page "aisha"
>1 result
All (You)

>>17825065
>AHHHHH THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING, I'M NOT ALIVE! NOOOOO IT BURNS

>>17825065
>>17825080

>>17825082
That is a change in the crystal structure of tin, not life emerging from unlife

>>17825184
Why did it do all that craziness, I thought atoms slowed down and got cooler over time. Rust can't exist without God.

>>17824950
Magical claims with no evidence behind them

>>17825073
Yes you silly ape i pointed something out in a thread thats not fully related to the topic and im the only one to do so.
Was this gonna be a gotcha moment?

>>17825343
What are the possible causes for the existence of the universe?
>the universe wasn't caused because it is eternal
>the universe spontaneously caused itself
>the universe is the result of an extradimensional accident
>the universe is the deliberate creation of an extradimensional intelligence
Are there any more? How would you rank them in order of likelihood?

>>17825364
I was thinking more along the lines of man walking on water 2000 years ago
Wine literally turning to blood, those kind of false beliefs

>>17825343
if you found evidence for magic it wouldn't be magic anymore. God's existence isn't enough because it's a real proven thing and therefore not magic to you, weirdly you're the one demanding magic.

>>17825382
>proven
Right, so I would like to see the evidence of this

>>17825392
Of what? The magic God right? What kind of evidence is there for magic, it's tautological. What I find can be quite rightly dismissed as real life and therefore not magic.

>>17825301
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_pest

>>17825404
soientists are lying to you. wake up sheeple, adopt fomenko cosmology

>>17825405
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish

>>17825370
So you don't have a problem with the existence of God, just with some of the stories from the Bible?

>>17825407
are you going to trust the soience or your own lying eyes? They even name diseases after rust. Life is an especially pungent cloud of stink that gathered in the most fetid unclean caverns in the galaxy.

>>17825401
Evidence of God, please

>>17825411
Yeah, sure

>>17825417
which one? Some of my instructive posts on this matter, mister chinkbot >>17824159 >>17823659

>>17825356
Yes

>>17823302 (OP)
Of course the most low effort atheist bait thread has a million responses.

>>17825436
I'm so demoralized. The west and christianity and 4chan have fallen!

>>17825417
The universe itself serves as circumstantial evidence for the existence of God >>17825417

>>17825417
>>17825364

>>17825439
where talking nanimal?

>>17825444
We are talking animals, but I don't see why that's relevant

>>17825443
The universe is just a chunk of some other cthulhu men in black universe that has no idea we exist, to them our universe is literally a black hole or rather the remains of one.

>>17825446
perform a miracle right now or denounce kikestianity gweilo

>>17823302 (OP)

>>17825452
Ta-da! I just turned a baby into a bunch of flowers

>>17825417
The best evidence is direct experience. Become a monk and experience God for yourself. If you're for whatever reason limiting yourself to armchair insights, contingency argument is probably your best option since it requires the least amount of study. But it does require study.

>>17823302 (OP)
This thread belongs on
>>>/x/

>>17823449
I went seeking God and instead found Mahadevi who told me that all Abrahamic faiths were built on a lie.

>>17825479
magic is illegal. Enjoy Hell!

>>17825531
>all Abrahamic faiths were built on a lie
which was ?

>>17825506
Why would I become a monk? I think God is made-up

>>17825552
because theres more to life than what you think. otherwise there would be more vaping and anime in life

>>17825562
Right, so I am asking you for evidence to believe that there's a God.
Telling me to become a monk is a fucking clown move

>>17825583
which God

>>17825552
Everything that isn't known for certain is made up, that includes the entire field of theoretical physics

>>17825608
clown

>>17823449
>muh wrath of God
I don’t see jews and normalfags getting punished for their shit.

>>17825644
stupid bots get more retarded every day. All this talk about AI outcompeting at work but they're really going to drag us down

>>17825552
To get evidence. Wasn't that the motivation behind this thread?

>>17825947
Pretty sure monks are supposed to already believe in God.

So I just like put on the cosplay outfit and start living on the top of a mountain with a bunch of dudes, then I'll get the evidence.
How is any of this supposed to work?

>>17826068
Being a monk is definitely easier when you believe in what you're doing, yes. It will be tougher for you, but I see your hunger for evidence is strong and cannot be satisfied by conventional means.
>How is any of this supposed to work?
Get a spiritual elder or an abbot and he will guide you through it. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, each person has their own unique combination of obstacles that prevent them from experiencing God.

>>17826068
If you want evidence of God start by fearing him and bowing down to him every day. Read his laws and obey his commands. Once he sees that you seek him with honestly he will make himself know to you.

>>17827185
nice bot bump fucktard

>>17827189
One day everything that you keep on gkut heart is going to be exposed and seen by the purest eyes. You're going to be completely naked before him. Don't keep evil is your heart.

>>17823302 (OP)
DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

>>17823302 (OP)
If God no real then why Moral real?

>>17827216
>>17827223
>>17827225
bump!

>>17827185
Why should I fear God? I don't think God is real.

>>17827799
He explained why in the first 6 words of the post

>>17827818
I want a reason why *I* should fear God. Keep in mind, I don't think God is real, so it would be very strange for me to fear him.

>>17828148
Do you want evidence of God?

>>17828157
Sure. But stop clowning by suggesting prerequisites that requires me to already believe in God.

>>17828162
Well belief and evidence are two separate things if you want to be really technical about it, but that would be a bad faith answer so let me instead clarify this:
Fear of God doesn't mean you have an emotional reaction to what you think is located at one place or another. It is a behavior where you are trying to avoid danger which God poses to you. If someone says "watch out, there's a snake in the hallway", you might not positively believe there is one, but if you walk carefully with your eyes wide open, you are living out that fear. That's what you're being asked for. An approach, not an emotion.

So that's what the Anon is telling you - if you want evidence of God, follow the commandments. Rely on God. If you don't think he's there, then it's the leap of faith par excellence.

>>17828177
Help me out
How do I go about fearing God? (I don't think God is real)
be specific

This world is so evil. Do you think that our God doesn’t believe that He Himself has a God that created Him? Do you think that all the evil that happens to innocent humans on Earth will go unpunished? Who polices the police?
It could be that our God is no different from a random human on Earth that goes around doing evil stuff because he doesn’t believe in God.

>>17828183
By following the commandments. Love your neighbour as yourself, forgive hundreds of times daily, pray at all times, avoid sexual immorality, avoid drinking blood, avoid idolatry and food sacrificed to idols, follow the 10 commandments, serve others, do not store up material treasures but rather spiritual treasures, be guile-less like a child but intelligent as a serpent ...

>>17828198
How do I pray? (I don't believe in God)
Do I just like close my eyes and think happy thoughts while facing a paining of Jesus?

>>17828326
Face east, make your mind silent (don't imagine anything) and recite Our Father as if they were your own words. If it's too difficult, go for the Jesus Prayer. To speak you don't have to believe someone listens.

>>17828326
That could be a start. Prayer (a form of meditation) is high level stuff, it takes practice and will. Might be easier to recognize God's true function. He contains so many still-undescribed phenomena that we're a thousand years away from having words to completely replace Him. Therefore like race and nation, God is an historical and practical reality, whose abstractness is a function of its huge scope.

>>17828340
>>17828358
It kinda sounds like you're just string me along. No collateral, no guarantees.
If I do this stuff, and don't get evidence of God, where can I send my complaints?

>>17828402
>If I do this stuff, and don't get evidence of God, where can I send my complaints?
The same place you are sending your complaints and demands all this time. 4chan.

>>17828402
I don't agree at all. My post wasn't like that. You're just following a script, giving a few stock responses and then resetting like a bot. You need to be better.

>>17828419
Where the fuck do you suppose the conversation should move from here?
"Okay thanks, I'll get back to you after my stay at Mt. Athos."

You are a clown. There is no discussion

>>17828513
I think that (>>17828358, >>17828419) anon was subtly implying that God is just a character of the god of the gaps fallacy. Ignore him.

>>17828513
I said prayer is too advanced for you.
>>17828534
The criteria is physical evidence. The only physical evidence is God's function.

>>17828560
Look, if someone got non-physical evidence for God, like a ghost, I would love to see that as well

>>17828560
>The criteria is physical evidence.
And how would you recognize God via physical evidence. Do you know what God looks like? If so, I can try to get you a photo... what I definitely won't do is get through all the trouble of getting physical evidence only for you to tell me "nah, how do I know that's God"

>>17828587
Sight is physical. Even miracles are physical, not magic. I don't understand how you propose supernatural things appearing in the real physical world to your real eyes.
>>17828590
God is way bigger than that. You can't zoom out far enough to get a photo.

>>17828606
>You can't zoom out far enough to get a photo.
I know, I just want atheists to realize that the situation isn't one where methods for evidence are developed and the evidence just keeps missing. The situation is one where God could appear in their bedroom, slap them in their face and they would still struggle to articulate why this was solid evidence for any particualr God at all.

>>17828612
That would be pretty out of character to be fair. It doesn't fit modern science because science aggravates the translation issue. Relying so heavily on rationality blurs the line between words and data driven numerical thinking. Even if God had native speakers that could work on translating Him to scientific terms, the need for repeatability means they're fundamentally at cross purposes. God helps people understand the world they live in, science is just a measuring tool for autists.

>>17828606
>you propose supernatural things appearing in the real physical world to your real eyes.
I don't. I think this stuff is all made-up.
But if you have evidence, feel free to show it

>>17828636
>But if you have evidence, feel free to show it
Sure! here it is: Follow the commandments.

>>17828612
No, pray to God and have an amputee regrow his arm is totally acceptable evidence to me
I'dd be sold on the spot. I'm not gonna go around looking for silly ways to explain that away

>>17828646
So you're not actually after any scientific evidence. You've come up with a scenario that would impress you and you're hoping this impression will amount to belief at least for some time...

>>17828642
And THEN I get the non-physical evidence...
I don't believe you! You are making stuff up.

>>17828656
I am fine with not being believed. But then don't pretend you're interested in evidence when you're not willing to go where the evidence is claimed to be found.

>>17828653
Scientific evidence would be great, but you're kinda making it seem like it's too big of an ask.

>>17828661
I think not being a gullible idiot, is totally compatible with also being interested in evidence

>>17828636
I just said supernatural things don't appear in the real world.
>>17828646
Magic tricks have nothing to do with God.

>>17828663
It's a big ask of scientists to develop methods to detect or recognize the divine, but if they're down, I'm down.

>>17828670
People who verify things are the gullible ones?

>>17828661
Would you be interested in evidence for the truth of Buddhism?
I know you're committed to saying no, else you know I'dd just make up as story about how you have to try meditating on a mountaintop for 10 years to get the evidence, and call you out on being a hypocrite.

>>17828683
>supernatural things don't appear in the real world.
Which is also my position, because they are not real.

>>17828686
This thread is about God so no

>>17828686
Did I make a thread asking for evidence for Buddhism? You have nothing to call me out on. You're the one who wants evidence without going and getting it.

>>17828693
Things that aren't real have nothing to do with God. Physical evidence for the supernatural, which makes no sense, is your only criteria but it has nothing to do with anything.

>>17828685
>People who verify things are the gullible ones?
Go look for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Make sure to look really hard.
Or remain a gullible idiot who don't verify things.

>>17828694
>>17828695
*honk, honk*

>>17828704
After I make a thread demanding evidence of a magical pot of gold I will definitely check it out.

>>17828700
>Physical evidence for the supernatural, which makes no sense
I agree, this is also my position. Because, I don't think the supernatural make any sense.

>>17828710
I told you why the evidence wasn't any good, by pointing to why you wouldn't accept this as evidence of other things
Telling me that the topic of the thread is evidence of a specific thing, and the ways in which we evaluate evidence is irrelevant - it's complete mental short circuit

>>17828642
I don't get it.
On my view, praying is a physical activity. So are following commandments.
I don't understand what this non-physical evidence you are vaguely alluding towards is even supposed to be.

the most biblically coherent denomination (calvinism) is a perfect circle; no entries and no exits. you are in or are you are out - if you are in god is drawing you toward him, if you are out god is pushing you out to suffer his wrath on judgement day.
proof has little to do with it

>>17823497
Dude pantheism lmao

>>17828715
You don't want evidence for the real God, you just want to keep repeating that you don't believe in fake ones? That's called a "straw man" and it's a common logical fallacy.

>>17823473
>An infinite cyclical universe (one that has always existed, but mutates in a cycle) is also unlikely, because to return to the original state, entropy must decrease violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Entropy is a statistical law a hot mug of coffee cools down in a room not because it is physically impossible for it to heat up but that it's much much more likely to cool down.
Poincaré recurrence says that given enough time the universe will recreate itself exactly as it is now.

if you need le science to explain God, you have it entirely backwards
God does not need science, he does not need us
We need him, science needs him.

>>17828883
>science needs him
how so?

>>17828759
Pretty sure you got no clue what a "staw man" is. Or how it would be applicable to anything I said.

I want evidence of God.
Preferably evidence that isn't just telling me to become a Christian with a promise that, then, I'll get evidence later.

>>17828939
Real God would have real evidence, but you want real evidence of fake God. It's a strawman.

>>17828947
I'm pretty sure a stawman involves misrepresenting your position, then attacking that misrepresentation
I'm not quite sure how I'dd be able to do that, as I've not tried to present, or, misrepresent your position.

I want evidence of real God.
Please stop making up lies about what I want.

>>17828958
We've been discussing real God all thread, and your response is where's the burning bush, where are the magic tricks. Textbook strawman.

>>17828962
1. I did not say this
2. This all seems like valid suggestions, when being asked what kind of evidence I would prefer. Especially if you got a belief that involves God revealing himself by way of burning bushes.

If your position is that God doesn't do burning bushes. Sure, OK. You've kinda told me that already.
Your "evidence" seems to basically be telling me to become a Christian. Then I'll get the evidence, whatever it's supposed to be.

Follow the commandments.
Pray to God.
Become a monk.
Seek out elders for spiritual aid.
???
Obtain evidence.


Which isn't very helpful. As I'm unwilling to become a monk.
I don't really think I'dd try this unless I already was a Christian.

>>17828994
Real God is a whole other side to humanity and yourself that's physically real and important. Mythological God is not real. Even when, and this may be hard for you, the same scripture refers to both. For example, many people say Christ being a mortal man would destroy their faith, because they don't love humanity like they love God. Who's right in that case? Obviously the scripture, even though it speaks in flawed human words.

>>17828923
Science saw major strides that were actually impactful and life-changing only when people were inspired by god and faithful to their religion.
Right now, it's just nepo babies dick sucking each other.
I mean look at picrel, wtf is "the discovery of a new thought experiment" supposed to even mean?
And we are supposed to take this scam seriously ? Let alone "prove God" through it?

>>17829054
this doesn't really feel adequate. i'm not going to pretend i understand experiments in quantum mechanics but this seems relevant to determining whether quantum physics is viable as a complete description of reality. seems important for future physics.
science made by god-fearing people of old feels significant because it's had more time to germinate, and we remember their successes rather than however many failed hypotheses and frameworks were left on the ground with time.
seems coherent to me at a glance though. just because it uses language i don't understand doesn't mean it's literal gobbledygook

>>17823302 (OP)
1/2
Aristotelian proof for the existence of God: 1. Change is a real feature of the world.
2. But change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A's being purely actual.
10. If A's existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11
. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

>>17829393
2/2
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation -that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
33. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.

>>17829393
>>17829395
I don't think anyone who doesn't already believe in God, would grant the premises and metaphysics asserted in this argument

>>17829648
what about an AI with only rudimentary responses?

>>17829774
Deductive arguments for God, or anything really are so silly.. But people only use this stuff to argue for God

How are they supposed to persuade
. Like WHOOPS, turns out I already think all these convoluted premises who leads to the entailment of a God is true, I just didn't take my beliefs to their conclusion

It's just question begging

>>17829393
>actualization of a potential
Oh right, the actualization of potential. Yeah, I totally already believed this is what change was.
*actualizes a potential fart*
BRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPRRPPP !!!

>>17829811
>deductive arguments for science are so silly. Just because some other people think something doesn't mean they're right
ok christcuck

>>17828587
Why would a ghost be evidence of God? Wouldn't it just be a natural phenomenon? A quantum echo of the past, or something?

>>17829813
>Yeah, I totally already believed this is what change was.
>>> tfw atheist's key defense is not understanding basic terms

>>17828939
If God exists, what evidence of him would there be, and would it be enough for you to accept?

>>17829855
[bot resets]
I don't believe in God. What evidence?

>>17829855
Uhhh just kinda ... impress me. Impress me so hard I will believe for the rest of my life. Make someone grow a second head.

>>17829858
I beg your pardon? I asked if there was a God, what would be the evidence? Would that evidence be sufficient for you to believe that there is one?

>>17829866
You're not OP. OP didn't ask for magic tricks. >>17828994
>1. I did not say this

>>17829866
If I did that, wouldn't it just make me a wizard? Why would that prove God?

>>17829869
see >>17828646

>>17829874
are you calling that post a liar?

>>17829871
It kinda would ... but I promise to be so impressed I become a theist. And if I won't, well, you can't blame me, I don't control what I believe.

>>17829879
What if someone asked you to explain how the existence of wizards proves that God is real?

>>17829879
bot bro is hallucinating fulltime now

>>17829876
Are you? There have only been two mentions of "elder" in this entire thread, one to this guy who was talking about limb re-grows and the other by the guy who claims he never asked for magic. Maybe he doesn't fully understand what he's asking for and what he's being told, I can imagine he's not really in it for evidence (since he's unwilling to go get it) so might be he just isn't really paying attention. One way or another this really is just a thread of someone asking "please impress me or get scientists to do something"

>>17829886
Nonsense posting only works on insecure people who don't know what they think. I win again.

>>17829882
I would be at a loss. But hey I pinky promise I will be impressed. Maybe. Who knows...

>>17829879
If you lived in 1900, planes would convince you that God exists

>>17829889
No idea what you won but I am happy for you. Now please impress me so hard I become a theist.

>>17829890
Even going by the letter of OP it doesn't matter what you think.

>>17829893
>no idea
I know
>please impress me
You can make a new thread for that.

>>17829890
So why ask for proof of God from people who already believe?

>>17829898
That's a thoughtful question. Asking for proof of God from people who already believe can serve several purposes:

Deepening Faith: It encourages believers to reflect on their beliefs more profoundly, exploring the reasons they hold their faith.

Shared Understanding: It provides an opportunity for believers and skeptics to discuss their perspectives, fostering dialogue and mutual understanding.

Personal Certainty: Even believers may seek reaffirmation of their beliefs, especially during times of doubt or questioning.

Philosophical Inquiry: For some, the act of seeking proof is part of a broader philosophical or theological exploration, not necessarily about convincing others but about personal conviction.

Addressing Doubts: Believers might encounter doubts or questions from others and seek to articulate or reinforce their reasons for faith.

In essence, while believers already accept God's existence, asking for proof can be a meaningful way to explore, articulate, and strengthen their faith.

>>17829896
We already have a thread for that. This one. You guys might have a lot riding on the idea that you're scientifically-minded rational people awaiting empirical evidence, but the discussions and demands in this thread really paint a different picture. Every time someone attempts to follow actual scientific processes here - establish a methodology, set criteria, validate indicator choice - the discussion falls apart because this isn't actually about science. You're asking to be impressed. And you sort of figure you'd find belief as a consequence.

Don't ask me. I don't do the miracles.

>>17829902
What's the point of a rhetoric bot that can't even do rhetoric?

>>17823449
I've been praying for a signal and the only answer I get is silence. No matter how much I pray. And ofc you never try hard enough, there is always something you could do more.

>God hides his face to evil doers.
The God that sits with sinners and comes to redeem and not condemn doesn't talk to me because I'm evil. Ok. That's nice.

God wants to have a relationship with me and to love me and for me to love him but how the fuck AM I SUPPOSED TO LOVE A GOD THAT DOESNT INTERACT WITH ME?????

A life of ignorance and neglect just to be toss aside at judgment day. How wonderful.

>>17829905
>discussion falls apart at a mere mention of scientific processes
QED

>>17829906
If you were neglected for one second you would simply cease to exist. Every beat of your heart is God-given. Now I completely understand your feelings, because I had the same one. Wanting God to appear, to have consolation, certainty, validation, whatever... this seems to be possible but a special meeting requires a special perparation. A mystical experience a spiritual perparation. Uttering a prayer is just one part of that.

>>17829906
If you were perfect in every way, you wouldn't need God. He'll wait patiently until you're ready btw unlike a human family.

>>17829908
>frantic shitposting
bots are inferior. I could do that at age 10

>>17829912
I don't know what the fuck im supposed to do. Im tired of these bullshit games. I don't want judgment or something to prove. I want genuine love and care in my fucking life, I don't want to be keep being casted aside. Fuck this.

>>17829913
Wait for what??? For what? I can't never be perfect, even if I had 99999999999999 good things. One single, miniscule dirty spot is enough to separate us from God in an eternal distance. I can't never be good enough. I'm powerless on my side. The question is why him being all powerfully, still ignores me. I want to believe he cares about me but experience seems to tell otherwise.

>>17829926
Wait until you have something to discuss with God. He isn't interested in your ranting, everyone has their own agenda and God's agenda is there as a backstop if your plans of replacing him don't work out.

>>17829850
You tell me. I don't believe there's such a thing as the supernatural.
I'm just using a ghost as an example of something supernatural that could be evidence, I'm not into all the lore.

If the people in this thread would be clearer about what they meant, instead of this vague gesturing at the non-physical, this would be easier.

>>17829938
A ghost couldn't be evidence because ghosts aren't real. They're an hallucinatory phenomenon.

>>17829913
>He'll wait patiently until you're ready

>be not ready for god
>die not knowing/accepting him
>go to hell
>may or may not enjoy it

Explain this then???

>>17829944
Hell doesn't exist, unfortunately.

>>17829855
>If God exists, what evidence of him would there be
WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME?
Presumably the people who believe in God does so for reasons

>>17829947
It's called a counterfactual and it's an essential part of any real argument or hypothesis.

>>17829938
Supernatural...everything is natural, from nature. Even if your rectum spontaneously grew to enormous proportions and swallowed you by turning inside out...still natural albiet unusual

>>17829944
Hell doesn't exist, unfortunately

des kinda guys enjoy it the most. : )

>>17823415
>How would I do that?
First, you need to have a definition of God that can be proven.

>>17829943
Something supernatural that is real then. I don't think there is such a thing as the supernatural, so I wouldn't know what that is.
Why do I have to do all the work?
I don't know why it's so hard to just tell me what the non-physical evidence is supposed to be.

This game of making me guess at bullshit, just for you to tell me you don't believe in that particular kind of bullshit
I'm not a mindreader, you have to put something on the table

>>17829948
No, you misunderstand.
Apparently I got no clue what would be good evidence of God. As evidence by all the whining in this thread when I make a suggestion.

At this point I think it would just be better for the people who do believe in God, to tell us what their evidence for that belief is.

>>17829949
Be serious. This actually is a strawman,.
I've already told you this is not my position. I think miracles would be great evidence of the supernatural. Or at the very least, I'm telling you now.

>>17823415
>believe
This means "be what you love and praise". Its related to concepts like "foresight", and "provision". Meditate on what you truly love and praise, and manifest it. This is the first proof. The second proof, which is the same as the first, is this, "Love your neighbor as yourself".
This is how you prove God is real.

Look, when you refuse to grant that an amputee regrowing his hand would be evidence of God...

You understand this is a problem with your God as a theory right? The theory doesn't make predictions.
It's very hard to make sense of what even would be evidence of a God. Which is why *I* think the whole idea is just nonsense, right?

This is partly because God has the superpower to do anything. There's no constraints on the kind of things we should expect a God to do.
You're not going to have differentiating evidence. Any piece of evidence you can possibly imagine - is something God could do

>>17829961
>what their evidence for that belief is.
You know them by their fruit.
Their logical framwork is a tree, and the manifestation of what they love and praise is real fruit that is cultivated. You see it in what they produce.

>>17829983
I don't understand. Are you telling me I should think the God-beliefs of Catholics are true, because they build beautiful cathedrals?

>>17829956
>Something supernatural that is real then
Ok, science for example. Science is supernatural proof of God's existence. It doesn't exist in itself, you can't show me proof that science exists. All you can show is a bunch of people behaving as though it did, the essence of science isn't contained in their actions. It's inherently a reference to some big abstract concept, you need to presuppose the world's existence to believe in science. Once those huge assumptions are made, it's just a contest of whose metaphysics are stronger, at which point the religious types have an advantage similar to naturalists in the material world.

>>17829979
>no constraints
There are no "unwilling" constraints. But their are constraints that are chosen, so that you and your will can also exist.

>>17829989
I don't agree with any of this, obviously. As you should be able to predict.
Science is a (physical) activity humans engage in.

>>17829987
Call no one on earth Father.

The name of the Lord is I AM and it is ME who brought us out of slavery. Lobe the Lord YOUR GOD withball YOUR heart and soul. The second instructor is your neighbor. Love your neighbor as yourself. This is all the law, and everything ever prophessed.

Hear this, O you who struggle with gods and men. The Lord our God is one.

If you have something better to present, then go, pick up your mat, and walk. Present yourself to the priest as a testimony that you are healed.

>>17829992
That's not the kind of constrains I'm talking about

If we are trying to solve a locked room murder case.
If our explanation is that that maybe the butler did it. There's constrains on what a butler can do. Butlers can't walk through walls. So we should think more about that one.

If our explanation is, that a wizard did it. There's no constraints on what a wizard can do- they wield powerful spells and are capable of arcane feats beyond your imagination.
A wizard does indeed explain the locked room murder. But a wizard can do anything, no constraints on what is explained by wizards or not.

You run into the same issues as God, that it's a bad explanation. Because it can explain anything.

>>17829961
Good evidence would start with a description, actually knowing what you're looking for. I know you want to keep it vague, but lets imagine a definition of God that would work for a real atheist (me doing your work)
-Created the universe
-Conscious, "knows" things
-Knows the future
-Connected to humans
-All powerful*

Whether God is alive, a single entity etc. is seemingly not part of the core definition. Likewise mythological claims about God aren't really about THE God, it lacks authority if only thousands to millions of humans believe instead of everyone.
*Likewise, it's not necessary to say whether God takes an active role because knowing/creating versus actively controlling fate is the same thing.

>>17829997
Nope, that's experimentation. Science means "knowledge" it refers to a much fuzzier concept shared within society. It may have a physical existence in theory, but only within people's minds so you can't show me the proof.

>>17829949
>your rectum spontaneously grew to enormous proportions and swallowed you by turning inside out
No, this seems like something God would do, a miracle. At this point I would abandon naturalism and become a theist.

>>17830022
dumb rube. do you believe in fire tricks too?

>>17830020
You just told me "science is supernatural proof of God's existence".
This is certainly not what I mean when I use term 'science'. I think my description fits much better how the word is used.

The CERN researcher is doing "science", etc

>>17829947
Why ask for evidence if you don't know what would constitute evidence? You'd be like "what's this you gave me? That's not what I asked for"

>>17830025
You can't show me the proof so it must be supernatural. Cern is just running electric current through some magnets, they're science worshippers at best.

>>17830005
>no one
*no man

>>17830020
>Likewise mythological claims about God aren't really about THE God, it lacks authority if only thousands to millions of humans believe instead of everyone.
This is back to the me not being a mindreader part.
How am I supposed to know you've figured out what a God would and wouldn't do.
Me? I got no clue what a God would do.

A lot of Christians, the majority I would guess, does believe God reveals him to a select few prophets. Burning bushes and all that.

>>17829935
I'm just tired of having genuine concerns and all the answers I get are "fuck you, you are arrogant, you deserve nothing".

Just let me die at this same moment if that's the case. What's the point even.

>>17830027
The proof of what?

>>17830014
>bad explanation.
By definition, God is a "good" explanation.
The "bad" explanation is the opposite of God.

Omnipotent is "all-potential". With good explanations, we have the potential to do anything. Bad explanations are cast into the fire, and burned.

>>17830033
It's back to you taking no part in this discussion, just (you) farming. Who's asking, what religious denomination hurt you? We can help. Mormon God or whatever, doesn't exist. It's not clear which God you want to disbelieve.

My favorite evidence for God is: "Die and find out, XD"

>>17830036
Science's existence. In all likelihood, the appearance of causality is created by God.

>>17830038
No, I don't think that's how explanations work. You don't make explanations good by definition.

>>17829944
In the Bible, there's only one unforgivable sin. Presumably that's the only one that will lead to your permanent separation from God, and that is blasphemy against the holy spirit. To do that you must reject God entirely such that you do not repent in life. All other sins get you a period of purification, after which you enter heaven

>>17830046
But you define the good ones as good, and the bad ones as bad. When you find the good one, that is God.

>>17830042
I've already told you, science is something humans do.
Do you want me to take you to a lab so you can look at the scientists doing science? This shouldn't be controversial
I don't understand what kind of evidence you are asking for.

All the language people ever invented only captures a fraction of the real world. That's crazy. It's going to be eons before God gets any smaller.

>>17829979
Giant metal birds flying through the sky with a belly full of men is evidence of God then. The existence of the universe is the best physical evidence of the creator of all things

>>17830047
How do I go about blaspheming the holy spirit? Is there a step-by-step guide online?
I just want to make sure I go to heaven

>>17830050
>science is something humans do
then it should be easy to show proof
>Do you want me to take you to a lab so you can look at the scientists doing science?
they're doing experiments but science isn't a verb. Memes aren't real life.

>>17830053
>Giant metal birds flying through the sky with a belly full of men is evidence of God
Right, but so would the lack of giant metal birds be.

So when we see giant metal birds, what should that do with our confidence in there being a God? Should it increase, or, reduce?
???
I genuinely don't know, this whole God idea seems very confused to me

>>17830054
You deliberately reject God for the rest of your life

>>17830059
>*instantly united with God because he thought about God every day*
fuck

>>17830053
>The existence of the universe is the best physical evidence of the creator of all things
You are already assuming the universe was created by your god; it's viciously circular and should be ignored

>>17830056
I don't think what you mean by the word science is something that exist on my worldview
so it's perfectly expected that there would be no such evidence, if naturalism is true

>>17830064
I'm starting to think when you say something doesn't exist, it really does exist.

>>17830059
How do I do that? (I don't believe in God)
I just stay like I am, then die?

>>17829919
We've all been there. All I can tell you is be patient and reflective, it pays off.

>>17830067
Just a question, do you believe in God?

>>17830058
What is the likelihood that the universe was created by an intelligent entity? >>17825364
When you get right down to it, it's not that I likely, is it? If you accept that a creator is not an unreasonable thing to believe in, try to see the creator's mind in his creation, like you would a painter's in a painting.

>>17830065
You kinda already told me that what you mean by "science" is incompatible with naturalism
So I don't understand why you are asking a naturalist about evidence for such a thing.

>>17830068
No, I am an atheist.

>>17830072
it's not incompatible with naturalism. It's supernatural, meaning it would take a superman (not you) to prove it's natural. Sort of like stopping time to go look at something would be supernatural, even though you could be naturally looking at it now if you were there.

>>17830063
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a thing being in a place is at least circumstantial evidence of somebody or something putting it there. I don't know which religion is correct, but I understand people trying to know their God

>>17830073
Could you please put that in brackets every other post? (A believe in God)

>>17830067
Are you just unsure, or do you deny him? Do you debate believers because you like to confound them with your clever arguments, or are you a genuine seeker? The latter isn't deliberate rejection

>>17830077
I had a reason for putting it there

You told me I had to reject God.
How do I reject someone I don't think are real?

>>17830071
>I likely
*unlikely

>>17830080
You're talking to more than one person

>>17830078
I'm very confident in there not being a God, I would not use the term 'unsure' when talking about myself. But I could be wrong about this belief, it's open to revision.
I prefer to believe true things. If I came to think God is real, I like to think I would change my mind.
Would it even be possible for me to believe God is real without changing my mind about it?

I don't understand what it means to deny God in this context.
Like, if someone asked me. "Is God real? Confirm/Deny." I would answer: Deny

>>17830083
It's just been a trend in this thread, to ask me to things it would make no sense for an atheist to do.

>>17830080
I'm just poking fun at you, I'm NTA. You reject it by not accepting it. ( I believe in God)

>>17830076
Tha is just evidence causes exist; it doesn't get you to god if you do not presuppose it

>>17830089
If you want evidence you will naturally be asked to go where the evidence is to be obtained. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you about this. Plenty atheists prayed (they did not believe in God), plenty atheists took sacraments (they did not believe in God), plenty atheists studied theology to understand better how one could encounter God (they did not believe in God). You don't have an excuse.

>>17830082
I think it's unlikely, I think design arguments fail.

>>17830096
Look, it this "become a monk" method worked.
I think there should be evidence of that, WAY more people converting. I wouldn't have to become a monk myself to see this evidence.

>>17830102
Sorry. I don't know why I'm butting "look" at the start of every post
It's a verbal tick that shouldn't make it into text

>>17830102
Can you elaborate on this? What evidence would there be besides monks testifying again and again of having witnessed various apparitions and communication with God? What evidence would this produce that would make you so confident that you'd forego checking God's existence yourself? Talk to me.

>>17830088
Denial means not even being open to a possibility. Not thinking God is real (if he was) would just be ignorance. But denying God means investing your ego in it. Like how people can deny the truth before their eyes because they don't want to be proven wrong? That's the unforgivable sin

>>17830098
Why do they fail? What possible causes are there for the universe? And could you rank those possibilities in order of likelihood?

>>17830109
Thinking more about this, I wouldn't forgo it myself
It would probably make me curious enough to check out. If everyone who properly tried monking claimed to get evidence of God.

I just think as things stand, I'm warranted thinking the whole monk-thing is a big waste of time. And will not provide me with evidence of God.

>apparitions
Is this something that could be investigated, like, could you take a picture of an apparition?
Or is it supposed to be entirely within the monk's mind, and immune to empirical investigation

>>17830103
>>17830102

Don't just look. Be the one who holds the vision.

>>17830123
Bunch of reasons
I don't know what a God would or wouldn't do, so I don't understand why I should expect a God to cause this universe.

If God doesn't exist, who rotates the plate in microwave ovens?

>>17830126
>I'm warranted thinking the whole monk-thing is a big waste of time
You're phrasing it like you came to this conclusion by deliberation. But you couldn't have... you don't believe in God. It is a direct implication of your belief that monasticism is a waste of time. It's like me saying "I don't think there's a snake in the hallway. I am thus warranted in thinking that peeking into the hallway is a big waste of time." well yes, you're warranted, but only insofar as you want to appease a pre-existing belief. You're not warranted to dismiss the option if your goal is to actually verify a claim.

>Is this something that could be investigated, like, could you take a picture of an apparition?
No, it is revealed through nous, man's immaterial aspect. Besides, there are dozens of photos of supposed apparitions and you cannot conclude anything based on any of them, why would this one be different? What are you going to do? What would make this one not a waste of time?

>immune to empirical investigation
No it is open to peer review. That's what the Tradition is - hundreds and hundreds of men having the same experiences over and over, cross-referencing them and checking the results. And you're free to participate.

>>17830133
>I don't know what natural selection would or wouldn't select, so I don't understand why I should expect evolution to cause this universe.

>>17823302 (OP)
A lot of people really really want him to exist or were told he does as children, even though there are no iron clad reasons to believe he does, which is why we're even still having this discussion.

>>17830126
>apparition
Take heart. It is I.

>>17830136
I think hundreds and hundreds of men claiming the same experiences, is essentially explained by them being in the same cult
That it's explained by human psychology and conditioning.
Probably similar to how you explain religious experience in other religious (unless you think it's caused by demons, or something like that)

>>17830150
>cult
Yes. They are cultivating a culture based on nomenclature, just as the secular cultists do. The Lord our God is one. Follow the way the truth and the life.

>>17830139
Evolutionary theory makes highly specific and constrained predictions about what evidence we should expect to find

With God, you kinda just have to suppose a divine psychology for what kind of universe it would cause, or not.

If you suppose a God that feel like creating no universe at all, and just be perfect. Then our universe seems like great evidence against this God.
If you suppose a God that would like to create a universe that eventually comes to be filled entirely with black hole. Then our universe would be at least some evidence for that God.
If you suppose a God that would cause exactly our universe. Then, yes. Our universe is evidence for that God. It's just an insanely ad hoc theory, which in turn should reduce or confidence in it being a good explanation

>>17830150
If you find a study that scientifically explains these experiences away this way, you will be warranted in doubt. But there exists no such study. It's a hypothesis you formulated just now to appease your pre-existing bias.

>similar to how you explain religious experience in other religious
A great point, thank you. Other religion's experiences are real. Most are caused by demons, sure, but I reckon even such an experience would push you WAY closer to faith than someone re-growing something after someone else said some words somewhere.

The situation remains the same - you're warranted in doing nothing if all you're seeking is the validation of your pre-existing belief. You're not warranted in shrugging stuff away if you actually want to verify a claim.

>>17830158
Sorry for using the C-word.
I should have said, in the same "community" instead

>>17830165
>theory
The root of this word is "theo" which means God. When you use this word, your are saying "Godry".

With a Godry, you suppose a hypothesis, and that hypothesis is judged by its fruit. Messengers that are righteous, are lifted up. Messengers that fall, are cast into the fire.

>>17830171
It's not about validating
It's just that I think my beliefs are true (doesn't everyone?). And they cohere well together.

So when you come along and start adding demons to the mix. It sounds highly implausible, and I'm unwilling to stick my neck out, and move to a monastery.

> I reckon even such an experience would push you WAY closer to faith than someone re-growing something after someone else said some words somewhere.
I disagree. I think an apparent amputee healing miracle would be great evidence. It's the kind of thing that would be highly persuasive to me.
I would instantly make me have to rethink how I view the world.

With a God/Demon experience, where they kinda just speak into your mind or make you feel stuff. That would be much simpler for me to explain away as an abnormal psychological state.
It's not like the experience comes out of nowhere, it follows weeks of meditation and psychological priming, after placing myself in a situation to expect just such an experience.

Besides, the amputee's hand kinda sticks around for everyone to see. So it's a lot harder to doubt myself about that one.

>>17830178
>You are saying Godry
No, I am just saying theory.

Clearly we have very different views on langue. I'm a "meaning is use" guy. I don't argue by way of etymology.

>>17823302 (OP)
The fact that most of humanity throughout its history believes in God or seeks the transcendent is already proof enough that he exists because he has placed this feeling within human beings, otherwise no one would question his existence anymore.

>>17830133
You do not know the likelihood that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. Nor do you know the likelihood that some extradimensional accident caused the universe to come into being. You can only theorise. Is an intelligent creator all that ridiculous of a idea? You don't need to know the motivations of that entity or its full capabilities. For me, it's a reasonable hypothesis

>>17830185
No. Thinking God is a good explanation of this universe, hinges on the belief that causing this universe would be sort of thing God would do.

>>17830179
>It's just that I think my beliefs are true (doesn't everyone?). And they cohere well together.
So then you made this thread for one and one purpose only: "I don't believe in God so I'm not gonna check".

>It sounds highly implausible
Right, the fact that mystical experiences are universal across every single continent, culture, language and era makes them more implausible... again, the only thing that's at play here is you expressing an apriori belief and sticking to it as hard as you can. This doesn't seem to be about evidence at all.

>It's the kind of thing that would be highly persuasive to me.
See >>17829879

>That would be much simpler for me to explain away as an abnormal psychological state.
If you had such a study or a methodology to conclude this. Which you don't. You're performing circular reasoning, again just taking your conclusion as your premise - since I don't think gods are real I don't think these gods are real.

You're doing everything in your power to not get evidence.

>>17830165
>If you suppose a God
If you suppose an Accident, then why this particular Accident?
If you suppose an Accident, then what about all the other Accidents?
Are all Accidents the same? Do they all create consciousness? Do only specific types of Accident create consciousness? Why these laws? It should be random what the physical laws would be, shouldn't it? Why do ours do life and consciousness so well? Why can that consciousness understand the universe?

>>17830190
You don't have to understand a Creator to think there is one, but let's say that a Creator is like a writer. Are novels the kind of things writers do?

>>17830194
>I'm not gonna check
I think you kinda knew I would be unwilling to become a monk. So I don't understand why you are acting like it should be a live option from my perspective.
I already told you why I'm warranted in being skeptical about your monk story.

This move of acting like you've presented evidence, and I'm being unreasonable for not going into a monastery. It's super silly.

>>17823662
>The universe is literally proved to be eternal and uncaused.
uhh you need to update your science books buddy

>>17830201
We're on 4chan. Of course I by default suspect that people are dishonest and bias-driven. My goal isn't to overturn your biases. My goal is only that you realize what situation you're in and what approach you're actually championing. Which is demanding miracles from everyone else while not even putting in rudimentary effort for peer review.

You were told how to get evidence. If you're not interested in checking it due to your bias, that's fine with me. But then don't pretend you're interested in evidence. You're interested in being served.

>>17830199
You have to make assumptions about what a God would do, for a God to be an explanation of the universe

I already know what writers do. They write novels. Which is why a writer is a great explanation if we found a novel, and are trying to explain how it came about.

>>17830205
Universe creator creates universe. Sorted

>>17830204
I'm not demanding miracles. I just think they would be great evidence.

>You were told how to get evidence.
But I'm unwilling to become a monk! I've said so repeatedly.


So now I'm left asking for evidence that doesn't involve becoming a monk.

>>17824145
Numbers dont exist theyre a human made construct (like God)

>>17830207
Yes. This is what I've been saying,
You need to presuppose that creating this universe is the kind of thing a God would do. For this universe to be evidence of a God.

Me? I got no clue what a God would do.

>>17830209
>>You were told how to get evidence.
>But I'm unwilling
Like I was saying...
>>You were told how to get evidence. If you're not interested in checking it due to your bias, that's fine with me. But then don't pretend you're interested in evidence. You're interested in being served.

>now I'm left asking for evidence that doesn't involve becoming a monk
Simple. Become a mystic that's not a monk.
Your problem isn't that you'd have to become a monk. Your problem is that you'd have to put effort into actual research and validation instead of waiting for others to do it for you.

>>17830216
Is there some kind of evidence you could show me? Like, shove it in my face

I worry that your type of evidence is immune to falsification.
That you'll just say something like "you didn't seek hard enough", if I become a mystic (whatever that's supposed to be), and don't find evidence of God.

>>17830229
>Is there some kind of evidence you could show me? Like, shove it in my face
That entirely depends what your face could recognize. I could show you evidence that black holes exist but if you don't understand astrophysics, it's just going to be random numbers to you and a photo of a blur.

>you'll just say something like "you didn't seek hard enough", if I become a mystic...and don't find evidence of God.
I might, I might not, who knows? But it's not a valid objection that you fear failure and that you won't be able to blame someone if your efforts are wasted. Scientists are testing hypotheses for years without knowing what will happen or whether their efforts will pay off or not. That's research.

>>17824821
Baseline is none existence. Those who argue for non-existence need not provide proof of non-existence, but instead must receive proof of existence.

>>17830239
Previously, you were kinda talking like you considered the spiritual experiences reported by monks as evidence.
You could present something like that.
"Monks say they talk to God. So therefor God is real."

I think you know how poor that evidence is. And are putting on a show of it somehow being my fault.

>>17830255
I didn't present reports as evidence. I presented experiencing God as evidence of God. You thought all this time I was saying "put in the effort and become a mystic" I actually meant "read what someone said"? Please.

>>17830263
No, I understood what you said.
You don't want to talk about evidence that is open to falsification, or could be talked about in this time and place.
You want to talk about evidence that is *out there*, and whine about me being lazy for not seeking it out and becoming a monk.

I'm accusing you of flip floping, when you shot down my skepticism of the monastery thing. By appealing to monk reporting their experiences as a reason for me not to be skeptical of trying out monkdom.
That means you do view it as evidence, you just don't want to talk about it as such.

>>17830280
>You don't want to talk about evidence that is open to falsification
I do. I'm just not talking to someone who could neither verify nor falsify evidence. I could show you a picture of God and you'd just say "idk who that is bro". I could hand you a relic where the Holy Spirit Himself is present and you'd be like "what do I do with this"? If you take away something from this discussion, I'd love it to be this: you have precisely zero ways of evaluating any physical evidence at all. You're asking for it in vague hope that you'll know it when you see it.

>as a reason for me not to be skeptical
Be skeptical all you want. All atheists who tried prayer were skeptical. And it stopped none of them.
You don't have an excuse. If you want evidence, you know where it is said to be.

>>17830214
So if you saw an alien spaceship, it must be a natural phenomenon because you can't just suppose that aliens would build spaceships

>>17830182
The author of his story defines the terms. If you change the meanings of the words in the origional text, you are not going to understand the message from the author.

>>17830214
>I got no clue what evolution would do
Lulz

>>17830255
>Monks say they talk to God. So therefor God is real
Yes. If you want to understand what they mean by this, you have to understand their definition of God, which is not the same as yours.

>muh evolution

why do niggers think that a flawed theory is proof that it is true?

>>17830195
>Why these laws? It should be random what the physical laws would be, shouldn't it? Why do ours do life and consciousness so well?
your unconscious anthropocentrism isn't an argument

>>17830034
>genuine concerns
>God is a retarded sadistic tranny who singles me out and rapes my mind every day because he's evil
you may be biased

>>17831094
It's impossible to have a genuine convo in this cesspool. Simply fuck you and go kys.

>>17831109
>It's impossible to have a genuine convo in this cesspool.
lurk more retard

>>17830777
Why are retards like you confident in a subject you know nothing about?

>>17831720
>trying to bump a full thread with this post

>>17831738
Why would I "try to bump" when it's past the bump limit?

>>17831793
because you're new and/or not alive