Anyone got proof of God

[nine dog war]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.

[Amp]

...relative to the physical universe. but since, as in some of the statements I made in this thread, the Physical universe is in God then conceivably the seemingly same sound enunciation of the word ATHEIST and the phrase A Theist should only be coincidental, ironicly A BELIEVER doesn't acknowledge probabalistic happenstance; in other words there are no coincidences. So it follows that since there are no coincidences the two sounds resulting from the pronuciations could be intentional. My question then would be, "What intelligence could from the inception of language plan to have language produce what seems to be a reference to Deity.
Just like from my previous statements, it can be a tautology that the evidence of 'God' is everywhere you look and everything you see or touch.

[AClockWorkOrange]

...relative to the physical universe. but since, as in some of the statements I made in this thread, the Physical universe is in God

this is a very eastern ideology, which basically equates God to reality, and stopping there. if you are promoting a western god like that of christianity, who takes a more Greek pantheon "hands on" approach, then stop there, you are confusing ideologies. If you continue with this logic, combing Yawhe with Brahmin and romantasizing the jew/christian god, you enter unsubstantiated territory and can be easily dismissed as speculatory.

then conceivably the seemingly same sound enunciation of the word ATHEIST and the phrase A Theist should only be coincidental, ironicly A BELIEVER doesn't acknowledge probabalistic happenstance; in other words there are no coincidences.

except that you ignore language history. "A" meaning "without" is takin from one language for one word, and "A" as in an identifier is takin from another. Twisting language is kind of silly, to the extent that insane logic can be used; ill prove it.
God is Dog backwards, so God is a huge German shepard.

So it follows that since there are no coincidences the two sounds resulting from the pronuciations could be intentional.

are you familiar with the word homonym?
words that sound similiar dont have to mean the same thing. You are right, there are no coincidences, but there are ACCURATE ORIGINS. Your logic is mostly consperacy and speculation; very dangerous.

My question then would be, "What intelligence could from the inception of language plan to have language produce what seems to be a reference to Deity.

People are the intelligence who refference a deity. People reference things they make up.

Just like from my previous statements, it can be a tautology that the evidence of 'God' is everywhere you look and everything you see or touch.

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."
-Tao Te Ching

If you are looking for something, you will generally manifest it, even if it isnt their.

cheers

[Furrowed Brow]

...relative to the physical universe. but since, as in some of the statements I made in this thread, the Physical universe is in God then conceivably the seemingly same sound enunciation of the word ATHEIST and the phrase A Theist should only be coincidental, ironicly A BELIEVER doesn't acknowledge probabalistic happenstance; in other words there are no coincidences. So it follows that since there are no coincidences the two sounds resulting from the pronuciations could be intentional. My question then would be, "What intelligence could from the inception of language plan to have language produce what seems to be a reference to Deity.
Just like from my previous statements, it can be a tautology that the evidence of 'God' is everywhere you look and everything you see or touch.

It would look less like a coincidence if the same affect was felt over every language e.g. all the Chinese dialects, Hindu, Arabic, Russian etc.

[SB Habakuk]

Atheism and theism are twins just as life and death are twins- good and evil even- but what is deemed truly "GOD" is i the indivisible that has not hinged on any other thing

It is that which is alone conscious of its existence

I have little idea what these words mean.[/quote]

It is good then that it has confounded you- fo r it was said to destroy the WIsEDOM which you posess- otherwise why would I have spoken-

When you come to understand what this means- you will rule over the Entirety

[Confused]

Atheism and theism are twins just as life and death are twins- good and evil even- but what is deemed truly "GOD" is i the indivisible that has not hinged on any other thing

It is that which is alone conscious of its existence

I have little idea what these words mean.

It is good then that it has confounded you- fo r it was said to destroy the WIsEDOM which you posess- otherwise why would I have spoken-

When you come to understand what this means- you will rule over the Entirety

Does this mean we will become a God(dess)?

[Cathar1950]

The one seeking proof of God does not find proof of God, he or she may find something that convinces him or her that God exists, but it does not stand up to any reliable definition of proof.

Oh really! Explain, in detail, your proof, beyond all doubt, undeniably, that God, does not exist?

I have not made such a claim. My claim is that of all the alleged proofs that I have seen for God's existence, none of them measure up to an objective standard of proof. Is it rational to believe in something simply because you cannot disprove it?

Hey, If Exsistence/Reality itself is 'God' (very limited approach to the concept).
Then the evidence is as undeniable as reality.

It is a much more difficult task to discredit the deist or pantheist version of God than it is to disprove the Christian notion of God.

Of course I agree Mac.
I tend to see God as conceptual and I have not seen any other way as they are a human and social constructs, including any notions of revelation. Like they atheist the deist and pantheist(or my favorite panentheist) all pretty much take what presents itself. Now I suspect SB Habakuk and even Amp have some yin/yang thing going and if you scratch deep enough one of our posters that says you need to have good to have evil could get there.
Before I got sidetracked with our agreements I was thinking about how God or gods are always in the eye of the beholder and the shared social and personal forms it can take.
I can't help but feel it/God/gods are not objective in any fashion, even by definition.
At the best God(at least so forms) would have to share with every aspect of reality and the universe and would not be distinguishably different or even other. If I say the universe is defined by everything then God would have to be a part of everything and if God is outside of the universe then that would mean God is outside of everything and I have already included everything in my definition of the universe, including God.
I guess I will go watch “Futuroma: Bender's big score”.

[Andyman2340]

Please define "proof".

Also elaborate as to whom this "proof" would apply. I could say that the pattern of the sprinkler on the grass was "proof" that George Bush was God incarnet and I bet you I could get someone to accept this so define to whom this "proof" needs to apply.

With the second part in mind, let me remind you that if YOU are the individual whom the "proof" needs to convince, there may very well be no "proof" as most people are so sure of what they originally believe that convincing them on a factual level is almost impossible. For those of us who are open minded enough to accept an opposing argument and see its validity, there are additional problems to "proof" like, the degree to which it matches our preconceptions of the world around us, experiences in our own lives, our upbringings, relationships with other people, etc.

So please define "proof". Also to whom must my "proof" apply and under what conditions would my "proof" be valid?

What makes you so "open minded" and me so "closed minded"? This statement enrages me. A "faithless" person actually has faith, it's just not in God. Their faith is in themselves and what they know. Personally, this faith is more absurd than my own.

[Andyman2340]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.

Fresh out of physical evidence. Check back with me though after you die.

Blessed is the mind full of doubt for it is easily filled with corruption.

[cnorman18]

As I have posted any number of times:

What "proof" of God's existence, that an ordinary person could provide on this forum, would be sufficient? Give a concrete example.

If the answer is "none," the question is then not an honest question, as it has been presented, but merely a disingenuous debating tactic.

By the way; it's also disingenuous to talk about what God could or ought to do to prove Himself. I don't think anyone posting here has the power to control God--and that holds no water anyway; it has been pointed out--by me--that there is absolutely no miraculous proof that even God could provide that could not be explained by either mass hallucination or an advanced alien civillization interfering in our space.

If there is no proof possible, the demand is meaningless.

[muffinmonkey]

Proof is evidence than can be repeated

If an experiment could be found that showed that there was an effect that could not be explained in any way other than that an omnipresent omniscient omnipotent superbeing exists and directs our lives was done then I would admit that it existed (I would still not be a Christian but that's another matter.

However, I cannot perceive of an experiment that does not have a much, much simpler explanation, if we saw a rock levitate I would be looking for the strings.

There is no more evidence that any sort of God exists than that the moon is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese and yet if I started a forum about the merits of a beaver cheese orientated world I think I know what would happen.

Another example, a man claims he hears voices in his head, he is put in an institution.
A man claims God is talking to him, he becomes a great world leader.