Proof of God

[Irreligious]

MySiddhi wrote

Do you think if God intervened in every one of our problems we would learn to stop creating problems for ourselves?

I'm fairly late to this party, but what evidence do you have to show that a god has ever intervened in any of our problems?

I imagine you would have to first work out a logical theory that demonstrates exactly how a conscious, immaterial entity inclined to intervene on our behalf would proceed in that endeavor?

That might be impressive.

[ghoulslime]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

What's it cost a guy to get half-an-hour of that?

I'm just askin'.

Cost? It's a labor of love!

[Barney]

Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something

Why is it impossible for there to be missing variables?

[anthonyjfuchs]

ghoulslime wrote

Cost? It's a labor of love!

Sort of like the "love" I harbor for Lily.

[Barney]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Sort of like the "love" I harbor for Lily.

??

Choob for best man methinks. Eve...bridesmaid?

[Riddler]

MySiddhi wrote

The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

. . . . etc, etc. . . .

Reading through your subsequent arguments, it appears that you are presenting a good case for Everything having always existed, and for all that Everything to be synonymous with God. Our regular contributor ILoveJesus will probably want to give you a big kiss for that, in fact he may well be sitting at his PC right now with his kecks round his ankles.

But I'll ask you the same question I've put to him a couple of times and emerged none the wiser: why bother to call it all God?

[edit:] If 'Siddhi' were short for Siddhartha, I could understand where you were coming from: your arguments for the eternal existence of all Stuff, and the inseparable inter-relationship of mind and matter, are entirely in accord with his reputed teaching, which is the basis of Buddhism. But, having just read your howdy-doody in the Introductions forum, it seems you really are putting all this forward as proof of the Christian God who made everything out of Nothing then proceeded to speak unto the station masters in his enormous toy train set like a lonely home-schooled kid with no mates — which is utterly at odds with the (mostly reasonable) arguments you are making for that premise

JU Mike wrote

So that's it? That's the answer to one of humanities biggest questions? Wow congratulations, for centuries people have look to the skies and wondered if there any beings out there watching over us. For centuries people, philosophers, kings, queens, and brilliant scientists have debated, questioned, and wondered on whether or not there is a god and finally a fellow with internet connection joins The Raving Atheists Forum and actually answers it in one post.

Amazing, hey guys we need to come with reward for this guy. Any ideas?

Irreligious wrote

I'm fairly late to this party, but what evidence do you have to show that a god has ever intervened in any of our problems?

I imagine you would have to first work out a logical theory that demonstrates exactly how a conscious, immaterial entity inclined to intervene on our behalf would proceed in that endeavor?

That might be impressive.

Good point... that is another proof all together.

I still have lots of work to do on putting that one together but here is some of it;

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiri...God/index.html

You may find proof of the Global Flood interesting.

Riddler wrote

Everything having always existed

This post that I am typing right now would be included in "everything" yet it did not exist beforehand therefore everything has not always existed.

If you want to play semantics you could say; everything exists (before I created this post it wasn't a thing).

But you cannot say; everything has always existed. Unless you want to be absurd.

Barney wrote

Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something

Why is it impossible for there to be missing variables?

Inside the second logical tautology it reads;

ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something

Riddler wrote

If 'Siddhi' were short for Siddhartha, I could understand where you were coming from: your arguments for the eternal existence of all Stuff, and the inseparable inter-relationship of mind and matter, are entirely in accord with his reputed teaching, which is the basis of Buddhism.

I am a Buddhist and so was Jesus. The only difference we have with Siddhartha is on reincarnation and how karma works.

For a Christian we do not believe in having past lives for some supposed immoral soul but rather believe in a resurrection hope where an individual is resurrected and will have access to the memories of their life prior. What are we without our memories?

And regarding karma we believe good or bad karma (blessing or sin) is transfered to us from our forefathers before us and we likewise pass this onto our offspring.

Besides that is a far more scientific position as we know we get our genetics and therefore instincts from our parents... etc.... not from any imaginary past lives.

[Choobus]

MySiddhi wrote

You may find proof of the Global Flood interesting.

I surely would, if any existed.

[ghoulslime]

MySiddhi wrote

I am a Buddhist and so was Jesus. The only difference we have with Siddhartha is on reincarnation and how karma works.

For a Christian we do not believe in having past lives for some supposed immoral soul but rather believe in a resurrection hope where an individual is resurrected and will have access to the memories of their life prior. What are we without our memories?

And regarding karma we believe good or bad karma (blessing or sin) is transfered to us from our forefathers before us and we likewise pass this onto our offspring.

Besides that is a far more scientific position as we know we get our genetics and therefore instincts from our parents... etc.... not from any imaginary past lives.

You are a nut case.

This is for you:

ghoulslime wrote

ghoulslime wrote

You are a nut case.

This is for you:

If you ever end up studying magik you will learn that you are using dark magik on yourself "ghoulslime".

Choobus wrote

I surely would, if any existed.

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiri...bal_Flood.html