Proof Of God Thread.

[Arnack]

I said you can't use outer space to prove constellations exist, but you're telling me to look out at space to see constellations. By Objectivist's reasoning, that would not prove constellations exist.

Also, material entities such as the sky and keyboards are not the only things which are real and true. Just because you can't see something does not conclude it doesn't exist. The wind is an immediate example of that.

In fact, there are immaterial realities in the universe which are very near to our human perception and important to our existence. No one can see logic, love, liberty, or life because they are conceptual in nature. Nonetheless, they do exist and are very real. The same applies to God. He is by nature immaterial or spiritual, but He is very real to human perception and existence, just not in an empirical way.

This is all pointless rhetoric. We can prove (the term prove can be used in many ways, but I am using the general definition) the constellations exist by seeing them. We can see them with our own eyes, and we can see their existence even more clear with high powered telescopes. On the contrary, we cannot see your "god". Just like we can't see unicorns, there's no reason for us to believe it.

 

[Objectivist]

God is metaphysical - look that one up LOL!

By definition physical proof can not be given for God because He/She is not part of the physical world.

Why don't you start a thread on proofs that two parallel lines can meet. It makes as much sense.

And light can bend.

 

[sevin]

By definition physical proof can not be given for God because He/She is not part of the physical world.

How can anything not be part of the physical world? If it is not part of the physical world, then it does not exist.

 

[Objectivist]

What I was hoping for has yet to materialize.

I think in a forum that bases its purpose on freedom and liberty that it should refrain from the oppression of religious dogma without evidence that the invisible all powerful being exists.

I'm sick of people condemning homosexuals based on ideals that are backed by absolutely nothing that is based in reality. Those that condemn others for behavior not directly effecting them have no place in a freedom and liberty party, especially when they form their negative opinion based on the words of religious oppression, written by men wanting to control other human beings by the way.

I got here after all the moronic threads about gays do this and gays do that bs that seem to be some peoples closet problem. How can you be for freedom and liberty if you condemn others for what they do when it doesn't effect you?

And I'm not gay and I really don't care how people live their lives as long as their lives don't impose on mine, like religion seems to do time and again.

Practice whatever you like but keep your bullshit to yourself if you can't prove it STFU and leave people alone with their own thoughts and way of being.

I think gays would make a great addition to a freedom and liberty party, they sure want the freedom to live as they choose.

 

[TurtleBurger]

And no, the bible is not proof of his existence.

Says who?

 

[TurtleBurger]

I think gays would make a great addition to a freedom and liberty party, they sure want the freedom to live as they choose.

Gays want the right to impose their lifestyle on others. There's a reason why most homosexuals are on the socialist end of the spectrum.

 

[Arnack]

Gays want the right to impose their lifestyle on others. There's a reason why most homosexuals are on the socialist end of the spectrum.

Laughable statement! How so? How does gay marriage effect heterosexual marriages? The problem is- it doesn't. Calling homosexuals socialist is just absurd.

 

[Objectivist]

Gays want the right to impose their lifestyle on others. There's a reason why most homosexuals are on the socialist end of the spectrum.

Actually they want acceptance as equal free people, religion condemns them. That is why they are represented by socialists.
Do you think gays want to pay for a failed education system that they have little use for?

 

[TortoiseDream]

Any proof is contingent on the rules, and so to me proofs are just games played for healthy exercise of the mind and speculation.

Also, consider these words:

"All in the world recognize the beautiful as beautiful.
Herein lies ugliness.
All recognize the good as good.
Herein lies evil.

Therefore
Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficulty and ease bring about each other.
Long and short delimit each other.
High and low rest on each other.
Sound and voice harmonize each other.
Front and back follow each other."

Does day precede night, or does night precede day?

 

[TurtleBurger]

Laughable statement! How so? How does gay marriage effect heterosexual marriages? The problem is- it doesn't. Calling homosexuals socialist is just absurd.

Gay "marriage" is already legal in all states. You can find a Methodist or Anglican preacher that performs that kind of ceremony and get it done. The only issue is that most state governments don't recognize the ceremony. State recognition = enforcing recognition on all citizens of the state.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Actually they want acceptance as equal free people, religion condemns them. That is why they are represented by socialists.
Do you think gays want to pay for a failed education system that they have little use for?

I don't want to pay for a failed education system that I have little use for either. How is that a gay issue?

 

[Objectivist]

I don't want to pay for a failed education system that I have little use for either. How is that a gay issue?

It's a conservative one. Gays don't have children in most cases therefor they shouldn't be paying for it. Just another commonality with liberty folk.

Truth is gays probably have more in common with liberty minded people over socialists, but the religious wing of the Repo party condemn them. Then most of the Repo party is against personal freedoms.

 

[Meatwasp]

Either you can use what you see with your eyes, or nothing is provable.
Does your keyboard exist? Or is it just a dream?
Such a path only leads to nothing is known- thus everything is a fairy tale.
Might as well pull the plug and put a bullet through your brain.

We know we are in a giant cosmos of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
We can see it.
I have yet to see god.

Did you ever think you might not need meat eyes to see?

 

[Dr.3D]

A totally blind man can not see if there is light coming from a light bulb, thus the light bulb does not put out light.

 

[Arnack]

Sometimes I like to wonder if religion exists in worlds far away from this one. I would love know some of their theories of how their planet was created. It would be quite interesting !

 

[torchbearer]

Did you ever think you might not need meat eyes to see?

to perceive all you need is some sense. A pathway of cells connected to nerves to a brain.
The blind can see using computer interfaces (though still imperfect right now).
But either way- you need something to sense.
Otherwise you are just making up your own dreams in a mind with no connection to the world around it.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Eyes are what man a make blind.

 

[torchbearer]

Eyes are what man a make blind.

????????????
The Blind can see.
The deaf can hear.
The paralyze can walk.

Sounds Zen- but is bullshit.
Other senses are enhanced when one is lost, but the zen type crap you are writing makes no "sense".

 

[PaulaGem]

How can anything not be part of the physical world? If it is not part of the physical world, then it does not exist.

Only if you choose to limit your perceptions and experiences to the physical world.

 

[Objectivist]

Still no proof? I can see where this is going. SSDD