If you want absolute proof that God Exists, you have to read and understand this:

It's not very long, and in my opinion, it proves the existence of God as conclusively as possible:



http://ahabit.com/god



Isn't that brilliant?

 

This was pretty soundly torn apart in this thread. That one had the added bonus of claiming that the student was Einstein.

 

Isn't ignorance the absence of intelligence?


Why would you or anybody else suggest that you are not intelligent enough to appreciate simple logic?


Do you need somebody else to pick the argument apart for you?

 

The correct view is agnosticism. No one knows if Gods exist or not.Do you have the courage to admit that you don't know? It is irrational to invent a God in order to explain what you dont know. God is an extremely vague idea. The word can mean just about anything because it doesnt refer to anything real, tangible or substantial.
No two people can give the same definition of what a God might be. Gods are not something that can be experienced by human beings. Gods can only be speculated about. God is only a concept that can never be verified. It is a practically meaningless idea, in fact. To place faith in such an obscure concept is foolish. The wise man admits that he does not know and he sees that the unverifyable question of gods possible existence is irrelevant and not a useful object of focus. Why not move beyond superstition, heresay, tradition and conditioning? Open your mind to all possibilitys, instead of the one stultifying possibility of a stagnant, backward, conformist, religious dogmatism. If you want to live a meaningful life, you will have to let go of the idea of God. The greatest obstacle to spiritual growth is attachment to wrong views. Imagioning that one knows that god exists, that gods' existence can be prooved and that faith in god will result in ones liveing happily ever after, is a deluded view that will only result in suffering. Admiting that the term, 'God' doesnt refer to anything real, that you dont know anything about gods and that gods are not something you have any direct experience of or any actual knowledge of is a view that makes happiness possible. Happiness is a mind open to truth.

 

Actually, ignorance is the absence of knowledge. A person can be intelligent but still ignorant of a topic.

I don't know what you're referring to with this question.

I don't see the need to waste my time by repeating something that has already been said by numerous other members of the forum. Also, it's very ironic that you would call me out for referencing the arguments of others when you simply referenced someone else's story/argument for the existence of god.

 

The fact that you think absolute proof exists of anything says everything I need to know to discount your argument.

 

Another vain discussion:

The OP argument was saying "that God created EVERYTHING, ergo God also 'created' Evil."

That argument falls apart quickly using both the scriptures as well as common sense:

The absence of anything is a void. God is called 'light', and the light drives away the darkness, since light & darkness cannot exist together. So a void is the absence of anything, meaning God did not 'create' a void, He simply put nothing (nor 'created') into that space.

And just as God is Righteousness, the lack of righteousness is therefore the void of Evil. Ergo, what is not righteous is evil. Or a lack of righteousness. That (for me) ends the discussion, as a follower of the spiritual as well as the physical, which I see as both in harmony, and validated with common sense ('natural' or 'God-given' reasoning).

 

Evil is the absence of good, which means that God gave us the ability to be good but we choose to be bad.

Another thing that God gave me is the ability to speak for myself, so I would appreciate it if you stopped planting words into my mouth --that's plainly, not good.

 

If you want a discount, go to the dollar store.

You obviously do not belong on a thread that demands serious inquiry.

 

God's realm classifies all things as either Righteous (good) or Unrighteous (evil). As in the scripture, "Whatever is not of faith is sin." And that the heart of man is evil, for "No one is righteous, no not one, for All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

And as said that breaking just 1 of the 10 Commandments in the OT makes 1 guilty of breaking them ALL:

James 2:10:
For whosoever keeps the Law as a whole but stumbles and offends in one single instance has become guilty of breaking all of it.

I.e., not keeping the Sabbath as holy, is the same sin as murder! Men assign the various levels of offense; but in the realm of 'Righteousness,' they are both 'sin.' Again, what is not good, is therefore evil.

With man there are 'gray areas,' but with God as per this scripture, 'seeing' and knowing the hearts of men, there are not, as being a righteous & fair judge:

Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Again, the lack of Righteousness (or good) is sin (or evil)

 

What you say appears to be very consistent with this:


http://ahabit.com/god


Did you watch the Royal Wedding; when the Archbishop said,

"Be who God intended you to be and you will set the world on fire."

I guess we are all like God, in the sense that we all exercise the choice to do good or to allow evil to prevail

 

Why did you just post someone else's copy-and-paste story then? If you think you have absolutle proof that God exists, why not speak for yourself?

 

False Premise #1:

Actually we (as in the human race) has seen the moment one species turns into 2. So yes, we have seen evolution occur.

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

False Premise #2:

One can go under the knife and have their skull cracked open so others can verify that yes indeed you do have a brain.

This is about the most ridiculous argument in this whole nonsense.

False Premise #3:

You are ASSUMING that evil is the absence of good. But how do you know that good isn't he absence of evil? You don't, you only ASSUME it. And by the the way, this arguments relies upon the God of the Gaps argument (you don't have an explanation for something so you ASSUME god did it), which is an illogical fallacy to begin with.

Strike 3, this fallacy is out!

 

I am speaking for myself.


You have replaced the letters "Ab" with "Jo" and you think you're Abraham Lincoln?


I posted this story because I believe in every single word:


http://ahabit.com/god


I think it proves that God exists; and that, in my opinion, makes it very, very important !

 

Serious inquiry discounts absolute proof. It also discounts idiotic stories that claim to be absolute proof of anything.

 

There is no "absence of God." Either God is omnipresent, or God is a being. It was a fun exercise, but it just showed the spiritual immaturity of both parties. The student and the philosopher both relied on the crutch of labels, attempting to define the infinite in finite terms, and they both tried to make the abstract real such as arguing that "evil exists" [in the world].

Also, the student didn't answer the question of the sick child. Is a child sick because he or she lacks God's love?

And, finally, the "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol" don't require that you can touch, smell, taste or see something in order for it to exist. Those protocols require observation and the philosopher mistakenly conflates that with the direct use of one's physical senses. That the student didn't catch that flawed argument makes the student's argument flawed when he builds upon it.

 

So do you believe in God?

Do you think God exists?

What abot the absence of good theory, isn't that a valid definistion for evil?

Or what about the absence of light theory, doesn't that explain darkness?

 

Its all philosophical nonsense that does not offer one bit of proof that any super natural being exists.

 

Why do you need proof?

Don't you have faith?

 

Yes, but we still have the obligation to act on our faith, isn't that what I am doing?

 

Why do you need an 'obligation to act on your faith'?

 

Why do you, without a standardized set of morals or code of ethics, find it necessary or even desirable to attack the faith of someone else?

 

Not in the sense that there is a God, but all that is, is God. This is why attempting to explain what cannot be explained always comes off as a little ridiculous. I'm not religious, nor faithful.

Good and evil are man-made creations.

Thinking is always finite.

That suggests that there is something that can be absent. If God loves His creation equally, then the idea of "absence of good" can only come from man as God does not assign such judgments. If God does not love all of his creation without condition, then God is not all loving. That, to me, then, is not God but something else. Jesus warned to judge not, and he was referring specifically to this sort of scenario. Who are you to judge whether God is or is not present in any person? People may act upon their capacity to commit the greatest evils (that we can conceive) or greatest goods (that we can conceive), but to suggest that one person is less of God and another is more is to judge God's will. Ouch.

Does it? What is the measure of darkness? It's entirely subjective.

 

If God were as simple as you have just suggested, then God would not be unexplainable, because in the event that you were right, then you just explained God and therefore God is explainable. Yet because you go on to relate to something which is not explainable, then you cannot be describing God when you say that "..all that is, is God." God, therefore, has to be more than '..all that is.." "All that is" is lacking in the fundamental quality of being self creating. All that is, is missing that fundamental 'cause'.

Are you suggesting that you KNOW the mind of God?

A speculative judgment coming from the created directed toward the creator. Now which would have a better cognizance of what is really happening? The created or the creator?

What might that "something else" be? Especially if "all that is, is God"?

Have you read the scriptures with comprehension of what was being said? If you have, then you would KNOW.

No "Ouch" involved when you KNOW what the Will of God is as contained in the Word of God.

What is 'darkness'? Don't use ambiguous terms, especially when that term has not been used in your prior choice of words.

 

Absolute proofs exist in math.