Proof of the existence of God!

[Godsgifttomankind]

This is a scientific approach to proving the existence of God.

1) A clear definition of the attributes of God

When we examine gravity it is first necessary to understand the attributes or characteristics of gravity to define the range of sampling, next it is possible to determine a means of sampling.

The same must be done when examining the attributes or characteristics of God and thus it is by clearly determining the attributes of God and then corelating those attributes to a specific sampling process it is possible to prove the existence of God.

Gravitation is the force by which celestial bodies are attracted.

God is the force by which terrestrial bodies are attracted. It has many quantifiable forms known as characteristics which can vary from miniscule in the conditional range to infinite in the unconditional. The greater these forces of attraction are the more terrestrial bodies that are attracted and the weaker these forces are the lower the number of terrestrial bodies that are attracted. These forces are non self emanating and require constant input from an outside source.

Now that I have stated a preliminary overview of the interaction of the attributes it is time to examine the references by which these attributes are known

Love
Kindness
Generosity
Patience
Respect
Tolerance
Honesty
Loyalty
Trust
Unity

Just to name a few.

We all have the means to measure these attributes in the people around us and to quantify our attraction to those that are emanating these characteristics. On the opposite end of the spectrum we can also quantify our repulsion to those that are not emanating these qualities.

The question then comes in why is it that we are attracted?

What difference does it make how one person acts towards another?

Why is it necessary to have peace and happiness?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

God is the force by which terrestrial bodies are attracted.

This seems like a grave oversimplification. And terrestrial bodies may be attracted to one another for a myriad of mortal reasons, making God unnecessary in this context. This does not prove God exists, unless we're redefining the word "God" in such a way as to make the argument meaningless in a philosophical context.


These forces are non self emanating and require constant input from an outside source.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Prove it.


We all have the means to measure these attributes in the people around us and to quantify our attraction to those that are emanating these characteristics.

But that's not always the case. You'd include "joy" in your list of positive attributes, correct? But a lot of people are annoyed by a person who is joyfully energetic and eager, finding those people exhausting and immature.


On the opposite end of the spectrum we can also quantify our repulsion to those that are not emanating these qualities.

Can we? Is that repulsion constant? I have to admit, I find myself attracted to guys who can be tactless and direct. Doesn't that contradict your thesis? What about women who are attracted to violent men, or thugs who respect those with power regardless of their moral attributes?


The question then comes in why is it that we are attracted?

Because it's a tool we can use.

That's a little bit harsh, but let's call a spade a spade. We like people who provide things we want - people who will love us for who we are, who will be generous towards us, who have the patience to put up with our bullshit. That's not always true, and sometimes we respect something that personally works against us. But for the most part, the attributes we desire to see in the world are the attributes that are personally convenient for us.


What difference does it make how one person acts towards another?

For the want of a nail, baby.

Minor actions can have major consequences. Reality doesn't always pair up positive actions and positive consequences, but it often does. So it's a safe bet people like to take.


Why is it necessary to have peace and happiness?

Would you prefer being harrassed and miserable? Peace isn't necessary, we can still fight. Happiness isn't necessary, we can continue to trudge through life. It is preferable, though.

It's an interesting thought exercise you've constructed here, GGTM. But you haven't proven anything.

[Perfectionist]

Probably at a tangent ...... but I think God is a "force" similar to Gravity in that it emanates and exerts upon every particle in the universe ......

A manifestation of "Universal Logic" ..... which creates purity and harmony ..... whereas "Evil" creates chaos and anarchy .....

I see The Ten Commandments as just rules of logic to keep society stable and prosperous ..... with the alternative to those rules leading to ..... well, the crappy world we live in !! :headbang:

[Godsgifttomankind]

This seems like a grave oversimplification. And terrestrial bodies may be attracted to one another for a myriad of mortal reasons, making God unnecessary in this context. This does not prove God exists, unless we're redefining the word "God" in such a way as to make the argument meaningless in a philosophical context.

Clearly in order to truly understand God we must reexamine current understandings in relation to God and the only way to do that is to move from simplicity to complexity. The current definition of God is not philosophical at it's base but in deed mythological and requires a clear scientific (evidence based) refinement.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Prove it.

Not to side step the issue, as this point is of eminent proportion but must be dealt with once clarity of the properties were are examining has been determine and then I will deal with this issue and it's relation to entropy. Please bear with me on this point for the present and you will not be disappointed.


But that's not always the case. You'd include "joy" in your list of positive attributes, correct? But a lot of people are annoyed by a person who is joyfully energetic and eager, finding those people exhausting and immature.

Excellent point, one has to ask themselves why is one individual challenged by the attributes of another? The answer is quite obvious it is jealousy, this simple action of desiring to have something that someone else has. The anger is not directed at the person who is joyful per say but at a persons own feelings of inadequacy.


Can we? Is that repulsion constant? I have to admit, I find myself attracted to guys who can be tactless and direct. Doesn't that contradict your thesis? What about women who are attracted to violent men, or thugs who respect those with power regardless of their moral attributes?

You have mentioned tactless and direct but these could better be attributed to assertive and confident, the mixture is quite complex but when we break each down we can clearly see the positive qualities that out weigh the negative.


Because it's a tool we can use.

So clearly then it is quantifiable?


That's a little bit harsh, but let's call a spade a spade. We like people who provide things we want - people who will love us for who we are, who will be generous towards us, who have the patience to put up with our bullshit. That's not always true, and sometimes we respect something that personally works against us. But for the most part, the attributes we desire to see in the world are the attributes that are personally convenient for us.

All of the statements that you have made make a case for the elimination of conditions, that is clearly expressing our desire to see these attributes show towards us no matter what our own actions are. It does not matter how bad I treat you, you must be willing to be loving, generous and patient that is the essence of what you are stating. One the other hand we do a flip flop when it comes to how we treat others. eg) if you are not loving towards me then I do not have to be loving towards you.

Can you then see the difference in our expectations of ourselves and others?


For the want of a nail, baby.

Minor actions can have major consequences. Reality doesn't always pair up positive actions and positive consequences, but it often does. So it's a safe bet people like to take.

This is more than a safe bet, it is the very fabric of our existence.


Would you prefer being harrassed and miserable? Peace isn't necessary, we can still fight. Happiness isn't necessary, we can continue to trudge through life. It is preferable, though.

What you are talking about is survival but man is not just a survivor but is an overcomer.

The question is to the root of that ability to overcome?


It's an interesting thought exercise you've constructed here, GGTM. But you haven't proven anything.

Thank-you for your interest, the answer then is in more exercise, so that we can develop a clearer understanding of that which I speak.

Rome was not built in a day and creation is a very ancient but unfinished process.


Probably at a tangent ...... but I think God is a "force" similar to Gravity in that it emanates and exerts upon every particle in the universe ......

A manifestation of "Universal Logic" ..... which creates purity and harmony ..... whereas "Evil" creates chaos and anarchy .....

I see The Ten Commandments as just rules of logic to keep society stable and prosperous ..... with the alternative to those rules leading to ..... well, the crappy world we live in !!

In the world of God there are an infinite number of tangents and I look forward to your assistance in examining as many of those tangents as we are able.

The world that we live in is perfect and even the crap is a necessary part of the fertilization process.

Lift your head up, wipe your butt and let us go examine the rest of the world.

[Cartesiantheater]

If you didn't notice, at the end of my last post in the Creation or Big Bang thread, I had a slight change of heart (well, mind actually)...

IF God exhibits predictable, non-random behavior, than it IS possible to quantify God, in principle. BUT in order to do so, there MUST be a CLEAR distinction between acts of God and acts of Nature- that is, there must be an INFALLIBLE way to determine whether an event is an act of God, or whether an event is merely the random behavior of the cosmos. Otherwise we'd only be speculating.

Now, it is my estimation that this requirement puts restrictions on the type of God we can study (scientifically, that is). If it turns out that the real God is NOT the type that we can study, well, then we're just out of luck, scientifically speaking. If the real God IS the type of God that we can study, then all we are waiting for is the technology and method to study him scientifically...

However, almost all concepts of God require him to have a "personality" in the sense that we appear to have- making unpredictable CHOICES. And if the real God is such, well, then God probably CANNOT be quantified scientifically (because God having freewill adds to the already daunting problem of God being spiritual...). But if God happens to be nothing but the UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF ALL CREATION... then if and when we ever come up with the elusive "Theory of Everything," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) we would be capable of understanding God... and in fact we ARE studying and quantifying it/him/whatever- <insert Holy pro-noun> right now...

[lazserus]

That was a good response, Cartesiantheater. You approached both sides logically and were able to support and deny on both ends. That's a difficult thing to do, so my hat is off to you.

I'm not going to get too involved in this discussion just yet, because I feel GGTMK has more to share. I'm particularly interested in what he has to say about entropy. Another thing that is kind of interesting is that GGTMK chose gravity as an analogy, it being attractive yet the WEAKEST of all the forces. Why not use the strong force or the electromagnetic force? Of the four interactive forces, all of which attract, why choose the weakest?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Clearly in order to truly understand God we must reexamine current understandings in relation to God and the only way to do that is to move from simplicity to complexity. The current definition of God is not philosophical at it's base but in deed mythological and requires a clear scientific (evidence based) refinement.

I can accept that, so long as you realize you've taken it upon yourself to give a clear, relevant definition of God.

But I gotta say - if you're talking about God as the force who controls emotions, that's fine. But if you're defining God as the emotions themselves, that seems kind of irrelevant to most people's definition of God.


Not to side step the issue, as this point is of eminent proportion but must be dealt with once clarity of the properties were are examining has been determine and then I will deal with this issue and it's relation to entropy.

Perfectly fine.


The answer is quite obvious it is jealousy, this simple action of desiring to have something that someone else has. The anger is not directed at the person who is joyful per say but at a persons own feelings of inadequacy.

I'm not sure I can agree. Admittedly, I don't have first-hand experience here, but based on what I've seen, it really does seem more like simple frustration that someone else won't keep quiet or back off a little.


You have mentioned tactless and direct but these could better be attributed to assertive and confident

Admittedly, that's true. And admittedly, I only enjoy those traits if they're tempered by honesty and perception. But it seems to me that there's no negative emotion that cannot be described by a positive counterpoint. Violence becomes passion, greed becomes focus, stubbornness becomes willpower.

So if one person sees someone as being stubborn, and is repulsed, and another person sees that person as willful, and is drawn in, doesn't that make the emotions subjective? And if emotions are subjective, how could they be defined by an outside source, i.e. God?


So clearly then it is quantifiable?

To a point. I do think you can tell when one person is more loving than another, but it's such a shifting thing, defined by timing and societal norms, you can't exactly slap it on a chart.


All of the statements that you have made make a case for the elimination of conditions, that is clearly expressing our desire to see these attributes show towards us no matter what our own actions are. It does not matter how bad I treat you, you must be willing to be loving, generous and patient that is the essence of what you are stating. One the other hand we do a flip flop when it comes to how we treat others. eg) if you are not loving towards me then I do not have to be loving towards you.

That's very true. I think most people realize it's a two way street, and that if you act like a jerk, people aren't likely to be nice in return. That being said, there's really no level of "badness" you can hit where you don't want people being nice to you. No matter how bad things get, you want people to respect you. (Excluding self-punishment, but, well, y'know.)


This is more than a safe bet, it is the very fabric of our existence.

Not necessarily. Some people see positive emotions as an opportuinty to screw someone over. And then you have codependant relationships where one person tries to put positive emotions into a relationship, and the other person feeds off that energy. Both are cases of people trying to do good things which have bad ends.


The question is to the root of that ability to overcome?

Perhaps, but God isn't necessarily needed for that ability. The atheist believes we were the creation of millenia of evolution designed to help us survive - we have an age-old mindset of pushing through trouble and trying to reach high ground. That tendency doesn't have to be of divine origin.

[Perfectionist]

Latest theory suggests that Gravity is at the very least as powerful as the other forces and most likely stronger ...... only difference being that Gravity exerts its effect through many different dimensions - so it appears in our dimension to be weak etc

Maybe God is out there ...... just spread very thinly !! :alcoholic

[Assassin X]

I know this would be silly for someone to say but you can't "prove" god exists. Thats the whole point, if you knew he existed and seen evidence of his existense you wouldn't try and lead a moral and good life....etc yadda yadda. Not that we would live any better lives now or in that situation but with no proof he exists we are forced to try even harder because we aren't really sure and its blind faith.

If we seen he existed then there would be no sense in living "moral and good" lives. We could screw around and just be like "Eh, I knows hes real so its not like I need to worry about it".

[jeffweeder]

QUOTE ASSASSIN
if you knew he existed and seen evidence of his existense you wouldn't try and lead a moral and good life....etc yadda yadda.
WTH
If you wouldnt do it then, ha, there's absolutely no hope for you at all. I think the reason that he is a little in the dark, is to find out what really makes us tick,- for us to know what really makes us tick.
I really cant understand for the life of me why you just made that post


If we seen he existed then there would be no sense in living "moral and good" lives. We could screw around and just be like "Eh, I knows hes real so its not like I need to worry about it".




WHAT, werent you ever taught not to play with matches....

You mean to tell me, that once he's obvious, youve got no need to worry if you screw around and there's no need or point.
you would be 10000000,0000000000 times more guilty ,than the person who did what -ever in ignorance.

gasps-
I'm going to bed now, oh the pain , the pain



I know this would be silly for someone to say

OH, thank God for that

[Assassin X]

Well I just can't explain it. From a non christian view its easy to kind of mock what I just said. But its harder to explain what I am getting at.

In a more "child like" explanation. People will have to be on there best behavior if they didn't know existed, like they are now (well christians anyways), not that we are perfect, even though most don't admit it. But if we knew he was real, as in he showed himself to us (sounds nasty), some christians wouldn't the urge to "work" as hard to be their best as a christian.

Example:
If you were offered a job that said "You will get paid an infinite amount of money when you are finished" yet theres is no proof that you are going to get that money. So you are doing it on faith alone.

But if were working hard at a job because you know theres a check at the end of the week because you were already shown that check you may tend to slack off or take longer breaks...etc.

Same thing kinda. We work harder hoping (well believing hes real) for our reward (call it that) at the end. If we knew there was a god and seen him then we might slack on our faith to him and what we do because we see no the reward already (well part of it).

[jeffweeder]

[QUOTE]. But if we knew he was real, as in he showed himself to us (sounds nasty), some christians wouldn't the urge to "work" as hard to be their best as a christian.

I would say you have it back to front.
By not seeing (faith) we do the things we think we ought to do, because we believe it. but your saying ,as soon as he becomes obvious, we will lose the motivation, to do the things we did by faith... this is spiritual suicide. If you really really really knew he was there,you would not need faith, and it would be easier to follow him. You will know with more assurity what will happen if you dont.


If we knew there was a god and seen him then we might slack on our faith to him and what we do because we see no the reward already (well part of it).


because you see it to be true, enables you to have faith in it in the first place. Who puts his faith in something that he doesnt believe in?
Shouldnt make any difference, as you should already believe he's real- this is why faith is either strong or weak or dead.- depending upon how much of it you believe, and its effect on your reality.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Thank-you Philosopher Foelhe for taking the time to challenge the points that I have brought forth,

My apologies for taking so long to reply but will try to continue as time allows.

I can accept that, so long as you realize you've taken it upon yourself to give a clear, relevant definition of God.

Yes this is the challenge that stands before us all.


But I gotta say - if you're talking about God as the force who controls emotions, that's fine. But if you're defining God as the emotions themselves, that seems kind of irrelevant to most people's definition of God.

This is the starting point in the process that of removing the veil which has hidden the beauty of God from being seen by all of humanity. The veil that I am speaking of is false understanding of exactly how one defines God. This is a process of redefining one's understanding of the image of God and how man was created in that image.

The relevance of this will become clearer and clearer as we continue to examine our own attractions and repulsions.


I'm not sure I can agree. Admittedly, I don't have first-hand experience here, but based on what I've seen, it really does seem more like simple frustration that someone else won't keep quiet or back off a little.

To truly understand this a person has to be willing to honestly examine their own reactions and understand their motivations.


Admittedly, that's true. And admittedly, I only enjoy those traits if they're tempered by honesty and perception. But it seems to me that there's no negative emotion that cannot be described by a positive counterpoint. Violence becomes passion, greed becomes focus, stubbornness becomes willpower.

The scaling of these as positive or negative is determined by the motivation of the person that is acting.


So if one person sees someone as being stubborn, and is repulsed, and another person sees that person as willful, and is drawn in, doesn't that make the emotions subjective? And if emotions are subjective, how could they be defined by an outside source, i.e. God?

The subjective part is defined in comparison to a persons maturity in parallel to varying gravitational forces of celestial bodies. The greater the maturity or increased movement from conditional to unconditional, the more defined the scale becomes. Thus moving from questional definition to a point of clarity or commonly accounted as a movement towards perfection. If God is defined as the most mature of all these examples then God is ultimate perfection.


To a point. I do think you can tell when one person is more loving than another, but it's such a shifting thing, defined by timing and societal norms, you can't exactly slap it on a chart.

While it is possible to define on a very complex chart, it is not necessary to do this for this is not about comparing people but of understanding our own reactions to things and creating an opportunity for our own growth and maturity.


That's very true. I think most people realize it's a two way street, and that if you act like a jerk, people aren't likely to be nice in return. That being said, there's really no level of "badness" you can hit where you don't want people being nice to you. No matter how bad things get, you want people to respect you. (Excluding self-punishment, but, well, y'know.)

What you have just defined is Justice, not in terms of a societal understanding but as defined by God. God has defined Justice as giving more than a person deserves and this is clearly see within our own reflective desire. No matter how poorly we treat someone else we have an expectation that if that person is a just person they will forgive us, even though many times we can not forgive ourselves.


Not necessarily. Some people see positive emotions as an opportuinty to screw someone over. And then you have codependant relationships where one person tries to put positive emotions into a relationship, and the other person feeds off that energy. Both are cases of people trying to do good things which have bad ends.

These both are examples of immaturity on the part of one of the individuals in the relationship.


Perhaps, but God isn't necessarily needed for that ability. The atheist believes we were the creation of millenia of evolution designed to help us survive - we have an age-old mindset of pushing through trouble and trying to reach high ground. That tendency doesn't have to be of divine origin.

The evidence shows that this is a clear part of our make up as you have clearly shown, the next step is to present further evidence of the origin and it's relation to our creator.

This ability ties in directly to the very purpose of the existence of man and is what sets man apart from everything else that exists in this world of creation.

[Godsgifttomankind]

In order to prove the existence of God requires a clear definition of God and the elimination of erroneous understandings. This is one and part of the same process, this process also needs to be scientific at it's base. Using clear and unquestionable evidence.

In order to do this we must extricate ourselves from the standard that has been used to define God in the past which is the use of miracles. This is not to say that God is not capable of using miracles, it is only saying that miracles are only relevant to those that are witness to the event and thus become very questionable.

What we will use is physical evidence that will clearly show the existence of God.

We will examine history.

We will examine as many of the sciences as it is possible.

We will use mathematics

And last but not least we will use theology.

In our process we will connect all of scriptures that belong to the religions of the world, as well as bringing forth many ancient religions that no longer have any adherents.

When we examine all of this evidence we will have consumed one drop in the ocean of understanding, we will just have started to thirst for the Word of God.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

So, let's roll. What's taking so long? You've given us two posts about what's going to be discussed in the topic, so let's get on with discussing it.

[Beatnik Bob]

He either wants to be an elder or get people to forget what the hell this whole thread was about anyway.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Entropy vs God

When a system's energy is defined as the sum of its "useful" energy, (e.g. that used to push a piston), and its "useless energy", i.e. that energy which cannot be used for external work, then entropy may be (most concretely) visualized as the "scrap" or "useless" energy whose energetic prevalence over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the considered system, as is the case with the Gibbs free energy or Helmholtz free energy relations.
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)

Entropy is defined as the amount of chaos within a system or the movement from order to disorder

God is the unifying force that makes order from chaos.

I have made this bold statement and now will follow with a presentation of exactly how this is done but first we must understand the medium by which this process is able to happen.

My focus at this point is going to be upon man himself and his relation to knowledge and ignorance, the force of entropy that moves man in the direction away from knowledge towards ignorance with a determination of the force that propels in the direction of knowledge and understanding which I will conclusively prove that force to be God.

1) Man left to his own devises is overcome by the forces of disintegration, corruption erodes the basis of understanding and chaos takes over.

2) God acts bringing unity where no one believed that unity could be achieved.

The means by which this process is achieved is through the use of an educator, an educator that has all knowledge and understanding, an educator that is a manifestation of God (that is in the image of God).

Namedly a Messenger of God.

How do we know that he is a messenger of God and not just a man that desires for power and authority?

According to the New Testament

6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

(King James Bible, Luke)

One of the fruits is the power of unity and the ability to bring together peoples of diverse knowledge and understanding, this is done through the reconciling and clarification of previous teachings based upon abundant proofs and evidences.

God has done this many times through the previous ages and each time that God has acted he has given the people something to remember the covenant that he made with them, it was the means by which God could prove to the descendants of every one of those covenants that he would do what he had promised in the beginning and to prove the authenticity of the educator that he sent to man.

To Noah he gave the rainbow that his followers could be reminded of the teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.

To Abraham he gave the Menorah as a remembrance of the way that things were done in heaven.

To the Israelites seven days of Manna from heaven.

To Christ was given the Revelation through his servant John and the teachings of the Seven Churches.

To Mohammed the knowledge of the seven heavens.

In this day we have been blessed with a double serving of knowledge and understanding that has quickened the whole of mankind.

Man is being educated at a rate never seen in our recorded history and yet can any one identify the time and source of this advancement?

There are many that have come to understand small pieces of this phenomenal evidence and yet the greatest of evidences is yet to unfold before the eyes of men.


We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem Us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment.... That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled -- what harm is there in this?... Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most Great Peace' shall come.... Yet do We see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasures more freely on means for the destruction of the human race than on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind.... These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family.... Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind.... ix

(Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah)

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I have made this bold statement and now will follow with a presentation of exactly how this is done

No. A presentation doesn't prove anything, it merely further explores a theory. You have made this bold statement, now follow it with an explanation of why it has to be this way. That's proof.

[lady-t]

every time i walk outside and see the dew on the spiderweb and grass, or see the frost on the windshield, or see a rainbow, or a new baby or any wondrous thing like that I KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS

there are millions of small miracles everyday if you just look for them take off the blinders and really see.

god gave us free will to what end i am not sure but he gave us that, we change the world with every little decision or path that we take. i am positive the destination will be the same, it is the journey that counts.

i heard that somewhere, don't remember where. but it is sooooo true.

the next time you make a decision, no matter how small, think about how it really affects your life with god. actually think about it, you may not change what you originally decided, but then again you might.

[Assassin X]

Theres needs to be no proof of god:


"So why all the secrecy? Why doesn't God just come down and show Himself?"

Christians believe He will. Are you sure you want Him to?

When He does, the game will be over, the world will be over. As C.S. Lewis said, once the author walks onto the stage, the play has ended. Whatever you think about a creator or a god, if He is the same one who caused the Big Bang, His personal appearance here would utterly obliterate any idea of reality we may once have had.

There certainly would no longer be any real moral decisions on our end; we wouldn't dare hook up with a prostitute with God's blinding light glaring down through the window. There would be no test of your character, there would be no freedom, you would literally have no personality. You would be a quivering mass of awe.

To be a good man in such a world would be like having thirty cops follow you 24 hours a day, and then you boasting that you didn't commit any crimes. The true determination of what kind of person you are comes when the authorities aren't around. Man's moral and spiritual worth can't be tested until God leaves the room. Christians believe that is precisely why God has removed Himself from our five senses.

"But God speaking from the heavens, pillars of fire, oceans parting, that stuff happened all the time in Old Testament times."

No, it didn't. While God was speaking to Moses from the bush that was one man. The other millions of people on Earth at that moment were not hearing God speak from a bush.

The Bible chronicles that event because its important, but you should not take it to mean it was an everyday thing. The story in the Old Testament is of a series of miraculous events brought by God to establish himself in a world that had forgotten him. While those events were happening, everyone else - millions - were living the same mundane life you live today. They were not hearing from God three times a week as a matter of routine. These events were odd, once-in-a-planet's-lifetime events.

The awesome sensory experience that is produced from even a vague brush with God is the one tool God can use only sparingly. Remember, you have to follow him with your own free will. If He crashes in on you, sends you prone to the ground stunned and blinded by His light, you would have lost your free will. That's not what God wants. He wants you to follow him on your own feet.

Think of it this way. Say you're a guy who has fallen in love with a girl, but she's already in a relationship with a guy who beats her. Because you love her, you both want her to be with you and you want her out of that abusive relationship. You know this guy is going to kill her eventually.

How do you go about it? Do you put a gun to her head and force her to marry you? That hardly accomplishes your purpose; the moment you turn your back she can just run back to this other guy. No, you want her to come to you on her own, to love you on her own free will. This way is the harder way, but it is also the only way to really accomplish what you want.

It's much the same with God. Our relationship with this world and Satan is like the abusive boyfriend, our relationship with God is like the happy marriage. God can turn us away from evil by force or sheer terror, but we wouldn't really have learned anything. We wouldn't have matured. We wouldn't really love Him, we wouldn't really be good.

But all that said, if you become a Christian you'll get your evidence of God. You won't get it 24 hours a day and what you get you may not like, but you'll have it. But it's due to the unique arrangement described above that you have to believe first before you get the proof.

"All those corrupt preachers... all those false religions and cults with their greed and abuse and sacrifices and suicides in the name of God... why hasn't God stepped in to refute them? It's an evil God who would just let them do their thing.

Do you need God to tell you that a religion that includes mass suicide is a bad one? You see a cult where the leader says one of God's rules is that said leader gets free sex with all the female members, young and old, and you need God to tell you what's wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but God has given you all the tools you need to make that decision for yourself. If a charismatic man rises up and proclaims that the key to spiritual happiness is killing all Mexicans, it's up to us to refute him. You have to use the brain that God gave you.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Assassin X and thank-you for sharing some very amazing thoughts,

Theres needs to be no proof of god:

The finality of the argument does not add up to your preliminary statement.

Let us look and see what it is that I mean.


But all that said, if you become a Christian you'll get your evidence of God. You won't get it 24 hours a day and what you get you may not like, but you'll have it. But it's due to the unique arrangement described above that you have to believe first before you get the proof.

Believe first then get the proof?


I'm sorry, but God has given you all the tools you need to make that decision for yourself. If a charismatic man rises up and proclaims that the key to spiritual happiness is killing all Mexicans, it's up to us to refute him. You have to use the brain that God gave you.

When do you use the brain that God gave you?

After you believe to understand the proof or to understand the proof so that you can believe.

Your other arguments are excellent and show an affinity to making choices based upon evidence, judging between right and wrong, good and bad but at this point you fall flat.

Christ says that those that have ears to hear and eyes to see but what is it that a person should be listening for or trying to see?

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello All and thank-you for joining us in this discussion,

Today's evidence will be presented by one of the greatest scholars of the second millennium, Sir Isaac Newton.


The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts and almost in the same plan. Ten Moons are revolv'd about the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those Planets. But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions: since the Comets range over all parts of the heavens, in very eccentric orbits. For by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbits of the Planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detain'd the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being form'd by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems. And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God Pantokrator[2], or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually a [3] signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a Living, Intelligent, and Powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is Supreme or most Perfect. He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite; he is not Duration and Space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is every where present; and, by existing always and every where, he constitutes Duration and Space. Since every particle of Space is always, and every indivisible moment of Duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent, not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him b [3] are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. 'Tis allowed by all that the supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, not touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known, either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds; much less then have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion. For we adore him as his servants; and a God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build. For all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind, by a certain similitude which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. [5]

Hitherto we have explain'd the phænomena of the heavens and of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assign'd the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the Sun and Planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates, not according to the quantity of surfaces of the particles upon which it acts, (as mechanical causes use to do,) but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides, to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances. Gravitation towards the Sun, is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the Sun is compos'd; and in receding from the Sun, decreases accurately in the duplicate proportion of the distances, as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelions of the Planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelions of the Comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc'd from the phænomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr'd from the phænomena, and afterwards render'd general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit, which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit, the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explain'd in few words, nor are we furnish'd with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates.

[gordon]

The reason WHY people ask this Question, is because people do not have faith, those people belive only what they belive in. Is There A God?... Let me explain to you, or let me answer you this... The Bible... Ok. Most people have read the Bible, or have they? I know I have. This only appears once and only once in the bible, but not nowhere in the Internet. A page in the Bible where Jesus is talking to somebody about a "Secret Witness". Within the Bible it explains about God's offical two witness's, but there _IS_ a third witness. The third witness I am talking about is this "Secret Witness". I ask anybody outthere, if they do know who he is and what is the secret meaning of the "Secret Witness". Please, I ask if anybody does know...Thanks For Reading.

[lycanox]

Faith is enough if you keep your religion for yourself. If you want too follow its rules and teachings.

However if you want to make decisions that also impact other people. And especially those that don't follow your religions.
Its understandable that you need to present more than just faith.

[gordon]

Religion is beliving in people, faith is beliving in God. I do not belive in religion, I only belive in God.

[lycanox]

In that case. The way you personally believe in god would be your personal religion/spirituality.

[cmar1965]

The reason WHY people ask this Question, is because people do not have faith, those people belive only what they belive in. Is There A God?... Let me explain to you, or let me answer you this... The Bible... Ok. Most people have read the Bible, or have they? I know I have. This only appears once and only once in the bible, but not nowhere in the Internet. A page in the Bible where Jesus is talking to somebody about a "Secret Witness". Within the Bible it explains about God's offical two witness's, but there _IS_ a third witness. The third witness I am talking about is this "Secret Witness". I ask anybody outthere, if they do know who he is and what is the secret meaning of the "Secret Witness". Please, I ask if anybody does know...Thanks For Reading.

Are you referring to the passage in John, Gordon?

gordon wrote:
Religion is beliving in people, faith is beliving in God. I do not belive in religion, I only belive in God.

That is a rock and a hard place comment Gordon as without religion, there would be no concept of "god" for individuals to claim faith in in the first place.

::p:

[gordon]

Thanks Cmar1965, because I had to put my thinking cap on to try at my best to answer. When Jesus and his Disciples were in the boat and the boat was rocking side to side because of the storm, the disciples wokeup Jesus... Remember what Jesus said to his disciples?...

That is a rock and a hard place comment Gordon as without religion, there would be no concept of "god" for individuals to claim faith in the first place.

If people were to have faith in God, they would need to belive in a form of a christian religion?

Wow...Look at all the christian religions that are outthere...If somebody, people was to belive in religion to belive in God, then wouldn't there be thousands and thousands of Gods for all those thousands and thousands of christian religions?

I do belive there IS the Almighty God and Jesus, who are within the Kingdom of God.
(I do belive-"know" 100&#37; that the Almighty God and Jesus is within the Kingdom of God)...

[gordon]

And thanks to Lycanox, the Global Moderator.

[cmar1965]

Thanks Cmar1965, because I had to put my thinking cap on to try at my best to answer. When Jesus and his Disciples were in the boat and the boat was rocking side to side because of the storm, the disciples wokeup Jesus... Remember what Jesus said to his disciples?...

Paraphrasing. here "why are you still afraid...don't you have faith"...etc

The 'secret witness" is jesus... (obviously that is my interperative take).



gordon wrote:
If people were to have faith in God, they would need to belive in a form of a christian religion?

It they call themselves christians and have faith in the "god" of christianity? Well then .. yes...


Wow...Look at all the christian religions that are outthere...If somebody, people was to belive in religion to belive in God, then wouldn't there be thousands and thousands of Gods for all those thousands and thousands of christian religions?

no because christianity is based purely on the christian taughtology of jesus being the son of christianity's "god". Islam and Judaism also have the same "god"(father) figure, it is just their prophet of choice changes the slant of "faith".



I do belive there IS the Almighty God and Jesus, who are within the Kingdom of God.
(I do belive-"know" 100% that the Almighty God and Jesus is within the Kingdom of God)...

well bully for you Gordon and if that is what floats your boat, then fine and dandy. It still remains however that your faith/belief is based purely on religious taughtology. The simple fact you had to read the bible to be taught about jesus and the "almighty", confirms this.

:cool03:

[gordon]

Paraphrasing. here "why are you still afraid...don't you have faith"...etc
The 'secret witness" is jesus... (obviously that is my interperative take).

Jesus was and is not a witness. Jesus is the King of Kings...When Heaven returns to this world the Almighty God then will let his son Jesus to be "ruler" of the Kingdom.


well bully for you Gordon and if that is what floats your boat, then fine and dandy. It still remains however that your faith/belief is based purely on religious taughtology. The simple fact you had to read the bible to be taught about jesus and the "almighty", confirms this.

I never had to, or be forced to read the Bible and the other versions of the Bible. The "secret" is not me in "this life", it was, and is, the "secret" was me being in the Kingdom of God. What happened, happened, if _any_ "info" about what happened to me when I was there, the infomation is to powerful for any human to understand. If a psychic just happen to "see", then I could beable to share the knowledge.

Thanks for reading and responding, Cmar1965.

[cmar1965]

Jesus was and is not a witness. Jesus is the King of Kings...When Heaven returns to this world the Almighty God then will let his son Jesus to be "ruler" of the Kingdom.

I see you want to go the interpretative route here Gordon. so be it. IF you look at the scriptures another way, jesus would actually be the ONLY witness as his 'faith' is the only one(faith) that did not wane, fade, even in the face of cruxifiction. Others wanted proof - he however, never did.




I never had to, or be forced to read the Bible and the other versions of the Bible.

Which version of the bible do you hold as "THE" one holding specific "truth"? I ask as you wrote 'and other versions of..."

I also did not say anyone forced you to read the bible, no matter which version, however the only concept OF jesus being "king of kings", et al, comes from the New Testament and obviously revelations is a "pet" book of yours to mention jesus allegedly being "king of kings" in the first place.

I do have to ask though, where does Artaxerses and Nebuchadnezzer fathom into your claimed decisiveness? They were also named "king of kings" long before the NT was ever written.::p:


The "secret" is not me in "this life", it was, and is, the "secret" was me being in the Kingdom of God.

Interesting Gordon. Have you done past life regressions to know this?


What happened, happened, if _any_ "info" about what happened to me when I was there, the infomation is to powerful for any human to understand. If a psychic just happen to "see", then I could beable to share the knowledge.

Or perhaps you are talking about DNE? :dunno:


Thanks for reading and responding, Cmar1965.

You are welcome Gordon and thank you for your replies. christianity used to be my life, until I decided to actually GET one! lol :cool03:

[RobertRogers]

God has always been the answer to things we cannot explain. But that does not mean there is a God, only mankinds interpretation of what God might be. And this changes as mans understanding of the universe changes.

Today's God is tomorrows pagan belief. It has been that way throughout human history.

[gordon]

The "secret" is not me in "this life", it was, and is, the "secret" was me being in the Kingdom of God.

Interesting Gordon. Have you done past life regressions to know this?

No, and besides I do not belive in past life. How do I know? Maybe I was there, died and re:lived type of thing.

[cmar1965]

No, and besides I do not belive in past life. How do I know? Maybe I was there, died and re:lived type of thing.

Your reply was contradictory. If you don't believe in past life, how could you have possibly died and now re-live?

Also you neglected to state which version of the bible is your "chosen" version?

No comment on Artaxerses and Nebuchadnezzer also being named "king of Kings"?

[cmar1965]

God has always been the answer to things we cannot explain. But that does not mean there is a God, only mankinds interpretation of what God might be. And this changes as mans understanding of the universe changes.

Today's God is tomorrows pagan belief. It has been that way throughout human history.

Very well said, Robert Rogers and probably one of the sanest things I have seen written in the religious section of this board.

[gordon]

Your reply was contradictory. If you don't believe in past life, how could you have possibly died and now re-live?

Something happened with me that cause me to die. What happened with me that is a "Secret". Cmar1965, if you really want to know or not, send me a provate message, then I could tell you.

[cmar1965]

Hi Gordon,

I have carked it too and told people of it on here..somewhere...(I have over 700 posts up my sleeve so it is in the AO abyss now..lol)

If you want me to know what happened, you PM me, ok?

It is your info to share with whom you choose to hon.


Umm... you didn't answer my other questions though. They CAN be dealt with in public though, right?

[gordon]

Umm... you didn't answer my other questions though. They CAN be dealt with in public though, right?

Sorry, I do not know what you mean by that comment. And No, I can not remember which "version" of the Bible it was in.

[cmar1965]

Well you were going on about jesus being "king of kings" however 2 other people held that title in the bible as well. That being the case, what makes you think jesus is THE "king of kings" (as in one and only) as described in revelations.


Also, I didn't ask you which version of the bible something was specifically in, I asked you which version of the bible (as in KJV, NIV, HOLMAN..etc) do you prefer to read as to your "guidance"?

[gordon]

Also, I didn't ask you which version of the bible something was specifically in, I asked you which version of the bible (as in KJV, NIV, HOLMAN..etc) do you prefer to read as to your "guidance"?

Oh. I try and read the older versions. I feel that the newer versions of the Bible are somewhat (insert word here). I do not really read the Bibles for any guidance, I only read em' because of the Information that is written. I also love reading about "revelations" in the Bible-s. Because I listen to newsradio. I like to know about what is happening, the doom and gloom...One of the reasons why I joined 'AO'.

[Cyranothe2nd]

I think that the real question is "What is the need for a God?"
Why do we need to believe in God? What purpose does it serve?
I believe that, like someone else said, "God" is what we call whatever it is that we don't understand. In ancient times 'whatever it is we don't understand' was a lot of things and so the need for a god was apparent. Additionally, gods serve the purpose of social control by priests, kings (who can proclaim that the rule by "divine right") and other authority figures.
But in a modern world, where many of these mysteries have been explained, what do we need a god for? What purpose does god serve?

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Cyranothe2nd and thank-you for your observations and questions,

I think that the real question is "What is the need for a God?"

This is most likely the most thought provoking question that we can ask.

Is belief in God a rational matter or irrational?

If the answer is irrational then it needs to be rejected!


Why do we need to believe in God?

If we ask why do we believe in gravity? The answer is self evident and easily presented, the same can be said of God, when the evidence is presented in a valid format. If it is not presented in a valid format then it must be rejected.


What purpose does it serve?

In understanding the very purpose and order of all that surrounds us.


I believe that, like someone else said, "God" is what we call whatever it is that we don't understand. In ancient times 'whatever it is we don't understand' was a lot of things and so the need for a god was apparent.

What you are speaking of is mythology and it is also equivalent to pseudo-science.


Additionally, gods serve the purpose of social control by priests, kings (who can proclaim that the rule by "divine right") and other authority figures.

Tyrannical leadership in the name of God has tarnished the true governing nature of our creator! This type of leadership is a reflection of the desires of the men in control and an aberration of the Law of God.


But in a modern world, where many of these mysteries have been explained, what do we need a god for? What purpose does god serve?

While it is true that modern understanding has uncovered many of the mysteries of the world around us, the mystery of God is yet to be fully uncovered. God is the supreme governor, the most righteous arbitrator. We need His teachings and His understandings to take this world of calamity and deprivation and reform it into a place of safety, security, peace and harmony. This can only be done through the process of free choice, that every person recognizes and chooses to do that which is best for the betterment of the world at large. God is the instrument of this rebirth, He is the educator, the counselor, the physician and friend to the whole of humanity. God has placed before the whole of humanity a cornucopius table of knowledge and understanding, that has just begun to transform the world that we live in.

To truly understand the truth about God, it is incumbent upon each and every person to examine the evidence that is presented for the existence of God and eliminate that evidence which is incredulous.

How man chooses to believe in God is just as relevant as how we view scientific understanding, if there is error then the evidence will show it to be so.

[Cartesiantheater]

Latest theory suggests that Gravity is at the very least as powerful as the other forces and most likely stronger ...... only difference being that Gravity exerts its effect through many different dimensions - so it appears in our dimension to be weak etc

Maybe God is out there ...... just spread very thinly !! :alcoholic

Good thing this was bumped, because this post and the previous one by Perf are together hilarious, and yet they ring of possible truth.

Very nice.

[Cyranothe2nd]

While it is true that modern understanding has uncovered many of the mysteries of the world around us, the mystery of God is yet to be fully uncovered. God is the supreme governor, the most righteous arbitrator. We need His teachings and His understandings to take this world of calamity and deprivation and reform it into a place of safety, security, peace and harmony. This can only be done through the process of free choice, that every person recognizes and chooses to do that which is best for the betterment of the world at large. God is the instrument of this rebirth, He is the educator, the counselor, the physician and friend to the whole of humanity. God has placed before the whole of humanity a cornucopius table of knowledge and understanding, that has just begun to transform the world that we live in.

To truly understand the truth about God, it is incumbent upon each and every person to examine the evidence that is presented for the existence of God and eliminate that evidence which is incredulous.

How man chooses to believe in God is just as relevant as how we view scientific understanding, if there is error then the evidence will show it to be so.

Who said that God is the arbiter and governor? How do I see that in the natural world? Isn't it just as easy to believe that the world exists because of natural processes? What need is there for a God in that?
For that matter, why do I need a God to be moral? Can't I just say to myself, "If I do this it will hurt other people and that is not good for society so therefore I should not do this"?
You speak of God as a councilor and friend. If this is the case I have not seen it--People kill each other over their different interpretations of God and for many like myself, he simply doesn't exist.
I just fail to see the need or use for God. And I have yet to see any evidence that presents a rational argument for the existance of God.

[Cartesiantheater]

God is and always will be a matter of faith. Now, GGTMK , on the other hand, can look at a tree and say "Lo! It is God!" and claim he has found "evidence." But really, you can't argue with someone who interprets everything he sees as a validation of his/her preconceived beliefs. In order to accept GGTMK's proof of God, we would have to change what we consider "real" evidence.




Sorry GGTMK, but if you're going to prove God to us, you have to do it on our terms. If there is no way to tell an act of nature from an act of God, then there is no way to tell if God exists. Since nature is fully capable of pseudo-design, I'd say the task is rather large. By what mechanism can you in principle prove the existence of God?

[James Random]

If you proved god existed, he wouldn't. God said that proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. So, by proving he exists he would immediately cease to exist.


Just thought i'd throw that little joke in.

[Cartesiantheater]

Isn't that from Douglass Adams? You know, the part where God spontaneously pops out of existence?

[James Random]

Yup.

But makes some kind of twisted sense.

[Cyranothe2nd]

Isn't that from Douglass Adams? You know, the part where God spontaneously pops out of existence?

LOL, Love Adams.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
~Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

[teray2009]

The only thing I can say that there is God is that we have this life and everything we can see are the proof that God exist in this world.