Define God?!...........

[look3467]

I think the more appropriate for us humans is:
-Tell me who you are and I will tell you who your friend is.
-I am the millionnaire
-And I am your friend.

:color:

I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of my soul, my Redeemer, comfortor, my Mighty counselor, my Refuge, my Rock, and my friend.

Now.........................................................are you my friend?

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Chukcha]

I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of my soul, my Redeemer, comfortor, my Mighty counselor, my Refuge, my Rock, and my friend.

Now.........................................................are you my friend?

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

Do you want me to be?
Having friends is a hard task, remember that, I am very demanding as a friend, so that you are aware of that:wave:

 

[L Gilbert]

I cannot help it if people choose to ignore the facts available in the theory of evolution. That's their choice. But to have faith in something that there is no evidence of makes their position just that much more inane after stating they don't believe in the tangible. It's absolutely hilarious.
BTW (which is short for By The Way, whoever asked), I did answer the original question of how this fantasy could be defined. The Christian god is a figment of an imagination, a fantasy, a fiction, a construct of man. It is no more real than elves and faeries and gnomes. That is why it always seems to have human attributes; jealousy, rage, love, etc. They are all human qualities. If you add up all the facts (such as that there are no substantiating facts, no corroborative evidence, etc.), circumstantial evidence, plus the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, there is only one conclusion a rational person can make: that there is no such things as deities except in the minds of humans.
Um, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote one time in a Sherlock Holmes tale, "We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. " and, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

 

[L Gilbert]

BTW, here is what the scientific method is:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

- http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method
and

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories


Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

- http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

So, belief that deities exist is at the very most, a hypothesis. (And that's being quite generous).

 

[Chukcha]

BTW (which is short for By The Way, whoever asked), I did answer the original question of how this fantasy could be defined.

Sorry, but I didn't expect the answser, I expected the evidence. Another idea of some sort of probability is not good enough. If you don't have anything else except trying to show off as a smartie, bullying the opposition with your answers, then I am not ready to continue this conversation with u, post it further as you please, try harder, it might be interesting for some

 

[L Gilbert]

Sorry, but I didn't expect the answser, I expected the evidence. Another idea of some sort of probability is not good enough. If you don't have anything else except trying to show off as a smartie, bullying the opposition with your answers, then I am not ready to continue this conversation with u, post it further as you please, try harder, it might be interesting for some

Well, if you expect the evidence say so instead of asking for definitions. You won't get any evidence because there's none to get in support of deities.
I'm not showing off, I'm trying to explain things, and am certainly not bullying anyone. If people prefer to remain lodged firmly in their ignorance, it's up to them. If they like to learn, I can provide a lot of data.
Anyway, try this before asking someone to prove negatives:

The Unbelievability of Christian Theism

Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, and thus it is as easily disproven as the alien in the bathtub. For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false. Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features--animals thrive by survival of the fittest, not survival of the kindest, and the laws of physics are no respecter of persons, they treat the good man and the bad man equally. Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord, and there are no messages or features of a linguistic nature anywhere in its extra-human composition or behavior, such as we would expect if a thinking person had designed it and wanted to communicate with us.

Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence. They do this arbitrarily, and for no other reason than to save the proposed theory, by creating impassable barriers to observation, just as requiring us to look in every corner of every universe creates an impassable barrier for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement "there are big green Martians." For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them, just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around and inside me and otherwise capable of speaking to me plainly.
The problem is not, as some theists think, that we can find no explanations to "rationalize" a god in this world of hurt. I can imagine numerous gods who would be morally justified and even admirable, and others who would be neither evil nor good, and still others who are evil, but none of these would be the Christian god. The fact is that Christianity is the proposal of a theory, and like all theories, it entails predictions--but these predictions are not being born out. So Christians invent excuses to save the theory--excuses which have absolutely no basis in any evidence or inference, except the sole fact that they rescue the theory. This is Ptolemy's epicycles all over again: the motions of the planets and sun refused to fit the theory that they all revolve around the Earth, so Ptolemy invented numerous complex patterns of motion that had no particular reason to happen other than the fact that they rescue the theory of geocentricity. It is simply far wiser to conclude that instead of this monstrously complex and bizarre architecture of groundless saving suppositions, it makes far more sense, and uses far fewer suppositions, to simply admit that the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth after all. As for all the other theories--all the other possible gods--there is no more evidence for them than for this incredibly complex deity with a dozen strange and mysterious reasons that only too conveniently explain why we never observe him or his actions in any clear way. Of course, even these groundless "solutions" to the Christian 'theory' do not really save the theory, because, to maintain it, at some point you must abandon belief in God's omnipotence--since at every turn, God is forced to do something (to remain hidden and to wait before alleviating suffering, etc.) by some unknown feature of reality, and this entails that some feature of reality is more powerful than God. And this feature cannot merely be God's moral nature, since if that were his only limitation, there would then be no barrier to his speaking to me or acting immediately to alleviate suffering or designing the universe to have overtly moral or linguistic features, since any truly moral nature would compel, not prevent, such behavior. Thus, the Christian hypothesis is either incoherent or unprovable, and in the one case it is necessarily false, while in the other it lacks justification, so we have no reason to believe it, any more than we have a reason to believe that there is a big green Martian on some planet in some corner of some universe. This is what it means to "prove a negative."

- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

and

The claim "you can't prove a negative" is often used as a shorthand in discussions to refer to the difficulty of gathering experimental evidence to "prove" that something does not exist. Proving that a phenomenon isn't real takes a lot more time and effort than it takes to demonstrate it. This is especially true when the definition of the phenomenon can be changed at will by its believers. Its very difficult to prove the general non-existence of a phenomenon, and this difficulty is used by believers of many kinds of phenomena to give the appearance of credibility to their beliefs.

- http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/"You_Can't_Prove_a_Negative"

and

Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

- http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

 

[look3467]

Do you want me to be? Yes!
Having friends is a hard task, remember that, I am very demanding as a friend, so that you are aware of that:wave:

OKay!
A friend is defined by me: one that looks at the heart and soul of the individual and makes no determinations as to gender, race, religious or no religious belief.
But what that person is inside.

Jesus call me His friend, because He knows my heart.
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
That He did..............................for me!

Peace sister Chukcha>>>AJ:love9:

 

[look3467]

Gilbert always makes a good argument.
But still, does not know God as like I do. And until He does he is content with what he knows.
Only time and God, will determine which it shall be.

I would say that he is better agent employed for the opposition of Christianity, in that he exposes all the religious errors of Christianity and forces us to re-fine, re-tune and re-think our positions.

Unfortunately, I have already re-fined, re-tuned and re-thought all my views prior to meeting Gilbert.


And that is a good thing that I have, otherwise, in my former mind, I would have condemned him like all others to hell.

So, I can appreciate him, dexter and some other smarty's as well.

They just cause me to exercise more love and compassion.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Chukcha]

Well, if you expect the evidence say so instead of asking for definitions. You won't get any evidence because there's none to get in support of deities.

Oh my God!

Gilbert, Please read my posts before you spit out what I have said - OK,
<holding a hammer> you're making me really nervous now. :violent1:

 

[talloola]

Gilbert always makes a good argument.
But still, does not know God as like I do. And until He does he is content with what he knows.
Only time and God, will determine which it shall be.

I would say that he is better agent employed for the opposition of Christianity, in that he exposes all the religious errors of Christianity and forces us to re-fine, re-tune and re-think our positions.

Unfortunately, I have already re-fined, re-tuned and re-thought all my views prior to meeting Gilbert.


And that is a good thing that I have, otherwise, in my former mind, I would have condemned him like all others to hell.

So, I can appreciate him, dexter and some other smarty's as well.

They just cause me to exercise more love and compassion.

Gilbert does so much better than both you and I, as we are the same.
I "just' know, that there is no god, and you "just" know there is.
But he puts out solid evidence for my disbelief, have heard nothing solid from other side
at all.

 

[L Gilbert]

Oh my God!

Gilbert, Please read my posts before you spit out what I have said - OK,
<holding a hammer> you're making me really nervous now. :violent1:

???
Explain what I missed then, please.
Um, it would be futile to use a hammer on my noggin as it is made of the finest concrete available for an Irish noggin.

 

[Chukcha]

Gilbert does so much better than both you and I, as we are the same.
I "just' know, that there is no god, and you "just" know there is.
But he puts out solid evidence for my disbelief, have heard nothing solid from other side
at all.

That's just because you don't want to hear anything, but only Gilbert :laughing7:
And I honestly don't see more weight on his side, because there is no SOLID EVIDENCE at all.
So if you really wanted to know something else, you would have reasearch a bit, and came up with the same stuff, and would have said that there is more SOLID EVIDENCE on the other side.
It's really interesting to read comments of such smart people who know just about everything. You should just grab a microphone, come out on the streets and tell everyone on this planet your SOLID EVIDENCES, HURAY, Everyone, listen to the real answers, we will tell you. And no doubt everyone will drop their Bibles, Korans, Buddas etc, and will realise how simple it all was. :laughing7:

 

[Chukcha]

???
Explain what I missed then, please.
Um, it would be futile to use a hammer on my noggin as it is made of the finest concrete available for an Irish noggin.

Never mind.
Have to go now, my fridge is empty thanks to you.
Chao for now.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Unfortunately, I have already re-fined, re-tuned and re-thought all my views prior to meeting Gilbert.

And that is a good thing that I have, otherwise, in my former mind, I would have condemned him like all others to hell.

So, I can appreciate him, dexter and some other smarty's as well.

They just cause me to exercise more love and compassion.

Peace>>>AJ

Maybe people like me and Gilbert and "some other smarty's," whoever they are, should be grateful for that much at least. It's nice not to be condemned to Hell I suppose, and it's good that you're exercising love and compassion. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not grateful for that, really. Does it not occur to you that you might be wrong? Obviously Gilbert and I and "some other smarty's" think you--and many others, here and elsewhere--are wrong, and we've produced what seem to me to be pretty solid evidence and arguments against your position. In none of your posts have you presented any evidence for your beliefs except your feelings and your interpretations of them, and a whole lot of biblical citations that come from the same place in other people, the ones who wrote that document. All us "smarty's" are trying to do is point out that simpler explanations are possible and, other things being equal, simpler explanations are more likely to be correct.

For instance, there is no evidence you can point to that supports the existence of god that you can really share with me. It exists only inside your own head, or you might say your heart, but all I can get is your report on your interpretations of your feelings. I can see the same things that you do, like a gorgeous sunset or sunrise for instance (and I often do), and feel gratified by the experience, but I don't see the hand of god in it. I see physics: diffraction and Rayleigh scattering and atmospheric dust and particle sizes and the wavelengths of the visible radiation spectrum and how they're all connnected, and I find that my appreciation of the phenomenon is enhanced rather than diminished by my detailed knowledge of what I'm looking at. I've no doubt that in any discussion of this you'd eventually get around to saying that god created the physics and the understanding that allow me to see and appreciate such splendours. But again, there are simpler explanations rooted in evidence and logic and physics and mathematics that don't require postulating a supernatural being. And that's really all it is, a postulate, for which there is no good evidence.

 

[talloola]

That's just because you don't want to hear anything, but only Gilbert :laughing7:

There are millions of people with exactly the same arguement as Gilbert, I was making the point
that he states it so well.
And I honestly don't see more weight on his side, because there is no SOLID EVIDENCE at all.

I can make sense out of all the scientific evidence I have learned, and there is always more just
around the corner.

So if you really wanted to know something else, you would have reasearch a bit, and came up with the same stuff, and would have said that there is more SOLID EVIDENCE on the other side.
No "solid" evidence at all, only beliefs and faiths.

It's really interesting to read comments of such smart people who know just about everything.
I didn't claim to know everything, and I certainly don't, same as you.

I You should just grab a microphone, come out on the streets and tell everyone on this planet your SOLID EVIDENCES, HURAY, Everyone, listen to the real answers, we will tell you. And no doubt everyone will drop their Bibles, Korans, Buddas etc, and will realise how simple it all was.

I made my point "politely" and "simply", I am not a "spouter" or a "shouter", but maybe you are,
so, be my guest.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's just because you don't want to hear anything, but only Gilbert :laughing7:
And I honestly don't see more weight on his side, because there is no SOLID EVIDENCE at all.
So if you really wanted to know something else, you would have reasearch a bit, and came up with the same stuff, and would have said that there is more SOLID EVIDENCE on the other side.
It's really interesting to read comments of such smart people who know just about everything. You should just grab a microphone, come out on the streets and tell everyone on this planet your SOLID EVIDENCES, HURAY, Everyone, listen to the real answers, we will tell you. And no doubt everyone will drop their Bibles, Korans, Buddas etc, and will realise how simple it all was. :laughing7:

rofl
If you don't consider the theory of evolution as solid evidence against creationism, genetic research or the various methods of dating things as having shown life tens of thousands of years before gods and demons, etc. then you have no idea of the nature of evidence.

BTW, thanks for the sentiment that I know just about everything, but you're wrong as usual.

There is nothing supporting the existence of gods and demons and tooth faeries except hearsay.

You presume to know that Talloola is actually reading the stuff I post just because of me and not because she's curious and interested in the content. Are you some sort of mind reader? Have you any evidence supporting this assertion? Or is it just because you have faith that you indeed know this?

 

[look3467]

Maybe people like me and Gilbert and "some other smarty's," whoever they are, should be grateful for that much at least.
Thank you! Your heart is showing.
It's nice not to be condemned to Hell I suppose, and it's good that you're exercising love and compassion.
Christianity is much like as a child that has yet to grow up unto maturity. It’s on it way though, due to technology because of fast information readily available.
God has His timing in this whole scenario of human life. There will come a time when all will be united as one. One in spirit: that spirit being not religious divisions, but religiously exercising love that can only stem from the heart.
Not only is Christianity maturing, but all the rest of the world’s religions are too.
Perhaps: not in my life time. But the evidence is there, as we can all see the growing trend of acknowledgement of the divine.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not grateful for that, really. Does it not occur to you that you might be wrong?
Absolutely: adamantly not!!
I refuse, not to love you, Gilbert, Talloola and all my brothers and sisters and those in the Muslim world. All my brothers and sisters in all the religions of the United states, and even the Satanist religions.

The soul is what is being loved, the heart of the soul is what hurts, cries, endures grief, loves, rejoices, is glad when someone else is glad, laughs, applauds, gives of self, is patient and most important of all, houses the spirit of the living God!

All that is provable, because you yourself hurt when one of your children hurt, you cry when they cry, you laugh when they laugh, and you endure their sufferings with love and tenderness, ever so ready to give them of your heart.

When a little child in a starved country cries for help, you reach into your heart and causes your flesh to co-operate in giving help.

Obviously Gilbert and I and "some other smarty's" think you--and many others, here and elsewhere--are wrong,
Obviously! But that does not stop me from exercising love and compassion for those who don’t agree with me.
and we've produced what seem to me to be pretty solid evidence and arguments against your position. Not really, though it makes for very interesting reading. All of it is all natural and non spiritual, which is of course the missing key ingredient in your understanding.

From your point of view life is here and now, but from my point, life begins here and now and is enriched by the presence of the creator in my soul’s heart.
That spiritual element that makes life worth living, and dying only as a means to a greater life.

If we have one sure thing to give in this life to make someone’s life better, is our own life.
Is our life worth the risk in saving someone from a sinking ship, a raging storm, a kidney transplant, a blood transfusion, stopping a murder from murdering again, defending our country, your country citizens from an attack by foreign power?

Yes, the heart of compassion, the strength of conviction lies in the belief in God, who administers to all a degree of faith as needed for the occasion.

In none of your posts have you presented any evidence for your beliefs except your feelings and your interpretations of them, and a whole lot of biblical citations that come from the same place in other people, the ones who wrote that document.
That’s true as far as physical evidence you seek, but relentless in heart and stead-fast in faith, solid as a rock with a sure foundation, that thou the waves of criticism strikes, my God will be my strength and power, that only love can conquer!
Can you match that with the physical elements of this earth?

All us "smarty's" are trying to do is point out that simpler explanations are possible and, other things being equal, simpler explanations are more likely to be correct.

“Likely” defines your stability! As shaky and uncertain. Mine is sure! No doubt in my mind or heart of the confidence that I have in faith that all that God said of Him self is true.
For instance, there is no evidence you can point to that supports the existence of god that you can really share with me. There is! Not physical evidence but spiritual evidence.
Get yourself alone somewhere, where it is quite and kneel down and say this prayer:
God………………if you are real as they say you are…………………then let my heart know! Do to me like what they say you do to them. Touch me as like you touch them.
I will wait for your answer! They tell me that you will answer: that you promised you will answer!
I am willing to experience this thing, for I am ready to see, as you can see by my kneeling down before you.
I expect and answer, anytime soon is alright. If you touch me as you touched others, I will be to you what I was to the believers of you, I will in tenacity of conviction, and with my life, repent of all that I ever said about you, and tell it. I will confess you to the world.

Now, I’ve said it, and now it’s your turn. God?..........................................

It exists only inside your own head, or you might say your heart, but all I can get is your report on your interpretations of your feelings.
My report is my confession that God does exist!

I can see the same things that you do, like a gorgeous sunset or sunrise for instance (and I often do), and feel gratified by the experience, but I don't see the hand of god in it.
Surely, you must know that someone somewhere created such beauty?

I see physics: diffraction and Rayleigh scattering and atmospheric dust and particle sizes and the wavelengths of the visible radiation spectrum and how they're all connnected, and I find that my appreciation of the phenomenon is enhanced rather than diminished by my detailed knowledge of what I'm looking at.
Your appreciation of all that is well noted and is expected having such knowledge: But the reason why you have that knowledge and the ability to understand what knowledge you have is where such knowledge can not answer.
For it is spiritually discerned!

I've no doubt that in any discussion of this you'd eventually get around to saying that god created the physics and the understanding that allow me to see and appreciate such splendours. You guessed that right! Your beginning to discern something that is spiritual!

But again, there are simpler explanations rooted in evidence and logic and physics and mathematics that don't require postulating a supernatural being. And that's really all it is, a postulate, for which there is no good evidence.

If there is, then why are you here on this earth? Why waste the time living if nothing else is available. Why fight for rights? Why not just end it all? Why struggle to survive?
Why be nice, good? Why not be like Hitler, a serial killer or any of earth’s evil practitioners?
WHY? WHY? WHY? NOT?
Why even give a hoot?
I’m telling ya, up front, seriously, God would love to reside in your heart!

Peace brother>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Chukcha]

If there is, then why are you here on this earth? Why waste the time living if nothing else is available. Why fight for rights? Why not just end it all? Why struggle to survive?
Why be nice, good? Why not be like Hitler, a serial killer or any of earth’s evil practitioners?
WHY? WHY? WHY? NOT?
Why even give a hoot?
I’m telling ya, up front, seriously, God would love to reside in your heart!

Peace brother>>>AJ:love9:

It is also strange that so many of these serious atheists later on in life dip themselfs into some religion.
wait till they give you some SOLID answers, PROVEN Facts and Evidences with arguments like: Your solution is not as good as ours, because Darwin said so.

 

[vinod1975]

God is belief and whom you believe , that’s depends on you , as I believe Jesus ......

 

[Northboy]

God is two being, a men a women, its been wrote in the first page of the bible.

Teaching again are we??

How does it feel??