Does GOD exist

[cajunner]

So you can't define, understand or explain god but you're sure he exists. Makes sense.

I think you messed up. I said "you or I" because you also, cannot define, understand, or defend, and really if someone comes along with all the right answers, we couldn't even test them successfully, or with certainty because the proofs are outside of our comprehension.

It's not important that I be right, if it is a thought experiment.

It might be real important if the test for winning a positive, affirmation-contingent afterlife doesn't come with a cheat sheet, you deliberately chose not to study up, and you can't lean far enough over to copy answers.

I think it's kind of funny that we are here, the universe is packed full of interesting things, we can easily tell that everything is moving apart which indicates direction, all indications of production, and some people choose randomness as their highest argument, as if it's just time and pressure, and not too sure about time.

the sad part of it, is none of the religions I've studied were capable of providing a convincing back story without faith stepping in and asking for the ante, before the cards start flying.

that to me, is like dividing the human race into a "can cut it/can't cut it" either or, proposition and even though we don't have to (and shouldn't, really) judge, who gets a pass, I can't help but feel like the game is rigged.

You might be better off being one of the "can't cut it" types, feigning ignorance. At least until your life is flashing before your eyes and it's no longer a choice.

[Hic]

There is one way into heaven!

[Hic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1991223.stm

Lil more baking powder, fine tuning the recipe, now they'll rise. . .

[ca90ss]

I think you messed up. I said "you or I" because you also, cannot define, understand, or defend, and really if someone comes along with all the right answers, we couldn't even test them successfully, or with certainty because the proofs are outside of our comprehension.

It's not important that I be right, if it is a thought experiment.

It might be real important if the test for winning a positive, affirmation-contingent afterlife doesn't come with a cheat sheet, you deliberately chose not to study up, and you can't lean far enough over to copy answers.

I think it's kind of funny that we are here, the universe is packed full of interesting things, we can easily tell that everything is moving apart which indicates direction, all indications of production, and some people choose randomness as their highest argument, as if it's just time and pressure, and not too sure about time.

the sad part of it, is none of the religions I've studied were capable of providing a convincing back story without faith stepping in and asking for the ante, before the cards start flying.

that to me, is like dividing the human race into a "can cut it/can't cut it" either or, proposition and even though we don't have to (and shouldn't, really) judge, who gets a pass, I can't help but feel like the game is rigged.

You might be better off being one of the "can't cut it" types, feigning ignorance. At least until your life is flashing before your eyes and it's no longer a choice.

So how you make the leap from can't be explained to god did it? What evidence is there other than a lack of evidence to the contrary?

[Hic]

So how you make the leap from can't be explained to god did it? What evidence is there ?

Ca90ss , there is None that can be tested empiracally

[cajunner]

So how you make the leap from can't be explained to god did it? What evidence is there other than a lack of evidence to the contrary?

the evidence is the non-randomness of the universe.

part of the problem for those who choose to accept only verifiable answers, is they skip over a lot of the material.

I'm not making a leap when I say "cannot define, understand, or defend" in my answer, you made this leap when you changed it to "can't be explained" which, I believe I am doing BTW. There is no incongruity. When you assert " lack of evidence" as if that were true, you dismiss, once again, the truth.

the evidence is just not to your liking, it doesn't mean it isn't there or perceptible in part or whole by others.

we'd all like to figure it out but as already demonstrated, you wouldn't know if you made a correct assumption until you, or what registers as anything derivative of you, passes through time's membrane and eternity swallows that smidgen of pomposity however it do...

[Hic]

the evidence is the non-randomness of the universe.

the problem for those who choose to accept only verifiable answers, is they skip over a lot of the material.

I'm not making a leap when I say

we'd all like to figure it out but as already demonstrated, you wouldn't know it

It is just. GOD's way. !

[ca90ss]

the evidence is the non-randomness of the universe.

So the evidence is no evidence.

part of the problem for those who choose to accept only verifiable answers, is they skip over a lot of the material.

What am I skipping over other than faith based assumptions?

I'm not making a leap when I say "cannot define, understand, or defend" in my answer, you made this leap when you changed it to "can't be explained" which, I believe I am doing BTW. There is no incongruity. When you assert " lack of evidence" as if that were true, you dismiss, once again, the truth

It's less of a leap to say that if you can't define or understand something then you likely can't give a satisfactory explanation either than it is to say that because we can't currently explain something then it must be god. What truth is that exactly that isn't based on belief or faith rather than verifiable facts that I'm dismissing?

[Hic]

We accept that until the sun rises in the west , you will never be able to explain billions of things ! It's a given that humans have verifiable deficencies ( mentally speaking ). GOD is so vastly beyond a simple defining by homo-sapiens . . .

So because we can't currently explain something .

A better way to look at it might be " Never , ever , explain GOD, to infinity and beyond infinity . . .

[cajunner]

So the evidence is no evidence.

What am I skipping over other than faith based assumptions?


It's less of a leap to say that if you can't define or understand something then you likely can't give a satisfactory explanation either than it is to say that because we can't currently explain something then it must be god. What truth is that exactly that isn't based on belief or faith rather than verifiable facts that I'm dismissing?

what is satisfactory to you?

is it possible that what becomes faith, is simply your intransigence, and skepticism hiding the facts in plain view? I'm saying that everywhere in nature there are only non-random equations to be had, as science proves with it's method. But the act of production that causes all these myriad proofs of mathematical certainties, is a random event? Using randomness as our guide, we cannot sidle up to some anarchist-derived conjecture indicating no "hidden hand" at work, without forsaking the five senses we use each day to quantify and re-up, unless we have an agenda of rejection regarding any greater cosmic will than our own.

The truth is all around, the grouping of related statistical data into a set of laws, is itself God showing in the stitches.

If the given set of physical laws we stumble upon using mathematics and advanced number crunching using supercomputer power, appears like ABC's to some, and is just unrecognizable, completely nil in understanding to others, do you say "it's true for some, but for those who can't understand it, it's possibly not true" or... is it more thoughtful to include what (and who) came before us, in our application of these proofs.

something that escapes most, is God made skepticism too, and to not realize that, is like sitting down at a table of cards where you can't afford the ante, you just don't have the means to participate.