Thread: A challenge for the Theist

I would define a deity as an all powerful being.

You exist.

You are a being.

I exist, I am a being.

Knowledge is all essentially superficial, as existence is endless and therefore all truth is meant to be forgotten.

Therefore we're collectively all knowing

We are connected, as all our particles constantly interchange between ourselves and the world around us, and as all existence is constantly flickering in and out of reality.

We are all one, we all know nothing, and yet everything. We are omnipresent, and omnipotent.

Well first off, I strongly believe in God.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Your claim: "There is a deity that exists that is of my personal description"

My claim: "No, there isn't"

So, do so. Prove that there is(are) some kind of deity(ies). If you can't, then what point have you to believe this? I might as well sit around and claim that the earth is flat and that the Sun orbits earth, not vise-versa, and that any kind of evidence to the contrary is simply made up and not true.

Explain yourselves.

You think that if something looks unfounded, that it is unfounded? That is based of appearences; you're deceiving yourself.

The world of truth and "light", or the Presence of God, is not something based of appearences, it is completely essential and formless, beyond proof.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Since my claim cannot come before your claim, Atheism is a binary position and you are the one with the burden of actually proving your claim.

Myself, being aware of the impossibility of "proving" the Reality of God, I see that you are the one who is burdened by your demand for proof; you obviously do not see its limitations.

Let's see. God is the Creator of All; One and the same with His Creation. Evolution is an expression and unfoldement of Everlasting Creation. Creation is essentially Existence. Can we prove existence? No. Existence is essential, it is beyond proof and is effortlessly Self-Evident by its own definition.

God is the Divinity of existence and Creation. Creation is Divine because its Source is God, beyond all Universes and Time. Therein lies infinite, All-encompassing power; Divine Reality. Existence simply Exists, an innate and infinite safety. That something simply Is, Is Divine.

Trying to prove God and Eternal Creation is like a football player trying to prove the football field, but only by playing football. The player paradoxically can't prove the field by playing in/on it. Unconsciously, there is no doubt that the field exists. The innocent player is simply distracted by irrelevant means. In other words:

Context = God/Divinity, Content = Creation.
Context = Existence, Content = (E.g. A) Scientist.
Context = Field, Content = Player/Game.

Since my claim cannot come before your claim, Atheism is a binary position and you are the one with the burden of actually proving your claim.

You need to clarify this. What is a 'binary position' and how does this relate to the burden of proof?

Originally Posted by archdreamer

You need to clarify this. What is a 'binary position' and how does this relate to the burden of proof?

1/0, true/false.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

1/0, true/false.

(shh, i'm trying to trap the OP )

Also, make your next post awesome, it will be your one-thousandth.

Originally Posted by really

You think that if something looks unfounded, that it is unfounded? That is based of appearences; you're deceiving yourself.

No, something appears unfounded when it doesn't have a foundation. i.e. your claim.

The world of truth and "light", or the Presence of God, is not something based of appearences, it is completely essential and formless, beyond proof.

I'm not interested in your pseudophilosophical spiritual jargon. I want a convincing argument. You've yet to produce one.

Myself, being aware of the impossibility of "proving" the Reality of God, I see that you are the one who is burdened by your demand for proof; you obviously do not see its limitations.

If it is impossible to prove then it is not a fact. You can doublethink yourself into a corner for all I care. You don't even have a valid basis for your idea other than your obvious belief that it is true. Nothing is beyond proof except fantasy.

Let's see. God is the Creator of All; One and the same with His Creation. Evolution is an expression and unfoldement of Everlasting Creation. Creation is essentially Existence. Can we prove existence? No. Existence is essential, it is beyond proof and is effortlessly Self-Evident by its own definition.

That's all good and well, but what is your PROOF? You can make stuff up to please yourself, but when it comes to reality you need to make an actual effort. This just looks like somehting you threw together to make your post larger.

God is the Divinity of existence and Creation. Creation is Divine because its Source is God, beyond all Universes and Time. Therein lies infinite, All-encompassing power; Divine Reality. Existence simply Exists, an innate and infinite safety. That something simply Is, Is Divine.

See above.

Trying to prove God and Eternal Creation is like a football player trying to prove the football field, but only by playing football. The player paradoxically can't prove the field by playing in/on it. Unconsciously, there is no doubt that the field exists. The innocent player is simply distracted by irrelevant means. In other words:

Context = God/Divinity, Content = Creation.
Context = Existence, Content = (E.g. A) Scientist.
Context = Field, Content = Player/Game.

No. This is retarded. I can prove life exists by living. Since I am alive then life exists.

We live in the universe, and we know it exists.

I want proof of your actual claim, that there is a god, not a bunch of meaningless statements with no suppporting facts or evidence.

A Roxxor, can you answer my question on the burden of proof, and specifically, how it is assigned?

Burden of proof rests on the claimant, not the critic.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No, something appears unfounded when it doesn't have a foundation. i.e. your claim.

Not always. Something can be unfounded and look founded, something can appear true and be completely false, something can be true/false in a different context, and with endless arbitrary combinations.

My point is perception is generally fallacious. You've asked - if someone can't "prove" the existence of a deity, why should they believe in it? Then, you assume that if they can't explain it, than there must be nothing to explain, and so you compare it to "claiming the earth is flat". This is much like saying a "mute" child "must not have a voice box". A jump to a conclusion; an assumption by the surface of things.

You've taken a biased view from the beginning of this thread, and I see you have little genuine interest, as is clear by:

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I'm not interested in your pseudophilosophical spiritual jargon. I want a convincing argument. You've yet to produce one.

Is this respectful?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If it is impossible to prove then it is not a fact. You can doublethink yourself into a corner for all I care. You don't even have a valid basis for your idea other than your obvious belief that it is true. Nothing is beyond proof except fantasy.

The improvable can be true, as I gave the example: You cannot prove existence (or essentially awareness), which is actually the context for proof to even exist. The focus here is on the subjective, since truth is related to subjective context rather than objectivity and facts. The subjective consciousness cannot be proven, and that includes all the various fantasies in which man does not know his own identity, and also the truthful states in which "he does".

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

That's all good and well, but what is your PROOF? You can make stuff up to please yourself, but when it comes to reality you need to make an actual effort. This just looks like somehting you threw together to make your post larger.

To prove it, I'd essentially have to prove that "proof" is real. Is that possible by rational means? If it cannot be measured, does that mean it is not real? Or does it simply mean it cannot be measured? From there, it is possible to reach a conclusion based upon putting things into context, rather than saying it is false altogether.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No. This is retarded. I can prove life exists by living. Since I am alive then life exists.

We live in the universe, and we know it exists.

I want proof of your actual claim, that there is a god, not a bunch of meaningless statements with no suppporting facts or evidence.

The universe and "your" life self-evidently exists. There is no scientific process to be undertaken and no things to be measured for this to be true. The defect is that we think the imaginings and specifications relevant to the world are actually relevant to the context of existence - which is essentially awareness.

The Presence of God arises from the substrate of subjectivity itself, which has perfect relationship to the potential for ourselves to be living and conscious. All doubt, fear and criticism usually stems from what is called "ignorance".

Let's say, people want to know who they are; if their deity provably exists. No, the premise is already false to start with, our true Self is not the body, nor is their a Deity "out there" to be proven, especially if it is from "within".

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Burden of proof rests on the claimant, not the critic.

Burden of proof depends on the situation. Critics might want it, claimants might have transcended it.

Prove that God exists?

Fuck that shit.

You can come to your own conclusions about whether or not he exists. I really don't care.

You want us to prove God exists? That's impossible. Can you scientifically prove, beyond any doubt, that raccoons are not actually all powerful demons? But they're not. And we all know that. For the same reason, all theists know there is a God.

You want us to prove God exists? That's impossible. Can you scientifically prove, beyond any doubt, that raccoons are not actually all powerful demons? But they're not. And we all know that. For the same reason, all theists know there is a God.

No, but the point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So what we should actually have to prove is that raccoons are powerful demons. Until then we doubt the truth of that statement. This is equivalent to the situation with God.

You can come to your own conclusions about whether or not he exists. I really don't care.

Rational people:

Proof ---> Conclusion.

Can you scientifically prove, beyond any doubt, that raccoons are not actually all powerful demons? But they're not. And we all know that. For the same reason, all theists know there is a God.

You midunderstand what you're saying ... you're actually saying people should believe in the raccoon-demon hypothesis, whether you realise it or not. And we don't say "we know raccoons aren't demons" on no basis, we say that because there is no single valid reason to think that it is true.


Why do people insist on negative proof in one area of their lives, when it would be considered foolish and irrational at best to believe it in others. For instance, imagine believing the following things on no good basis and demanding negative proof to refute them:

My wife is having an affair
That man is guilty of murder
Magic is real

Believing in all these things until they have been disproven is insane. Certainly in a court of law it would result in miscarriages of justice. I suppose at least in democratic societies we can be grateful they take a very scientific mindset of "innocent until proven guilty", "untrue until proven true".

Here comes the generalizations.

Rational People:

Think for themselves.

Originally Posted by really

Not always. Something can be unfounded and look founded, something can appear true and be completely false, something can be true/false in a different context, and with endless arbitrary combinations.

My point is perception is generally fallacious. You've asked - if someone can't "prove" the existence of a deity, why should they believe in it? Then, you assume that if they can't explain it, than there must be nothing to explain, and so you compare it to "claiming the earth is flat". This is much like saying a "mute" child "must not have a voice box". A jump to a conclusion; an assumption by the surface of things.

You've taken a biased view from the beginning of this thread, and I see you have little genuine interest, as is clear by:



Is this respectful?



The improvable can be true, as I gave the example: You cannot prove existence (or essentially awareness), which is actually the context for proof to even exist. The focus here is on the subjective, since truth is related to subjective context rather than objectivity and facts. The subjective consciousness cannot be proven, and that includes all the various fantasies in which man does not know his own identity, and also the truthful states in which "he does".



To prove it, I'd essentially have to prove that "proof" is real. Is that possible by rational means? If it cannot be measured, does that mean it is not real? Or does it simply mean it cannot be measured? From there, it is possible to reach a conclusion based upon putting things into context, rather than saying it is false altogether.



The universe and "your" life self-evidently exists. There is no scientific process to be undertaken and no things to be measured for this to be true. The defect is that we think the imaginings and specifications relevant to the world are actually relevant to the context of existence - which is essentially awareness.

The Presence of God arises from the substrate of subjectivity itself, which has perfect relationship to the potential for ourselves to be living and conscious. All doubt, fear and criticism usually stems from what is called "ignorance".

Let's say, people want to know who they are; if their deity provably exists. No, the premise is already false to start with, our true Self is not the body, nor is their a Deity "out there" to be proven, especially if it is from "within".



Burden of proof depends on the situation. Critics might want it, claimants might have transcended it.

I read half of this.

If your idea DOES have a logical base then tell about it.

Everything that is true can be proven to be so. Therefore, if you have something that cannot be proven, it is false. This is rational thinking.

Do you, or do you not have proof?

How did we come to be - that's a very compelling question.
Knowone that does not beleive in god has a real atiquite answer.

What if I say you don't exist? How do I know that you aren't just some fucking computer generated bot like the ones on AIM?

these sort of threads get old, both on the theist and atheist part

what proof do you want? or rather, what would you consider proof?

as far as I can tell, there can never be physical proof of God. God is not physical, God is spirit. There is only spiritual evidence of God. Imagine if one day we do meet a very powerful being, and he says "I AM GOD!". is the fact that he is both a being and powerful mean he's is in fact the same God so many theists claim to believe in?

or maybe hes just a very powerful alien, born the same as you and me

if a group of scientists hear a voice speak to them, coming from the heavens, in the middle of one of their scienfiticy things and the voice says "I AM GOD!" does that mean, he is the God that theists claim to believe in? Or maybe its just a recording sent by aliens!! Those damn aliens

there is no proof

at least not proof outside of your own being. which is why Buddha teaches, if you meet Buddha or God on the road, KILL HIM.

this has confused people

there is only one true mind of Buddha, there is only one true mind of Christ, one true God, Tao, or whatever, I AM presence, higher self. And all of these have one thing in common. They are within you. Which is why the Buddha on the road is not Buddha. Which is why God on the road is not God. All false. You must go WITHIN!!

The evidence is within. And within the spiritual community, it's very strong

Because if there is some sort of Oneness - that has been called by different names - then those who live their lives to be one with this Oneness will come to the same conclusion right? Because the same Oneness would be communing with both the spiritual buddhist, the pagan, the christian, the native american right?

Well, that is what's happening with spirituality today

while religion is hung up on the difference of a single word, spirituality is largely united under a single banner that could be summed up in two words

Oneness and Transcendence

religion is divided and conquers itself. because it's always at battle it feels it needs to win. and fight with non believers with poor evidence of God making them look like fools.

spirituality is very different. the spiritual seeker knows there is no evidence to offer you. its not at battle and it doesn't care about "challenges to theists". And the only evidence they can ever hope to offer you, is the chance to show you God/Christ/Tao/Universe/Buddha/Krishna/TakeYourPick manifested as a human!

Originally Posted by guitarboy

What if I say you don't exist? How do I know that you aren't just some fucking computer generated bot like the ones on AIM?

Ask him a very difficult maths problem.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I read half of this.

Read it all, if you're interested. Don't ask questions based on reading half a post.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

If your idea DOES have a logical base then tell about it.

Everything that is true can be proven to be so. Therefore, if you have something that cannot be proven, it is false. This is rational thinking.

Do you, or do you not have proof?

Bias. There is little relationship to this logic you seek, because it is not an objective context. I've already outlined this problem, but you probably "didn't read it."

"The calculator does not lie. Use the calculator and tell me the answer. If you can't, you must be lying." That's much like your bias. Perhaps it is beyond the calculator's capacity to process.
See what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Your claim: "There is a deity that exists that is of my personal description"

My claim: "No, there isn't"

Since my claim cannot come before your claim, Atheism is a binary position and you are the one with the burden of actually proving your claim.

So, do so. Prove that there is(are) some kind of deity(ies). If you can't, then what point have you to believe this? I might as well sit around and claim that the earth is flat and that the Sun orbits earth, not vise-versa, and that any kind of evidence to the contrary is simply made up and not true.

Explain yourselves.

I'll just take a whack at it:

If there were a god, he would first of all not look like a human because well things that live in thin air and are invisible and have no metabolism would develop like a human being and look nothing close. Such a species would also require to have a very very low IQ, and possibly none at all and would probably be the size of a bug based on the life forms we have discovered which all have these traits in common and most of which also live at the bottom of the see or are microscopic.

What you are asking us to do is prove a fairy tale written in the Bible ...which is filled with mostly other fairy tales. Also, it goes completely against the grain and the fundamentals of the universe. Chemistry simply does not allow such a thing to exist ...ever, and you cannot deny chemistry, because it is you, me, everything, heck chemists could literally put everything you see in a mathematical formula.

Now let me ask you: how can you prove it?

please give me a strait answer as I have given you. Don't fluff you're way out of it. I'm tired of dealing with you bone heads, so make an impression.

I don't see how chemistry excludes the existence of God. Chemistry is a set of rules for the behaviour of matter, it says nothing about non-matter. In fact it says nothing about a whole lot more than that; spacetime and the gravitational behaviour of large bodies, as a random example, is completely apart from chemistry.

what is "non-matter"??? nothing! even black matter is a form of matter. So if god is a part of this "non-matter" then what is there to discuss? he does not exist. the fuckn end.

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

what is "non-matter"??? nothing! even black matter is a form of matter. So if god is a part of this "non-matter" then what is there to discuss? he does not exist. the fuckn end.

Your position is ridiculous.

I am more interested if there was a solid proof God/gods/deities do exist, a proof that nobody right minded could deny, what would it change? Would you be happy that your belief was right? Even if there were 100% proof, I don't believe all of the worlds population would convert to that faith.