Does God Exist?

The Bible says "the intelligence of the intellect I will frustrate". That's because the intellect can only function in past and future, but God is. God can only be understood by the heart.

 

Well lets distinguish functions experientially regardless the theory of time.. It is true we are challenged in and to a certain state of mind, the heart is an organ of rhythm which lends pace or dynamism in the form of vibration to your efforts. Understanding is not of the heart, felt presence is. Where your treasure lies, a conscious distinction, there is your heart also. The presence of god can be felt to the extent you look for it or are sensitive to it and of course always in the moment, if not now then not at all.

My joining is easy, felt presence, and my burden light, understanding. No great effort or frustrating endeavor is required to do the thing you do naturally which is to focus on what you desire.

 

Now the terms presence of god are meaningful to me in the form of the experience of oneness with all things, a psychedelic description, or what is referred to as atonement, or tuning in.

 

As to the miraculous being demonstration to inspire belief, it is not. That is simply fascination with an effect and to latch onto it as proof of authority is to do so without understanding what actually transpired It would be like calling a physician a god because he knows medicine. A miracle is a demonstration that substitutes for years of trial and error, it leaves us further along in time than we would have otherwise been. It transcends the habits of time to be involved in an event that awakens you to possibility. Disease is always self limiting over time. The experience of time is relative. I allude to the subjective sensation of time flying when you are vitally engaged or the fact that we accomplish more in shorter time if we are not distracted in our efforts.

 

No you have not addressed it or else you would stop doing it.

And you are correct I have nothing substantial to say in response to your mostly meaningless babble.

 

Yes you are judging, you just don't like to admit it.

As for words and their effect, try these......
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

i agree.

science does not work on faith. no scientist has faith in theories. scientific method works by testing things out. some theories are so advanced we dont even have the technology to do proper testing. these theories will stay theories until they are validated.

 

If you have knowledge of how vaccinations work and observations demonstrating their effectiveness, then you most decidedly do not "have faith in vaccinations", you merely note that they are effective. My circulatory system appears to be working at this moment (I am alive), this does not mean "I have faith in my circulatory system".

Faith, by definition, is believing something in the absence of convincing evidence.

You should no more have faith in vaccinations than you should have faith in lightbulbs; their existence, function and utility are plainly in front of all.

1st century Iron Age amalgamated deities, on the other hand, are not so forthcoming with providing evidence of their existence. In fact, there is no evidence which would ever be admitted into a court case, nor would you ever purchase an automobile on the same kind of shaky evidence provided of it's value. Yet for some reason this is not only excusable for the most important questions in life, it is perverted into a gruesome caricature of virtue to believe in the most unbelievable of propositions on bad evidence.

To nail the final insulting nail in the coffin of the ludicrous, we are to believe that failure to comply with this demand of fact-less belief will result in an eternity of incalculable horror and agony, which will never cease nor wane, for all time, and ever and ever, because he loves us and just wants to be loved in return.

Heeeeeere's Johnny!

 

[SIZE=12pt]If you want to discuss something with me at least try to make sense. What you write is ambiguous at best even in short bursts, let alone in your long bursts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Before I even try to answer I have to decide what you are trying to say with your abnormal use of words. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Like your use of the word proportion here, you probably have some arcane definition that nobody but you has used since the 1800s but for someone just trying to carry on a conversation with you; honestly, it is just too much work. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quite seriously the word proportion, in the way you have used it here, makes this whole post almost unintelligible.[/SIZE]

 

And you ask what is wrong with your understanding.

 

I just did and you ignored it like I said nothing to you.

 

Faith is (by definition) the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (Hebrews 11:1)

 

where?

it cannot possibly be this:

hearsay is not reasonable proof.

in fact, if your as smart as i think you are, you have to realize this argument isn't even an argument because religion requires faith, therefore by definition, requires something unprovable. if you had any reasonable proof of the divinity of Jesus, there would be no religion, it would be some sort of science and we would be studying it.

also, i would like to point out that i change my views pretty often in light of new knowledge. in fact it happened yesterday in the political section in the debate about global warming. i learned something new and it made me flip sides. i would do that with any subject, because i don't have any attachment to any one theory, its not like i personally thought of it.

 

As usual somebody that has not even bothered to look at what the Bible actually has to say, will say something ignorant like this,

Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can explain how a "person" who is conscious of nothing can experience an "eternity of incalculable horror and agony, which will never cease nor wane, for all time, and ever and ever"? (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

 

An eyewitness account is not "hearsay".

Hasn't anyone actually read the Bible?

Faith is (by definition) the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (Hebrews 11:1)

One can not reasonably argue either side of an argument unless he undestands both sides of the arguement.

 

why would you assume that mr. writer hasn't read the bible??

it sounds like he is saying that the bible requires a fact-less belief, which is true because there are a few quotes where jesus basically says the only way to go to heaven is to believe in him.

so far, it looks like everything in mr. writers post is accurate.

and it looks like there is a new trend developing from your posts: if they don't agree with you they are somehow ignorant, even though a large part of the population sees it as a perfectly good position to take since there is not much apposing evidence.

 

You asked me before if I liked to go on and I responded. There is no reason for me to stop posting although I would be embarrassed if I carried on like you. What precisely is meaningless babble? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read the words. Post those that are meaningless. Put up or shut up so to speak.

 

in my opinion, you should've highlighted "realities though not beheld".

we can nitpick about the definition of faith, but at the end of the day, we all have access to a dictionary, and faith means something that you cannot prove. by your own definition: realities though not beheld.


while we are on the topic of definitions, here is another one (from google):

heresay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.




now lets be honest, olderwater, if i put forth any kind of theory and i told you the evidence was some guy in a crowd that claimed to be a witness, you would be all over it. so play fair, you know "eye witness accounts" are the lowest rung of the ladder in terms of evidence.


now, i dont think "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", i just think they require "reasonable proof".

 

your either the only one here who read the bible, or you have to start accepting that people have indeed read it and they just come up with different conclusions than you.