How do you know God is real?

No, I posted it twice because you didn't address it in your reply.
I thought may be seeing it posted twice will make you read it at least once, since you seem not to read what's posted the first time you reply to it

 

Now, what would gave that impression?

Do I need to post twice for you to answer?

 

No, one time would be enough, I do read before responding

 

to me, this is too broad of a question to be just owned by christianity.
we don't know that any of what we think we know exists.
what we do know is that there is more then what begins and ends with ourselves.
all of us together. not just individually.

 

None of us have any idea, at all, what existed before us or after us. That's why we have religion.

 

There's nothing to answer but here:

Some logic? Even saying some is kind of stretching it don't you think.

The discussion is whether God could have used the "dirt" to make man, since the "elementary particles" necessary to make man can be found in the "dirt" God could have used the "dirt to make man.

Isn't it nit-picking to try make a distinction between the "dirt" and the "elementary particles" that the "dirt" is made up of. God didn't use all the "dirt" only part of the "dirt" so God didn't use the "dirt" to make man.

Didn't have to, again the discussion is whether God could have used the "dirt" to make man and since the "dirt" is made up of those "elementary particles", as you yourself said, God could have used the "elementary particles" found in the "dirt" to make man, thus using the "dirt" to make man.

Once again you do not appear to understand the discussion. The discussion is not did it happen but could it happen. J.Q. stated one of the reasons he does not believe the Bible is because it says man was made by God from the "dirt" because that is unbelievable. I'm just saying seeing as man and "dirt" do contain the same elements and that even today the elements that the human body is made of can still be found in the "dirt", it is possible that Man was made by God from the "dirt".

Like I said you're straining out the gnat to gulp down the camel.

 

I just thought if you did read before responding, you would understand what the discussion was about, but hey that may not be the first wrong assumption I've made about you.

 

ToknowgodmeditateToknowgodmeditateToknowgodmeditateToknowgodmeditate

 

Well, first of all I understand discussion very well.

I find it ironic that you keep repeating how much I assume, while you are the one doing so

Despite my understanding of what the whole discussion was about I chose not to touch broader aspects of it and instead focused on one particular remark made by JQ, when he said that humans are probably not made of the dirt.

I shared the reasons why I think there is some logic in his suggestion and also pointed out to an error in your reasoning when you said that one object could be made out of the other merely because they both share some fundamental characteristics of elementary particles found in both.

You can't cook soup from the cake but the water used to make a dough could also be used to make a soup.
You keep saying one could still cook soup from the cake by extracting water from the cake.
While technically correct, you are also making somewhat misleading statement because the water extracted from the baked cake is not what you would call a cake.

 

Actually, No, that is not what he said. what he said was:

No probably, no made of dirt but that human beings didn't come from dirt.

First your reason for thinking there is some logic in what he said is based on your believing, "that humans are probably not made of the dirt" is what he said but plain and simple that is not what he said. In fact we probably wouldn't even be discussing this if he had.

Second, please point out the error again, how is it that if all the elements needed to make X are contained in Y, that Y can't be used to make X?

See the fallacy in your reasoning. You say you can't make soup from cake because there is no water in cake to make soup with but the discussion is that "dirt" is not lacking anything that can be used to make man, including Hydrogen and Oxygen that can be combined to make water if need be.

 

You aren't serious, are you?

 

I answered yours.

 

Very well then

But I ddn't say such thing.
Here is what I actually wrote:

You can't cook soup from the cake but the water used to make a dough could also be used to make a soup.
You keep saying one could still cook soup from the cake by extracting water from the cake.
While technically correct, you are also making somewhat misleading statement because the water extracted from the baked cake is not what you would call a cake

 

Ok

Ok

Let's just do a little substitution; the human extracted from the dirt is not what you would call dirt, no I'd call it a human.

 

it all really depends on what ur perspective of god is. To me, its hard not to believe in god, i mean just open your eyes. god is simply the name of everything in the entire universe all happening at once, the greater picture. Everything thats lead up to this point, and everything that's happening right now, that is god, god is everything all at once. He is not a person, or a entity, or even a conscious being, he is all. Ive found god. and i am the most non religious person i know. But i found him many times.

 

how do you know god is real? you don't...

 

I have trouble with the word "know". I don't "know" that much of anything is real, if "know" implies certainty. I'm willing to go along with Descartes in acknowledging my own existence as undeniable, but yours I'm not sure of. Everything else involves an element of faith. Santayana talks about the need for animal faith. Even science is probabilistic and tentative. I assume that you and the internet exist and I'm not having a conversation with myself, but I can't prove it. Different levels of "proof" are required in different contexts. Scientific theories like the Big Bang require empirical testing of refutable, replicable hypotheses, to the satisfaction of a consensus of the scientific community. Courtroom proof in criminal cases requires proof "beyond a reasonbale doubt", while in a civil case the proof is merely "a preponderance of the evidence" or 51% probability. Administrative decisions by bureaucrats, police officers, firefighters, etc., require much lesser standards ranging from substantial evidence to probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. It's that administrative level proof that is what I think I have for believing in God, defined as Something Big Out There--enough proof to support an educated bet.

 

I do.

I've physically felt him. And before I did, I thought just like you. Then one night he picked me up in a giant velvet hand, and told me what I was to do with my life. I mean literally, physically picked me up........

One of them was to show people like you, that if it can happen to me, it can to anybody. Cuz I ain't nothing to brag about.

So, I think the proper phrase from you should be. "You know God is real, but I don't."

Hope that helps.


-

 

Hearing voices - Crazy
Hearing God - Religious

 

Unless you're deaf, just hearing voices, does not mean you're crazy.