Yes,
I call that one God.
Do you believe in a higher power Jow Forums?
Dominic Green
Hunter Brown
>hippie shit
There is but one temple on Earth and it is the body of man. God lives inside you. Literally.
Jackson Cook
power is death, a higher death? don't believe me
stick your hand in a wall socket and die, that's
power. you might want to ask, what is life really
like, why are we dead? where are we really?
Gabriel Harris
>You are getting stuck on semantics.
I'm absolutely not, and that's not semantics. If you say God is something, and i ask how you determined this, it's not "semantics" and you don't get to pretend the assertion wasn't made. I'm simply requesting more information on the statement.
>From a purely materialistic point of view there is no fundamental difference between super-natural and natural
What a retarded statement to make. Are you just throwing shit at a wall, hoping I won't prove you wrong?
>Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
This =/= nature.
>Whatever exists, is natural, or would otherwise not exist, right?
Give me something that is supernatural that has been proven.
>Asking whether God exists is thus a senseless question the same way asking "does anything exist" is.
I agree that it's senseless, because I don't believe in things purely on blind faith.
Liam Jackson
>You're referring to me, and how I don't exist. But i'm replying to you, and I can prove to you that I do exist. You're being silly now. Especially with this line:
You telling me you exist is not proof anymore than me telling you God exist.
>You're being silly now
I know. Being silly is a precious part of a stimulating intellectual discourse.
>You literally can't.
Sure you can. You'd not be the first one. The only thing stopping you is your infatuation in your thoughts. Logic is a worldly construct. It's the 'circle' in 'circular reasoning'. God lies outside the circle. You can't logic yourself into God. You have to live your way into Him. If you learned to shut up for a moment and simply observe the immediate existential experience surrounding your awareness, God would flood your senses from all directions faster than you'd know.
>It's objective in the terms of the people in this discussion
It is seemingly objective in terms of your subjective experience of this discussion. In other words, it really is not objective in any sense, other than in the sense all subjectivity fuses together into a single objective form at the grandest possible scale of reference. Yet once again, I doubt this is what you meant.
> Not to mention, my family members, co-workers, friends, and other people who have seen me and know me.
So why should I not believe all the people who have seen God and know him? Same exact standard.
>Otherwise lets just be honest with each other and get to the point of the discussion where you prove God exists, without wildly dodging.
I am not dodging anything. I have deliberately told you straight from the beginning that I can't and won't prove God to you, because such is not the nature of God.
>Someone doesn't understand what an assertion is.
I'd appreciate a direct correction instead of putting on a vague act of smug superiority. For all I know, I had a valid point that you refused to handle.
Carson Martin
Vague definitions are important to you.
Nothing more nothing less.
Nathaniel Jackson
>For the third time, we could go further and i could give you an address and we could meet up in real life, i can give you infinitely more evidence of my existence vs this god you keep asserting exists.
I doubt that. God could give you every evidence you need in order to help you find him on your own terms. At best, you could only mildly convince me of your existence.
>There's nothing more hilarious to me than when people like you try and make some silly upper-handed comment like you have someone on the ropes, but you're so busy not making sense to get to comments like this. It's hilariously baffling, your lack of awareness is alarming. You're making a strawman of my "logic" and using this nonsensical stance to attempt at a point.
I reject your empty sentiments. In this paragraph you brought forth zero substance. boring!
Jason Diaz
Evidence? How about the freaking big bang, just to name one. Remember when the scientific community greatly resisted the big bang theory in the 70's because it would literally validate Gensis?
Proposed explenation -> hypothesis -> observation -> confirmation -> theory.
The bible made that claim 7000 years ago. How about that for some scientific confirmation?
Every damn time you are confronted with evidence, either by empiricism or logic, you escape by playing semantic wordgames.
The argument for God (not of the gaps) is a deductive argument based on logic, reason and empirical evidence indeed.
Brayden Powell
is this god needlessly cruel and indifferent to suffering ?
Kayden Butler
Did Kissinger really say that "military men are dumb, stupid animals"?
Is this true?
And he still works for those Washington think tanks?