Let's talk about GOD!!

[Dontaskme]

Where is this 'triune' observable in physics? The reason things exist according thus far in physics is because 'matter' and 'anti-matter' happen to decay at different rates, thus not annihilating each other.

Who knows that?

.

[attofishpi]

What PROOF!!!

Does attofishpi believe in GOD?

No.

Regarding your other question - physicists.

[Dontaskme]

DAM: wrote:

Does attofishpi believe in GOD?

No.

You have to be clear about what you say and mean.

Does having no belief in God give you the right to demand proofs from the believers ?

Regarding your other question - physicists.

A 'physicist' is a concept known. That which is known knows nothing. Labels only point to what's inside, what's inside is only seen in it's reveal as first hand first person accounts, aka one with the knowing, aka as observed. Therefore, proof is in the actual pudding, it's always self evident.

.

[attofishpi]

DAM: wrote:

Does attofishpi believe in GOD?

No.

You have to be clear about what you say and mean.

Does having no belief in God give you the right to demand proofs from the believers ?

I.C. - stated he had proof - so yes.

[Dontaskme]

DAM: wrote:

Does attofishpi believe in GOD?

No.

You have to be clear about what you say and mean.

Does having no belief in God give you the right to demand proofs from the believers ?

I.C. - stated he had proof - so yes.

Do you ever deny your own disbelief in God?

.

[Dontaskme]

You have to be clear about what you say and mean.

Does having no belief in God give you the right to demand proofs from the believers ?

I.C. - stated he had proof - so yes.

Do you ever deny your own disbelief in God?

.

If your answer is no I do not deny my own disbelief in God.

Then you cannot deny others their beliefs in God by demanding proof. Why would you demand a proof of a God that you have already admitted does not exist in your belief?
If you already know without doubt or error your own belief structure the non-existence of God, then why would you demand proof of what you already know to be non-existent?

.

[attofishpi]

I.C. - stated he had proof - so yes.

Do you ever deny your own disbelief in God?

.

If your answer is no I do not deny my own disbelief in God.

Then you cannot deny others their beliefs in God by demanding proof. Why would you demand a proof of a God that you have already admitted does not exist in your belief?
If you already know without doubt or error your own belief structure the non-existence of God, then why would you demand proof of what you already know to be non-existent?

.

I see you have taken my example of the FOOL STOP as your own.

You are perhaps one of the most irrational posters on this forum, thus I try to avoid engagement in 'debating' with you.

The reason I said 'NO' in your question as to whether I believe in God, is because I don't believe in God, I know it exists.

The reason I asked IC for his 'proof' is because he stated he HAD PROOF.

Comprende?

[Dontaskme]

Do you ever deny your own disbelief in God?

.

If your answer is no I do not deny my own disbelief in God.

Then you cannot deny others their beliefs in God by demanding proof. Why would you demand a proof of a God that you have already admitted does not exist in your belief?
If you already know without doubt or error your own belief structure the non-existence of God, then why would you demand proof of what you already know to be non-existent?

.

I see you have taken my example of the FOOL STOP as your own.

You are perhaps one of the most irrational posters on this forum, thus I try to avoid engagement in 'debating' with you.

The reason I said 'NO' in your question as to whether I believe in God, is because I don't believe in God, I know it exists.

The reason I asked IC for his 'proof' is because he stated he HAD PROOF.

Comprende?

Yeah, and I also predicted you'd respond in the way you have.

So at least we both agree that we KNOW God exists.

You don't need to take any notice of the word proof, when you already KNOW.

Proof is self-evident, claiming you know is your own self-evident proof. You do not have to prove to another what you already know. Perhaps that's what IC was meaning when he speaks of proof.

I could ask you the same question you asked IC... I could say prove you KNOW GOD...see how silly it all gets when we talk about proofs?

See the dilemma?

Again, why would you want another person to provide proof of God when you already know God?

.

[Dontaskme]

I see you have taken my example of the FOOL STOP as your own.

Who's more the fool the fool or the fool who follows the fool?

[attofishpi]

Again, why would you want another person to provide proof of God when you already know God?

Again. Because IC claimed what he stated was proof, and (obviously) I disagree. This is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM - it is supposed to deal with logic. I have seen NO logic in what IC has claimed as 'proof'.

[Dontaskme]

Again, why would you want another person to provide proof of God when you already know God?

Again. Because IC claimed what he stated was proof, and (obviously) I disagree. This is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM - it is supposed to deal with logic. I have seen NO logic in what IC has claimed as 'proof'.

The only 'world' that the sentient being aka the (KNOWN self) is privy to occurs after the stimulus has passed through it's own personal filters.

Sorry but you have no access to another persons mind. You only have your own truth, true wisdom lies in suspension of judgment, since certain knowledge is impossible to attain. You cannot ask for proof of what someone else knows. You can only know what you know.

IC doesn't have to prove anything to you. If you KNOW GOD you will know that all there is is GOD, no proof necessary.

.

[attofishpi]

um lol

.

[Age]

God is simultaneously one and three. I appreciate meeting all those who have come to experience how this is possible.

How does this simultaneously one and three actually occur?

[Age]

a

[Age]

I could say prove you KNOW GOD...see how silly it all gets when we talk about proofs?

Honestly I do not see this as being "silly" at all.

If, and when, I say, "I know some thing is true", then I expect to be questioned and challenged over it.

In fact, I am quite often very surprised that I am NOT questioned and challenged over some of the claims I make.

For example, when I say, "I know God exists", I can very easily and very simply provide ALL the proofs and evidence to back up and support this irrefutable claim.

Being able to provide proofs and evidence, especially in a philosophy forum, I do NOT find silly at all.

See the dilemma?

No, not at all.

To me, if some one says they BELIEVE some thing is true, or says they KNOW some thing is true, then I would like to see them be able to provide some sort of actual proof and evidence for their claims.

Otherwise they could just keep saying absolutely any thing at all.

Again, why would you want another person to provide proof of God when you already know God?

.

Because, to me, their proof might actually substantiate further the proof I have of the God I know, which would be very helpful.

Or, their proof might actually disprove my now previous "proof", and so I will have now learned more, which again would also be very helpful.

Either way IF and WHEN proof is provided, then this can be very helpful, indeed.

But if some one can not substantiate and can not provide the proof and evidence for what they claim is true, then WHY do they say it at all, in the beginning?

Do they just want us to accept what they say, as though IT IS THE TRUTH?