Really though we must understand that "experiences" only serve to prove what the person seeks proof of and is highly subject to the person's interpretation of the "experience". I've heard many proclaim that God has a special purpose for them because they survived an accident when the fact is their survival was most likely based on a scientific sequence of events by which they escaped death. So there really isn't any proof whatsoever except in the person's mind.
I have a tendency to challenge believers constantly to see if they really do believe or are just getting on board the holy roller wagon for whatever reason. I guess you could consider that a test of their faith. I find that parking lot evangelists are the weakest and are just playing the Jesus game because they just got out of jail or need to adhere to a drug recovery program. After the Jesus is the way brother opening line comes the plea for monetary donation, to help with their recovery of course. On Mar 10, 8:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 Mar, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on > > Pascal's Wager. > > To a degree, it does...yes. No one will be able to prove it to > others, but rare experiences serve as proof to a few. > > > "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I > > saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in > > faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I > > am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God > > sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We understand > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > That last line of 'blind(ing) some...' is very true. But that is > necessary in order to test the faith of the faithful. Thus the VERY > important role of atheists. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7... > > > On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?" > > > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of trying to prove it. > > > nor will I attempt to. > > > Allan > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat > > > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be true. Nor do I > > > > > need > > > > to > > > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a perfectly > > > > > straight > > > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics and geometry I > > > > will > > > > > enjoy my God. > > > > > Allan > > > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of course, you > > > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your statements, I > > > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with you as a > > > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or even > > > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my opinion, God must > > > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' as being to > > > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design as I can. > > > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are healthy and some, > > > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some whilst believing > > > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or I'm being > > > > unfair. > > > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at its starting > > > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends throughout all > > > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO space-time, which > > > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since you didn't > > > > specify the length of the line, your example is incorrect, for a > > > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your example false. > > > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that has a > > > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, as the line > > > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there is much to be > > > > learned from it. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in a > > > > > > > > metaphorical > > > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because they do not > > > > > > > > grow > > > > up > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any did, > > > > > > > > there'd > > > > be > > > > > > > > chaos, as how can you have two omnipotent entities? Logic > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > allow for it. > > > > > > > > With your statement you just separated God from the rest of the > > > > > > universe! > > > > > > > To me that is one of greatest mistakes made by the religions of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > I do not want to separate God as I understand him from from his > > > > universe > > > > > > ,, > > > > > > > I only want to be part of it although it is only the tinest > > > > > > > part.. > > > > as > > > > > > long > > > > > > > as I am part that. That is my dream > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > Okay if you read your statement carefully Or better yet as I > > > > > > > read it > > > > you > > > > > > > are saying God can not have children, there is nothing > > > > > > > metaphorical > > > > > > about > > > > > > > Gods children. When you have a child Pat both you and the woman > > > > > > > that > > > > is > > > > > > > involved are nothing more than the tool the Father Creator uses > > > > > > > to > > > > bring > > > > > > > about the new child's life into the universe. As I watch new life > > > > being > > > > > > born > > > > > > > into the universe whether it is a baby an ant or insect, or > > > > > > > even > > > > an > > > > > > > entire galaxy I can only sit in awe at the skill and abilities of > > > > God. > > > > > > > > His children, none are, in reality, because they do not grow up > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. > > > > > > > > When you start making statements like this you are in my mind > > > > separating > > > > > > God > > > > > > > from his universe. Though it is suttle like placing God else > > > > > > > where l > > > > (he > > > > > > is > > > > > > > in heaven) in reality you are separating yourself from God. or > > > > placing > > > > > > > limits like (because they do not grow up to be...) > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > I have no problems with limiting God. He cannot produce a spherical > > > > > > cube, for example. Or, more simply put, God cannot NOT be God. > > > > > > There > > > > > > are other limits as well, and they are all logical. In fact, all of > > > > > > the negative commandments in the 10 commandments can be derived as > > > > > > being based on things that God cannot do, therefore we SHOULD not > > > > > > do. > > > > > > For example, God cannot create, in any single object, a thing which > > > > > > fairly represents the entirety of God, therefore, we should not > > > > > > create > > > > > > nor worship idols. My statement that God cannot have children > > > > > > stands. That is, he cannot beget an entity that can become > > > > > > omnipotent > > > > > > as there cannot be, logically, two things that are omnipotent, No > > > > > > separations involved, only logic. One cannot be two. That's not to > > > > > > say that One cannot 'appear' to be countless. THAT can be done via > > > > > > extensions of the One and a given geometry. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Pat > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8 Mar, 20:42, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well pat one of the things I can not explain is what is > > > > > > > > > beyond. > > > > . . > > > > > > > > > > > True. I agree. Consciousness, in my physics, doesn't > > > > > > > > > > exist, > > > > per > > > > > > se, > > > > > > > > > > in this 4-D universe, rather, the interface to it exists > > > > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > The concept of a 4--D universeis kind of strange because it > > > > > > > > > fails > > > > to > > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > you to be everywhere at the same time.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > , that is a very Islamic concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not just Islamic and they did not originate it.. > > > > > > > > > > > well .. > > > > > > > > > > Again, true. And Muslims would be happy to agree with that. > > > > You > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > to go back to Abraham and, in truth, Noah and Adam, before > > > > > > > > > > all. > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > > a Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept, because it is described > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > way > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > those scriptures revealed by "The God of Abraham". > > > > > > > > > > from what i have read of the koran they will not like my > > > > assessment > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > there is to much man in it people trying to be important.. and > > > > expand > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is said originally > > > > > > > > > > > > > If string theory is true, it allows for > > > > > > > > > > > > us, as physical bodies, to exist throughout these other > > > > > > > > > > > > non > > > > > > > > space-time > > > > > > > > > > > > dimensions and move through them as we move through > > > > > > > > > > > > those > > > > we > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you're not far off there, either, although I > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't > > > > say > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > are IN heaven, just that you pass through it (and hell) > > > > while > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > exist here, although at a level which is completely > > > > > > undetectable. > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > bond of which you speak, I refer to as "that we are an > > > > > > extension of > > > > > > > > > > > > the energy that is" and that that energy is God's, as > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > is > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > else. As for your last statement, how can you hide from > > > > that > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > omnipresent and how can you hide your knowledge from God > > > > when > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > your knowledge, but His, that you have? The fact that > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > space-time > > > > > > > > > > > > continum contains a permanent record of all that we have > > > > done > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > > > clear enough record to refer to and it will last for all > > > > > > time...by > > > > > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pat To me the only important thing is God and my > > > > relationship > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > him > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > how to enhance it.. It is enough for me, my experience is > > > > that > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > > try to explain what they can not explain the result is a > > > > > > > > > > > mess > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > confusing > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs I think that is because they do not know what > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > are > > > > > > > > talking > > > > > > > > > > > about. For me I am in love with my God as I understand him > > > > and > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > willing > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
