How man can prove God exists.

I always found the description of god to be too impractical to be considered realistic.
Theist like to bring up the argument that creation needs a creator. But of course god is the exception to the rule. Why would god create such an confused and inefficient universe ? We live in a nice little planet, sure. But outside of it is fatal. We can’t live or interact with any others. Then of course there’s the question of what inspired a spiritual being to create a material universe in the first place. God could have made us in any shape or form. Put us on any planet, regardless of conditions. We’re obviously adapted to the environment we grew up in. A spiritual being like god, would have no reason for human features, unless he lived in a like environment, which in turn would have to been created for him.
There is then the obvious question of why ? Any agenda god could have would , and could be incorporated into the design at the onset. So, it’s unlikely part of some long range plan.
There is simply nothing a god can give us that we would not achieve in time, which is the case .
God’s only value is in the afterlife. And I really don’t see that happening.

I became an atheist when I read the Bible and applied scientific knowledge to the claims it makes. It’s easily refuted.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He willing and able, then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing, why call him God? -Epicurus

Logically through observation, rationalization, reason, etc. The common sense tools we use to make sense of the world that all of livelihood is generally based on, reason

And I would warn you that not every atheist is a true and consistent atheist who structures their system of beliefs on principles. Some just do not want God to exist and will deny any and all principles they rely on and deny reason. So beware of that

I've just asked it to prove its existence by materializing cheese on my desk, and it didn't happen.

An "all good, all powerful, all knowledgeable" God would've 100% made the cheese appear.

Either it doesn't exist or it doesn't fit the description.

Next question

@yrger
Actually, there are plenty of you, who believe that the universe was created be some eternal being , with no beginning or end. Some of you even give him a name , Allah, Vinishu, Yahweh, etc. You are hardly original in your beliefs. You are also, very evasive on details. Earlier I asked you what features your god has. You never gave me an answer.
Why, for example dose god have to be “ permanent” ?
Once the mechanism is started, is god need to keep it going ?
Was the universe designed with a purpose in mind ?
In what manner dose god “ operate “ mankind ?
Assuming, god’s methods aren’t mechanical, how did he get his powers ?
It seems unlikely that such a being could himself be “unplanned”

You’re very confident that your concept of god is sensible, but as I stated before, an self aware, intelligent creator god, is completely impractical.
But, you are obviously unwilling to discuss that little detail, aren’t you ?

With respect to the god of the Bible, I became convinced while reading it that this was a very human work of mythologized history and outright fiction. I discerned nothing of the divine in its content or scope.

I'm an atheist in general because i have not come across any evidence or argument which is sufficient for me to accept the claim that gods exist.

As for your question, i don't know how man could prove that god exists. God could, if it exists....but evidently it has chosen not to...or of course just doesn't exist which explains the silence more parsimoniously.

You would also need to take into account pagan beliefs; many of which are many thousands of years older than christianity, judaism or islam.

Hey, i know you're new to the format and you might be having trouble navigating replies so i'll ask this question again.

You have asked me a number of questions so i want to ask you one:

If an atheist doesn't have the explanation for phenomenon x or science can't yet explain phenomenon y...how would that justify the conclusion that a god must be responsible?

As a kid,maybe 8 years old i realised that believing in an invisible man that lives everywhere simultaneously and knows everything is just silly. In fact its fucking ludicrous.

Why, as a theist, do you, to use your own words, always get banned from theists' forums? What do you do to upset them? And don't say "nothing" because people get banned for a reason even though they dont like that reason.

Hi all atheists.

I am Yrger, and I am addressing this post to all atheists:


"There are three ways man comes to know the existence of god:

1. By man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process.
2. By reading the Bible for Christians and Orthodox Jews, and the Koran for Muslims.
3. By meditation.


I know god exists by the No. 1 way.

Very briefly:
a. Man is a transient entity i.e. he is here today and then after some years of life like as much as 90 years plus, he dies.
b. The transient existence of man inevitably implicates the existence of god as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.
c. So, we are the evidence for the existence of god.
d. Therefore god exists.


You atheists are denying the existence of the biblical god.

Here is my definition of god grounded on man's intelligence and his rational faculty and his reasoning process:
God is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not god Himself.

I didn't come to that definition of god by searching the bible.

Suppose you employ your intelligence and rational faculty and reasoning process: to deny that god as defined above, did not put you into existence, but something else, like what?"

Hi Entwistle, I told you already, that I want to learn from you, because you have answers for me, but instead you keep on insisting that I answer your questions, yet you yourself don't have the answers.

So, it is absurd for us to interact, we need a third party to help us get out of this absurd situation.

On the other hand I said to you already that the fact you are writing in this thread, that is the proof that your 'i' exists, otherwise you would not be writing here.


Your question about the 'i' existing but not existing is like the trick question of atheists to the effect - with presenting to theists this challenge to god's omnipotence:* "Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot carry?"


I regret to tell you this, namely, that you are the only one still active in this my thread, and that you are active with me only, but you have contributed nothing except something like (with your no 'i' exists): "what is the sound of one hand clapping."

I am thinking of starting a new thread, because this thread has already depleted all possible readers who could care to contribute their posts.


So, I have to stop giving you any further attention, unless you stop playing your absurd game of what is the sound of one hand clapping - then you would have all the space you need to continue with your question, where is the 'i' .





*I have resolved that trick question, but since atheists are as a rule irrational, they do not care to act intelligent and accept my resolution to their trick question. What about you, do you still have enough rational intelligence to understand my resolution, or you are also like all atheists: irrationally un-intelligent to the extent of insanity.

Hi everyone, I had just noticed that I forgot to define what is hubris in my post, so I will now define it, and you will read it as it now is presented below:

------------------
yrger · 80-89, M
Hi everyone.

Before anything else, there is existence as distinct to and opposite to nothingness. -Yrger

Please take notice, everyone, of the statement above, from me the theist author of the present thread, "How man can prove God exists."

Now, take notice also and most importantly this line from newjaninev2 :
"The Big Bang was not the start of the physical universe (what other sort is there)." (Read her post below.)


Hi newjaninev2, you ask what other sort is there aside from the physical universe.

I tell you, there is the totality of existence aside from the physical universe which is just a mere 4% of the physical universe that you and scientists have access to, while the 96% of the physical universe is beyond access to you and scientists.

So, take a big dose of reality into your heart and mind, instead of wallowing in vain empty hubris.*

-------------
"newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger the Big Bang was not the start of the physical universe (what other sort is there).
It was the start of the expansion of the universe.
That expansion led to relative positioning i.e. space time, so it is incoherent and meaningless to speak of ‘before’ the Big Bang.
I’d be happy to discuss that with you - but you run away from all such offers, so…
--------------------

You say the Big Bang was the start of the expansion of the physical universe.

So, you do admit that the physical universe does have a beginning in regard to its expansion, yes or no?


That is one question for you, Newjaninev2.

The second question for you and scientists:
Are you and scientists not indulging in an extreme narrow mindset with restrictively concentrating on the 'physical universe', for the totality of the universe is certainly much much much much greater than just the physical universe?


I await your answers to my two questions.
-------------------

Cfr. Oxford Languages:

*hubris

excessive pride or self-confidence.
"the self-assured hubris among economists was shaken in the late 1980s"

Similar:
arrogance conceit conceitedness haughtiness pride vanity self-importance self-conceit pomposity superciliousness feeling of superiority hauteur uppitiness big-headedness

Opposite:
modesty
(in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

@yrger
I still think you’re being too human in your belief. I have no idea what preceded creation of our existence, but I do not believe that it was ,living, conscience, or self aware.

"Something exists which is the permanent self-existent container of all things not iself (the something), and is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not that something itself." -Yrger
---------------------

Hi Doc, you say:
"But, you are obviously unwilling to discuss that little detail, aren’t you ?"

You see the text at the top, what detail would you like to discuss with me?


-------------------
DocSavage · M
@yrger
I know where and what I orginated from:
"Something that is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not itself."
Actually, there are plenty of you, who believe that the universe was created be some eternal being , with no beginning or end. Some of you even give him a name , Allah, Vinishu, Yahweh, etc. You are hardly original in your beliefs. You are also, very evasive on details. Earlier I asked you what features your god has. You never gave me an answer.
Why, for example dose god have to be “ permanent” ?
Once the mechanism is started, is god need to keep it going ?
Was the universe designed with a purpose in mind ?
In what manner dose god “ operate “ mankind ?
Assuming, god’s methods aren’t mechanical, how did he get his powers ?
It seems unlikely that such a being could himself be “unplanned”

You’re very confident that your concept of god is sensible, but as I stated before, an self aware, intelligent creator god, is completely impractical.
But, you are obviously unwilling to discuss that little detail, aren’t you ?
---------------

Newjaninev2 · 51-55, F says to yrger:


Why are you telling me what I mean?

If my meaning is unclear, simply ask me.

I have already said that love isn’t how we feel about the other person... love is how we feel about ourselves when we’re with the other person.

If two people feel good about themselves when they are with the other person, then that mutuality of self-benefit will bring them together.

You will note that I am not saying 'love is a feeling between two persons who are in love’ (that statement is, in any case, circular, and explains nothing)

I have already said that love isn’t how we feel about the other person... love is how we feel about ourselves when we’re with the other person.

If two people feel good about themselves when they are with the other person, then that mutuality of self-benefit will bring them together.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Newjaninev2, you submit:

(a) that love isn’t how we feel about the other person...
(b) love is how we feel about ourselves
(c) when we’re with the other person.
(d) If two people feel good about themselves when they are with the other person,
(e) then that mutuality of self-benefit will bring them together.


Let you and me talk about love between you and me, is that all right with you?


In the order of time sequence:

In (a) you declare "that love isn’t how we feel about the other person."

In (b) you declare "love is how we feel about ourselves."

In (c) "you are with the other person."

In (d) you each one feel good about each one's self when together.

In (e) you each one conclude the mutuality of self-benefit will bring you two together.


So, that is for you what love is all about, "the mutuality of self-benefit."


I have a question for you:
"When your mother already loved you while she was happily carrying you in her womb with gladsome expectation, did she harbor the idea that love is the the mutuality of self-benefit, and it will bring you two together"?

With testable evidence you would prove God exists .

My working adage is: If it’s not science, it’s superstition. Carl Sagan’s famous line "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" needs to be used here. Anecdotal testimony is not acceptable.

I have zero tolerance for magical claims of any kind.

this conversation has gotten way outta control. So i am going to speak plainly. and i have posted this many times here. People create gods from the actions of humans.

I believe that Yahweh and Lucifero existed as big strong intelligent superior men. Lucifero worshipped Yahweh who was the leader of the village. But as time grew, Lucifero started to disagree with all of Yahweh's decisions. He fought Yahweh to the death and lost. and as people usually did back then...they set Lucifer's dead body on fire. The end.

@BlueSkyKing


Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255

We're more like primitive fishes than once believed, new research shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210205210627.htm

The Human Edge: Finding Our Inner Fish
https://www.npr.org/2010/07/05/127937070/the-human-edge-finding-our-inner-fish

Ancient 4-limbed fish reveals origin of human hand
https://earthsky.org/earth/elpistostege-ancient-4limbed-fish-fin-origin-human-hand/

Middle Ear of Humans Evolved From Fish Gills, According to Study
https://www.newsweek.com/middle-ear-humans-evolved-fish-gills-according-study-1719212

How a 380-Million-Year-Old Fish Gave Us Fingers
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-380-million-year-old-fish-gave-us-fingers/

If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
https://monkeygene.com/if-humans-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI78-Ipv2L-gIVld7ICh3pkQorEAMYAiAAEgLQ2fD_BwE

Hi everyone.

Before anything else, there is existence as distinct to and opposite to nothingness. -Yrger

Please take notice, everyone, of the statement above, from me the theist author of the present thread, "How man can prove God exists."

Now, take notice also and most importantly this line from newjaninev2 :
"The Big Bang was not the start of the physical universe (what other sort is there)." (Read her post below.)


Hi newjaninev2, you ask what other sort is there aside from the physical universe.

I tell you, there is the totality of existence aside from the physical universe which is just a mere 4% of the physical universe that you and scientists have access to, while the 96% of the physical universe is beyond access to you and scientists.

So, take a big dose of reality into your heart and mind, instead of wallowing in vain empty hubris.



You say the Big Bang was the start of the expansion of the physical universe.

So, you do admit that the physical universe does have a beginning in regard to its expansion, yes or no?


That is one question for you, Newjaninev2.

The second question for you and scientists:
Are you and scientists not indulging in an extreme narrow mindset with restrictively concentrating on the 'physical universe', for the totality of the universe is certainly much much much much greater than just the physical universe?


I await your answers to my two questions.

Hi everyone.

Scientists talk about the physical universe, and its components, including such most esoteric things as black holes.

But above and beyond the physical universe there is the transcendent universe which is all god.

So, we can talk about existence, of which there are two kinds: (a) the transcendent existence and (b) the descendent existence also called the physical universe.

(a) is all god, permanent and self-existent.
(b) is the creation of god, and god can fold it up as to render it extinct i.e. into nothingness.*

Where would the universe go to when it became extinct?

Where to? Where else but back into the bosom of god.

Everything is made of the god stuff, god can bring it out from god's bosom, and bring it back in.


*Google, Will the uinverse end.

Paging newjaninev2 · 51-55, F.


Hi newjaninev2 · 51-55, F, please give your definition of what is love, see mine below at the bottom.

-------------------------
yrger · 80-89, M
Hiev2 · 51-55, F newjanin

What is love?

Berore anything else, we approach the question from seardhing ourselves, have we experienced what we call by the word love?

If you are like Tarzan all alone the only human in the jungle, can you experience love, as to ask yourself, what is this thing I am experiencing?


Forget Tarzan, the reality is that we live with fellow humans.

So, let you and me work together as to agree on what is love, is that all right with you?

From my part, love is a feeling, and what is a feeling?

A feeling is an emotion, and what is an emotion?

An emotion is an urge to do something, like with love, it is the urge or drive to do what?

To kiss the person you love - hahahahaha.

And you want her or him to kiss you back.


So, hi Newj, don't go into a lot of vacuous blah blah blah . . .

Here is my definition of love:
"Love is the feeling which moves us to do something like kiss the prson we love, to please the person we love, and the person we love who also loves us, this person kiss us back - all that is loving each other between two humans."

Hi atheists and everyone else human here, please read the following two texts (a) and (b) below.


When you finished reading, I like to invite you all to identify the universe as the totality of existence.

So that the universe = the totality of existence.

And we will label the universe = the totality of existence as "the universe/existence."


According to scientists we know only a mere 4% of the universe/existence, which they call the observable universe/existence, and the remainder 96% of the universe/existence as the unobservable universe/existence.

Now, let us bring in the Big Bang theory and ask ourselves:
In the Big Bang theory, What is the relationship between the unobservable universe/existence and the observable universe/existence?

From my part as the theist, I say the unobservable universe/existence caused the beginning of the observable/universe/existence.

That means 96% of the universe/existence brought about the reality of the 4% universe/exstence.

What do you atheists and everyone else say?

----------------



(a) The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. In fact, some philosophers and scientists support the inclusion of ideas and abstract concepts—such as mathematics and logic—in the definition of the universe. The word universe may also refer to concepts such as the cosmos, the world, and nature. -Wikipedia on universe.

(b) I now invite you guys to read the article 'universe' in Wikipedia. where you will meet these three phrases:

(a) universe
(b) physical universe
(c) observable universe

So, think now, really using your brain matter, and tell me whether any of the three phrases or all together be equivalent to the 'totality of existence'? -Yrger the theist

If this God dude is so great, why were the Beatles more popular?

Hi Entwistle, I ask you to produce say ten ideas that are synonimous with annata, but again as usual you go into another direction.



Anyway, you say that "All things are collections of other things. Hence they have no inherent selfhood."

Right away, don't you notice that you are not into ideas but things, so you are already wrong with your insistence that you want to debate on ideas and not things.

And that is what I am telling you about, we cannot debate on ideas, but on things which exist like the nose our face.

In addition, you say, all things are collections of other things, hence they have no selfhood, what is a selfhood with yourself and myself which do sport a nose on our face?


So, your insistence on debating on ideas is totally absurd, and I fear that your brain is full of absurdities no matter that you recite Buddhist koans, which are before anythings else sounds, and they are things not ideas.

Lastly, ideas represent things, and not nothing - otherwise when your ideas represent nothingness, then you are insane or for a concrete word, crazy.


In addition, have you ever been to the Far East where there are Buddhist monks? They live by asking for foods from people, because they are very busy with meditation. What they should do is yes meditate but also grow rice and vegetables to feed themselves.


Now, tell me, was Gautama the Buddha sporting a body which he has to feed and also to defecate and urinate, is he an idea or a body like your body and my body?


So, I fear that you are full a Buddhist nonsense.

Hi everyone human like me, even though you call yourselves atheists, and I the theist, we all have intelligence that gets us to the moon and back.

From reading atheists here I have gotten a lot of insights, no not from their thoughs, but from trying to see how they fit into the whole big sphere of existence.

You all see, even atheists, that we are all connected, all components of the whole big sphere of existence.

Outside the the whole big sphere of existence, there is only nothingness.

In this the whole big sphere of existence, there is one component that is permanent and self-existing, and it is the source of everything else, including black holes, and atheists, the like of which, one is called newjaninev2 of fond remembrance - hehehe.

The trouble with atheists is that they don't see anything at all except a scrap here and a scrap there, but never the whole big sphere of existence.

Hi beloved atheists, contemplate the whole big sphere of existence, instead of thinking about some scrap here and some scrap there, like how the egg gets to come first before the chicken: if you ask me, they come forth together at the same time: the egg inside the chicken - then the chicken lays the first egg and sits on it to hatch it into the next chicken, that starts the species of chicken. See! It's so simple when you atheists really use your brain to think instead of to hate.


Okay, hi atheists, contemplate the the whole big sphere of existence.

Bye bye for now.



Annex

Addressing all atheists and all theists and everyone else, tell me what is your experience and also your definition of love.

Here is my definition of love:
"Love is the feeling which moves us to do something like kiss the prson we love, to please the person we love, and the person we love who also loves us, this person kiss us back - all that is loving each other between two humans.
-----------------

Annex
-----------------
yrger · 80-89, M
Hi newjaninev2 · 51-55, F

What is love?

Berore anything else, we approach the question from seardhing ourselves, have we experienced what we call by the word love?

If you are like Tarzan all alone the only human in the jungle, can you experience love, as to ask yourself, what is this thing I am experiencing?


Forget Tarzan, the reality is that we live with fellow humans.

So, let you and me work together as to agree on what is love, is that all right with you?

From my part, love is a feeling, and what is a feeling?

A feeling is an emotion, and what is an emotion?

An emotion is an urge to do something, like with love, it is the urge or drive to do what?

To kiss the person you love - hahahahaha.

And you want her or him to kiss you back.


So, hi Newj, don't go into a lot of vacuous blah blah blah . . .

Here is my definition of love:
"Love is the feeling which moves us to do something like kiss the prson we love, to please the person we love, and the person we love who also loves us, this person kiss us back - all that is loving each other between two humans.
-----------------

I think that people are insane. They had to invent a reason or purpose for being when there really is none. There is no God. We were created because of several cataclysmic events on other planets. there was life on all planets at one time, otherwise there would be no planets. Then eventually they were too close to the sun or too far away and died off. some bumped into each other. Some of their particles ended up on Earth. We were most likely in some sort of life state and these particles helped to jump start our evolution. and here we are.

Religion has been the cause and excuse for most of humans stupid acts. Prejudice, war, bombings etc...if people weren't so RELIGIOUS this might be a nice place to live

Hi newjaninev2, you say:
"If two people feel good about themselves when they are with the other person, then that mutuality of self-benefit will bring them together."

Honestly, I can't make out neither head nor tail what you are saying at all.

(a) If two people feel good about themselves
(b) when they are with the other person,
(c) then that mutuality of self-benefit will bring them together.

From (a) to (c) you don't mention love at all.

So, are you talking about love or not talking about love?


By the way, from me reading your language, polite and decent and respectful: it seems to me that you were sent by your loving parents to a most exclusive Christian school for girls.

That shool brought you up to be most polite and decent and respectful in your lanaguage.

Aha! You were a veteran Christian, but mysteriously converted yourself into an atheist, but your language gives you away.

Or you lell in love with an atheist and thus from love you joined him in his atheistic life, from head to toes.

Now, see what love can do to people, turn them from loving god to loving atheists, when they fall for atheists.

They could start by presenting some of the shed loads of evidence they claim to have.

If god doesnt exist, we will never know because you cant prove a negative, only suggest its unlikely due to lack of evidence.

If he does exist however, i hope we do find out soon, i would like to know for sure. But until then i choose the lack of sufficient evidence approach. Im old enough to not need guidance or anything of that nature to live a good life.

I do prefer theists over atheists however, because they generally do have a moral code to live by which i think makes our nation a better place. Lately, that moral code is out the window, producing a lot of selfish egotistical people

Hi all atheists, DocSavage has not yet replied to my post below.*

In the meantime, what detail would you any atheist like to discuss with me on my description (as follows next) of the entity which is the ultimate source of all instances of existence with a beginning.

"Something exists which is the permanent self-existent container of all things not iself (the something), and is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not that something itself." -Yrger


*-------------
yrger · 80-89, M
"Something exists which is the permanent self-existent container of all things not iself (the something), and is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not that something itself." -Yrger
---------------------

Hi Doc, you say:
"But, you are obviously unwilling to discuss that little detail, aren’t you ?"

You see the text at the top, what detail would you like to discuss with me?


-------------------
DocSavage · M
@yrger
I know where and what I orginated from:
"Something that is the permanent self-existent container of all things, and the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not itself."
Actually, there are plenty of you, who believe that the universe was created be some eternal being , with no beginning or end. Some of you even give him a name , Allah, Vinishu, Yahweh, etc. You are hardly original in your beliefs. You are also, very evasive on details. Earlier I asked you what features your god has. You never gave me an answer.
Why, for example dose god have to be “ permanent” ?
Once the mechanism is started, is god need to keep it going ?
Was the universe designed with a purpose in mind ?
In what manner dose god “ operate “ mankind ?
Assuming, god’s methods aren’t mechanical, how did he get his powers ?
It seems unlikely that such a being could himself be “unplanned”

You’re very confident that your concept of god is sensible, but as I stated before, an self aware, intelligent creator god, is completely impractical.
But, you are obviously unwilling to discuss that little detail, aren’t you ?

This is going to get atheists foaming in their mouth with hatred toward me.

And I can't blame them, for I have the idea that god is the totality of existence, meaning all existence whatsover is made by god from god's 'materia', I mean the stuff that god itself is made of.

Let me mention sub sub sub sub atomic particles, physicists are going head over heels looking for the final smallest particles, in order to know what is the universe made of.

I tell them, Stop your foolish search, all things in the universe - or whatevr verse you want to call everything you examine, it is made of the god-stuff, meaning the substance that is god itself.

As you atheists deny god exists, you will never ever come to the ultimate composition of the universe, or what I call existence, because universe or the totality of existence is made up of the god-self.

Does that mean that atheists themselves are made of the god-stuff, you got it correct!

Tell you what, hi atheists, you read everything that Stephen Hawking keeps on and on telling mankind that there is no god, the man is mentally sick, not only in his neurological disease of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis aka Lou Gehrig's illness.

The man could use an experienced psychoanalyst to cure him of this internal conflict, for he is made of god-stuff, but he keeps on and on denying his god-stuff composition.

So, my advice to you atheists, you need the best psychoanalysts to clear you of your mential sickness, you have got to face the fact that you guys are made of the god-stuff.

Hi everyone, The Big Bang is the start of the physical universe, and it is the evidence that anterior to it, there is a non-physical god that is permanent and self-existing and is the container and creator and operator of all things whatsoever that has a beginning.

This god is the creator master of the 4% of the physical uninverse known to scientists and the 96% not known to scientists.

So, god is the container and creator and operator of the totality of existence of which god is the only unique permanent self-existing entity.

And here is the final clincher:
God is the medium of existence for everything that is not god himself. Like as water is the medium of existence for fish, and air is the medium of existence for mankind and all living things on land.

In brief words for us humans, we live and move and have our being in god.

And in brief words about god, it is all god god god god god god god god . . .

Finally in just three words: "god is existence."

And I can say to our own credit:
"We exist, therefore god exists." -Pauca Verba

Hi everyone, do you know that god is equivalent to existence, so that the whole universe without any qualification is all god, and outside god i.e. existence there is only nothingness.

We humans are the greatest creation of god, and god created us to be intelligent.

From almost endless research, I have divided into three ways how man comes to know god exists:

1. By man's intelligence
2. By reading the bible for Christians and the koran for Muslims
3. By meditation

In my own case I come to know god exists with thinking that there is an ultimate
entity that is in chage of everything in the material part of the universe, that means all things which are subject to measurement, like we humans and also stones and atoms and all sub sub sub sub sub . . . atomic particles whatsoever.

All these components of the material universe observe order, and with living things like us humans, all our body parts observe order, so that we don't experience our nose falling off our face uncertainly.

Order implicates inevitably the existence of an entity that issues out orders.

And what or who is the ultimage entity in charge of issuing out orders i.e. commands?

Who else but god.

That is how and why I define god as the permanent self-existent container of all things whatsoever including the god-self, and god is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything that is not the god-self.

Hi Entwistle.

Thanks for your reply, remember we are in a debate on ideas, as you want, not on things, but now you are talking about things. Ha ha.

Okay, you are insisting on that all things are composed of other things and therefore they lack independent existence. I am not challenging that.

Is that a discovery from your part owing to Buddhist meditation. Even without Buddhist meditation a mere child knows that from his intelligence.

What exactly are we debating on now, that nothing is or isn't into its 'selfhood'?

But I am all the way with you on that nothing is independent, period.

Am I insisting on the opposite, that everything is independent?


Hey, you say you want to talk philosophy? Now, it seems that the only philosophy you know is Buddhist philosophy.

And your Buddhist philosophy is into what? Wow! What a discovery, that everything is composed of also things.

The grade school kid knows from science that everything is made up of parts or other things.

Tell me, do Buddfhist masters of learning learn that from Buddhist kind of meditation? And you learn from them. What about you do some intelligent thinking by yourself, okay?

Hi everyone here, I am now reading about particle physics and also about quantum field theory.

I could be mistaken, but my impression is that latest scientists are not so sure that nature is just made up of particles and quantums.

If they ask me, I would tell them all nature is made up of what I call the god-stuff, and god exists explains everything.


Cfr.

A Deepening Crisis Forces Physicists to Rethink Structure of Nature’s Laws
For three decades, researchers hunted in vain for new elementary particles that would have explained why nature looks the way it does. As physicists confront that failure, they’re reexamining a longstanding assumption: that big stuff consists of smaller stuff.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/crisis-in-particle-physics-forces-a-rethink-of-what-is-natural-20220301/


What Is Quantum Field Theory and Why Is It Incomplete?
Quantum field theory may be the most successful scientific theory of all time, but there’s reason to think it’s missing something. Steven Strogatz speaks with theoretical physicist David Tong about this enigmatic theory.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-quantum-field-theory-and-why-is-it-incomplete-20220810/

( I suggest you anyone new, pay attention to the latest texts from me below. )

Again.
Hi everyone here, has there always been existence or there was a time when nothing exists?

I Yrger ask everyone here that question, and so far no one has answered.

Your silence is too loud for me to not neglect.

---------------

I want to talk with anyone who can think straight that there has always been something instead of nothing.

When I read anyone starting off with saying that he is still trying to understand what is nothing, then he is certainly a no thinking straight entity whatever.

No need to entertain him, he is not a straight thinker.

When a human starts with saying that he still studying what is nothing, then you will be wasting your time, the man is just seeking to appear profount, but he is profounding either out of his mind, or playing dishonestly the game of distracting you into a useless discussion about nothing.

The fact is that nothing is nothing so don't talk about it.

No matter that such a non-straight thinking human entity invests billions and billions and billions . . . . into waiting, nothing ain't gonna become something.

Just a century or two ago, humans only believed what they can perceive with their five senses. Now we have developed some science and have also started to recognize few more thing that were not acceptable before, like viruses, induction, electromagnetic radiation, etc.

Until the science develops so much that it can observe all & every thing beyond the current sphere of knowledge of science, the truth of God will remain a mystery.

So more sensible to be agnostic than atheist.

Hi everyone, (a) we humans are intelligent, (b) but we did not make ourselves, in addition (c) we are transient entities, i.e. not permanent, when we die we are gone into non-existence.

(a) we humans are intelligent,
(b) but we did not make ourselves, in addition
(c) we are transient entities, i.e. not permanent, when we die we are gone into non-existence.


(b) is obvious in the ultimate summation, that means that yes we come from our papa and mama, but they come from their papa and mama and on and on . . . from sub sub sub atomic particles on and on until our investigation finally comes to the first entity, which is the original creator of everything i.e. god who is permanent and self-existent.

(a) we humans are intelligent, so god our creator is nth times more intelligent than us.

(c) We humans are transient i.e. temporary in our existence, but god is permanent and self-existent, and that is the way god wants it, that we be transient i.e. temporary in our existent.

I ask god why he makes us to exist only for a time and then we are gone with our end i.e. with death.

Hi everyone human, you know why?

I think it is because god wants us to ask for it, namely, everlasting life, on condition that we deserve it.