Is it possible to prove the existence of a loving God?

@werter,

werter wrote:

I'm saying physics made it do that, but that physics has order, it has laws that can be studied and tested. This implies an orderer, someone or something that GAVE that order.

No such thing is implied. Nature doesn't need an "orderer" to accomplish the things it does, so why would the Universe itself require an "orderer" for it to be what it is.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I don't think werter understands the concept of "nature."

0 Replies

Quote:

but that physics has order, it has laws that can be studied and tested

WE SCRIBE a mathematical solution to the phenomena of physics (Chem and bio too)> WHN you think about it though, "order" has very little to do with it since much of our knowledge of things like quantum physics is heavily steeped in multivariat statistical analyses using such tools as krigging, or factor analyses, or trend surface.
Hardly "ORDER". we apply the order by our pattern seeking math.

1 Reply

@werter,

werter wrote:

You saying that the big bang could have been caused by something outside the Universe is akin to the definition of God.

No it's not. It's not even remotely similar.

werter wrote:

"God is transcendent, that is, outside the Universe." How would you define energy? It has always existed? Been around since the beginning of time? Makes up all things? Many people say the same thing about God. You see, Science and Religion are saying the exact same things, just using different words.

Science and Religion are not saying the same thing with different words. Only people who mangle the definitions of words are saying the same thing with different words.

Science doesn't even remotely imply that an omniscient being outside of the Universe created the Universe. The science that we use isn't even equipped to deal with things outside of the Universe. All we can say about things outside the Universe is we just don't know.

Religion is quite the opposite. Religion claims to know what is unknowable and supports it with Faith.

1 Reply

@werter,

werter,

Rosborne is correct. "Order" is an anthropocentric concept.

According to some eminent scientists and thinkers who are also "believers" you've got it the wrong way round. The "existence of God" has nothing to do with the details of what we continuously re-construct as our understanding of "the world", but lies in the transcendent concept of "holistic love". Such a concept has nothing to do with "proof" and relies on experiential "faith". From such a position it is irrelevant whether such a "God" is a personified agent of "creation" or not, despite the fact that the masses psychologically require some sort of personification/father figure as a focus for their common social interactions which they call "religion".

"Proof" is to "God" as Algebra is to Compassion.

0 Replies

the problem here is what u clearly exhibit without shame about ur ways to gain some energy to state urself being present

it is clear for any honest head meanin everything perspective right, that all happen at once so existence gods objects subjects wills freedom realities love hate superiority inferiority right wrong conscious force and truth which is the right perspective always present since present source but since truth cause is existence so existence is happenin first while truth must b always first of course as the right base before any existence

while u have no problem in standin conscious knowin that all, to repeat how u love fake and dont see any wrong if truth is not first

u enjoy the possible creation to invent urself and anything to an extent that u clearly preach how u can b as such forever while standin with a tie free no problem

yea sure when truth is first objective right to b before any existence u would b forced to accept being as less constantly, and not occasionnally goin to church meaning a superiority to praise first and give it fruits that the big monster creates it for u to its own pleasurable life growth
bravissima u won **** u

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Science doesn't even remotely imply that an omniscient being outside of the Universe created the Universe.

I think Ros the entire panoply is laid to rest by the apodictical existential pantheist who resolves "creation" by suggeseting She has existed forever and that there simply is no "outside"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

(Sorry, I should have attributed the "order" point to you specifically. Ros followed on).

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

nonsense all whatever u say is for ur easiest way to get above all where then reality could b meant for u alive

a lot like ur kind are unfortunately too much supported now to b present against present rights
ur speciality is to take advantage from some knowledge by killin it first
since all now is known

freedom is by definition always outside so of course outside is always present while relative present is only objective freedom that can constantly exist

**** u in ur depth of **** so u can represent the fancy about ur gods absolute powers destructions

1 Reply

@werter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5139250)
You actually make a great point here. How can you know? I'm not gonna say the usual answer of "oh its in the bible blah blah blah," but I will ask you this. Do you believe in an afterlife of any kind?

Werter, I do not know if there is an afterlife of any kind; I do not know that there is...I do not know that there is not.

Any guess I would make about it would be, in my opinion, absolutely blind in nature, because there is nothing whatever that convinces ME that one seems more likely than the other.

So I do not make a guess on it...I do not have a "belief" about it.

1 Reply

@werter,

werter wrote:

Sure, their are MANY "proofs" for the existence of a Creator, or a First Cause, or Source, but are their any proofs that this source or cause is both conscious, and is all-loving?

It is indeed possible to prove the existence of a loving God.

1. If there is a cat on the mat, then there exists a loving God.
2. There is a cat on the mat.
3. Therefore, there exists a loving God.

Satisfied? I hope not.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

assumin that a cat is a proof of god love is meanin animals possessions being kingdom of heaven
what possess by definition consider itself the only one existing so u r provin that god dont love

what knows being created are the ones that act in those terms clearly by willin to kill their creator who consider them as **** endlessly

truth exist and it is not god existence is true and it is not one
beyond truth exist too and it is not god at all, one exist and it is not god and not love

**** u u and ur cats and dogs and lions and rats and lepres and all ur disgusting life in ur heads and eyes pleasures

0 Replies

Gnostic's have a Earth god call Sophia

And Gnostic's are about learning

1 Reply

@north,

why is it called sophia, who set sophia existence, and if sophia is done then how is it a god, and if it is not done how could it b called smthg

same for wat u gnostic, wat is that word, it doesnt mean anything so it is evil living quality forced to exist as free without objective meaning
gno?? wat is gno put all stics in ur ass

1 Reply

@imans,

while what i just said has a clear meaning, provin how meanings are existence facts, so even when the mean is to prove the nonmean it is a mean of smthg else to prove it

the existing mean i stand there on, is what existence is always about absolute constancy, so it cant b but a point only free so constant
so when u mean ur god powers to invent meanings existence for nopowers slaves to learn from endlessly, what is there as absolute point is only the meanin lie bein the only constant
so whatever like u who would adopt the mean set is evil clearly bc for sure u cant perceive but that mean being a lie for god powers benefits

0 Replies

@absos,

My word Ab, but you seem so angry

Why

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

there is nothing whatever that convinces ME that one seems more likely than the other.

Perhaps not convince, Frank, but doesn't Intuition lean either way

….at all strongly

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

this is also clearly ur word alone, it is obvious that noone can clarify what i meant till its end freedom like i did if it wasnt totally out of it seeing it as nothing
talkin about nomeans is meanin what cant b existing so lie as nothing when it is such clear

but it is always the same cd, u have all intersts to mean me personnally in negative terms bc u cant handle that i am much superior in absolute terms, always which make u exponentially angry urself if u must face the truth as it would mean u being inferior always

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Frank fails to take account that his "ME" has no recollection of a life before this one, which logically implies that "ME" is unlikely to continue afterwards. And since what we call "life" is exclusively an experience of such "ME's, it is totally meaningless to talk about "an afterlife" without implying a continuity of a ME. Frank's eqivocal posture which he calls "not knowing" is merely a piece of verbage disguising "not thinking".

4 Replies

@werter,

Yes, there are. In the Bible book of Acts, chapter 14 verses 16 and 17 note what God inspired the apostle to write about him.

Acts 14: v16 In the past generations he permitted all the nations to go on in their ways, v17 although, indeed, he did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving YOU rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling YOUR hearts to the full with food and good cheer.”

0 Replies

Is it possible to prove the existence of a loving God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know