Old threads of discussion I have had.

[Mystic]

Well everything is a sign of God, but not in the way you expressed me to believe it. Everything speaks something about him, even a stop sign, can be a parable of him in some sense, God appears as a stop sign if we are going off track and reminds us to go on track.

In this sense, you are right. I am at a point, where I can't not see God. I see the color as something that descended from a higher plane and is a manifestation of God as well.

Everything is somehow a sign, and he even appears disgusting and as filth, to some people, because their world is upside down, where the pure word is seen as disgusting and low, and the disgusting word is seen high and great.

We live in a world of parables, everything we see are in fact, representations of something more abstract where it's derived from.

I see it. And once you see it, you know the source of the similarity of all things as well as their difference, transcends everything, yet is each thing at it's ultimate, and the collective all as well.

There is a simple term for that: confirmation bias. If everything points to your conclusion, that's when you've got to start worrying that it may be in play. Confirmation bias happens to everyone and it manifests as a feeling of certainty, but as I've said before, just play a few Mafia games to see how unreliable it can be. As I said it's something that happens to everyone but imo it's something we should not aim for and should be constantly on guard against.

A feeling of certainty is useless if it's deceiving false claim of certainty.

But there is proofs for this and it can be seen. One thing is no idea cannot exist with God, but from the perspective of Oneness, there isn't multiple ideas, but just Him. So if God exists, this vision we be correct.

You guys always assume it's incorrect.

And non-existence as a default sate is irrational, it can't be the default. The default is existence, but why is semi-level of existence, it can't be, for the same reasons non-existence is rrational, any non-existence is irrational, for the reason they are irrational, is because only existence is rational.

Non-existence is irrational, so the default is absolute existence.

I am sure from multiple ends, the absolute exists. Some people like purely thinking of mathematically, and from that perspective, the non-existence applying to any level of non-existence being irrational, proves God.

And I don't any know philosophers who says non-existence is a rational possibility, and it says existence is the default rational only possibility. So why is that?

It's cause reality is derived from absolue existence. The Persians referred to "God" not by the term "God" and still to this day don't, but refer to him as "Khuda" which means "The Necessary".

Cultures all understood this being existed from some avenue.

Some cultures called it heaven, as in the highest reality by which every descends from and ascends to.

You guys don't understand a single argument in any cultural framework, but just, say there are no proofs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot of people have believed in alot of embarrassingly false things, Mystic.  The simple reading of why you hear people tell you that there;s no proof of god..is that they haven't seen any.  Not that they can't understand this or that culture or their religious beliefs past or present (or any of your more creative explanations..for that matter).

[Mystic]

Yeah, this place is just chock full of people who accept the institution of a monarchy and the divine right of kings.  That;s certainly going to resonate with people and bring them round to seeing the light of the face that values the love of the one who guides.

You know what I;ve always wondered..though?  Why not the tenth..or the thirteenth, or the eleventysecond?

You wonder and you ask, and certainly there is wisdom in 13, founder, and 12 successors.   But one thing for sure, is God would be consistent. There is arguments as to why God would be consistent with the number.

So I only see one consistent number. And the wisdom of why 12 succeeding Captains, if I explained it, we all know you would just mock the wisdom.

---

Alot of people have believed in alot of embarrassingly false things, Mystic.  The simple reading of why you hear people tell you that there;s no proof of god..is that they haven't seen any.  Not that they can't understand this or that culture or their religious beliefs past or present (or any of your more creative explanations..for that matter).

You believe in false things too. So nothing you say can be true?

[emjay]

@K. The problem is, God will never 'flip' so to speak, so this could go on forever.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've heard that vampires have to count sesame seeds if you throw them on the ground, too.

I'm sure I accept at least a few false things as truth.  Hard to pin down what they might be, though...that's sort of the nature of being mistaken.  You don't know that you're mistaken.....or you wouldn't be mistaken.

[Mystic]

Exactly, which makes axioms practically useless, and the journey to knowledge to separate what we don't know from what we know, a journey to self-honesty.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't you already have another thread going for that particular complaint?  Meh, anyway, the use of axioms is only so that people know how you arrived at whatever conclusion you have.  But..sure, if I had to pick one piece of corn out of the turd that is your posting history.....it would be this.

That the journey to knowledge at least requires a journey to self-honesty...particularly about ones own axioms.

[Mystic]

@K. The problem is, God will never 'flip' so to speak, so this could go on forever.

It can go on forever, but I argue the backward approach is best, wherever everyone doesn't dismiss truth because it sounds silly, but gives everyone and every human, a chance to participate in the dialogue.

If Atheists are right that Theists need to prove their case, and I believe they are right which I previously didn't,  then Atheists need to give them a chance to present the proof if they are interested in it.

Otherwise, if they going to try to sabotage every proof and make a messy dialogue, believers don't have to convince an Athiest.

They can just refer them to a proof.  And leave them alone at it.

Otherwise, the claim for proofs needs sincere dialogue recipients and attentive ears.

---

That the journey to knowledge at least requires a journey to self-honesty...particularly about ones own axioms.

And if there is such thing or it's a lazy way stay at a perception of abstraction and not get the eye of knowledge and certainty.

At least we agreed for once haha.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you think it's dialogue to chant mk-isms at us, get pissy, and then call everyone a liar every time you fall flat on your face?

[Mystic]

Do you think it's dialogue to chant mk-isms at us, get pissy, and then call everyone a liar every time you fall flat on your face?

When you avoid the dialogue, attack the conclusion, or attack a premise after it's been discussed and avoid the dialogue that is building on it and avoid where the discussion is leading, I'm only human to get frustrated.