Burden proof is coupled with burden to listen.

[Anomalocaris]

More red herrings...

It's a very simple and manifest proposition.

And it humbles the dialogue - and put's both sides on equal planes.  Both have to be attentive to others and sincere dialogue is the only way out of this problem.

A person might not present a proof but if people are bad listeners, he wouldn't know he didn't present a proper proof at least through their bad listening.

You guys - keep diverting the topic...  It's a very simple proposition is fair.

Others are acting emotionally and diverting the topic.

There is nothing humble about seeking to impose on others a burden to listen without being able to show you have anything worthwhile to say.  There is nothing humble about demanding equality without demonstrating comparable virtue.

If you are humble, then focus on proving what you peddle with present accomplishment, or accept what you peddle is without virtue, rather than trying pathetically to shove stale 1300 year old sophistry down people’s throats.

[brewer]

I agreed with you up to a point. But then you went side track with the "God is light" claim. Up to that time you were fine. So, I listened, then challenged requesting proof. I could have challenged other things you claim but thought I'd start with the most obvious unfounded claim.

That was a side comment.   It's just informing of my perspective. If you want to discuss proofs regarding that, I suggest reading "Ultimate Value and the Signs of it in ourselves" thread. It's very detailed, and I've read a quite a few times, and I don't see flaws in the reasoning though I try my best to pick at it. And you should read the conversation that ensued as well so nothing get's repeated.

If you want to discuss proofs I am willing to do so. Since you agreed that sincere dialogue is required, I think, you and I should have a one on one debate about the witness/sight/perceiver argument with respect to the value of ourselves.

I will be delighted to clarify it and argue for each of it's premises. I think it's a very strong proof of God and that no human can function without believing in it (which is different then actually proving to be true), and I think showing no human functions without it although different then proving God and the argument to be all true premises leading to a sound conclusion,  shows how much you depend on it. You never didn't know a single one of it's premises, and you never lived your life without acting according to it, and you even knew the conclusion and relied on it. 

It's a matter of perceiving what you are perceiving. 

Ball is in your court, good sir!

And your side comment created the side track.

I understand that you believe that you have demonstrated proof and I accept that. What you fail to understand is that I don't believe it is proof, it is only a belief. My position is that no one can argue a god into existence. At most, people can argue that a god might exist. 

I'll say it again, no amount of metaphysical reasoning (flawed or not), no amount of signs/values in ourselves, no amount of witness/sight/perceiver argument will I ever accept as proof of a god. If the god exists as more than a concept of the human mind then the god can show up and revel itself, in person, in some form of concrete demonstration, and will need to do it multiple times, to multiple people. 

I do not wish to debate the abstract of the existence of a god. You might consider it profitable but it is pointless to me.

[Mystic]

That was a side comment.   It's just informing of my perspective. If you want to discuss proofs regarding that, I suggest reading "Ultimate Value and the Signs of it in ourselves" thread. It's very detailed, and I've read a quite a few times, and I don't see flaws in the reasoning though I try my best to pick at it. And you should read the conversation that ensued as well so nothing get's repeated.

If you want to discuss proofs I am willing to do so. Since you agreed that sincere dialogue is required, I think, you and I should have a one on one debate about the witness/sight/perceiver argument with respect to the value of ourselves.

I will be delighted to clarify it and argue for each of it's premises. I think it's a very strong proof of God and that no human can function without believing in it (which is different then actually proving to be true), and I think showing no human functions without it although different then proving God and the argument to be all true premises leading to a sound conclusion,  shows how much you depend on it. You never didn't know a single one of it's premises, and you never lived your life without acting according to it, and you even knew the conclusion and relied on it. 

It's a matter of perceiving what you are perceiving. 

Ball is in your court, good sir!

And your side comment created the side track.

I understand that you believe that you have demonstrated proof and I accept that. What you fail to understand is that I don't believe it is proof, it is only a belief. My position is that no one can argue a god into existence. At most, people can argue that a god might exist. 

I'll say it again, no amount of metaphysical reasoning (flawed or not), no amount of signs/values in ourselves, no amount of witness/sight/perceiver argument will I ever accept as proof of a god. If the god exists as more than a concept of the human mind then the god can show up and revel itself, in person, in some form of concrete demonstration, and will need to do it multiple times, to multiple people. 

I do not wish to debate the abstract of the existence of a god. You might consider it profitable but it is pointless to me.

If God is seen by all, then we have to discuss what we are seeing.  I don't believe it's possible to exist without vision of God, I believe it's impossible.  Of course, I'm not talking about abstract vision but the living vision that creates you constantly.

I am telling you the vision reminder/proof is a very strong one in my perception and I am at least claiming that I don't find any responses from Atheists go anywhere near making any of it's premises doubtable. Let me know if you wish to debate it.

[brewer]

If God is seen by all, then we have to discuss what we are seeing.  I don't believe it's possible to exist without vision of God, I believe it's impossible.  Of course, I'm not talking about abstract vision but the living vision that creates you constantly.

I am telling you the vision reminder/proof is a very strong one in my perception and I am at least claiming that I don't find any responses from Atheists go anywhere near making any of it's premises doubtable. Let me know if you wish to debate it.

Who is failing to be the sincere attentive listener now?

[Mystic]

There is nothing abstract about you or how your personality exist or how you inherit your actions or what your value is or what's your soul's image is in reality. It's very real.

[brewer]

There is nothing abstract about you or how your personality exist or how you inherit your actions or what your value is or what's your soul's image is in reality. It's very real.

Throw god into that sentence and it becomes abstract. You already made it abstract with the word "soul".

Again, who is failing to be the sincere attentive listener now? How many times will I have to repeat my self?

[Ravenshire]

There is nothing abstract about you or how your personality exist or how you inherit your actions or what your value is or what's your soul's image is in reality. It's very real.

Throw god into that sentence and it becomes abstract. You already made it abstract with the word "soul".

Again, who is failing to be the sincere attentive listener now? How many times will I have to repeat my self?

(emphasis is mine)

1,000,001? Just a guess, and probably on the conservative side.

[LadyForCamus]

You realize that words are supposed to be arranged in a particular sequence in order for them to be comprehensible, right?

Boru

God is the light of all light, the light of all things, and who is blind, is blind only against themselves.  Those who understand the metaphors of Quran do so because they came with attitude to learn and not bicker. Of course, those parables weren't clear to anyone, and is it as God says,  none comprehend them but knowledgeable ones.

The reasoning used in Quran is of course at much higher level than anything I have presented. I been with my dialogues just scratching the surface of it's elaborate proofs and insights that only can be known through the proper doors and avenues, and God is to be known by his beautiful names, those humans who are instances of the holy spirit and...

I see you’ve learned a lot about switching up your poetic vernacular since we last spoke, MK.  Talk about someone not listening.  🙄

[Amarok]

Mystic

[robvalue]

So you're trying to say we haven't tried to understand?

You continue to assume you're right all the time, and that we must just be not paying attention or something. You've achieved huge amounts of attention on this forum, and have had loads of sincere, honest responses. But there's only so much of this stuff people can listen to.