The name of God thread.

[Mystic]

It happens to be the name of God is the proof of God, so you can solve two birds in one stone with this guidance.

No, the name of a god is only evidence that someone imagined a god and assigned it a name.  If you persist with this line of reasoning, MK, for consistency you are obligated to acknowledge the existence of every god that humans have ever named.

We don't assign the name, God assigns the name, we don't choose the proof of God, we submit to it when we recognize it and follow what it manifest, and look towards it for guidance. Again, letters like "G" "O" "D" are not the name, the name is someone like Samuel (name of God is what his name means) and those are set by God (like Seth).  The words of God, those instances of his name, those holy instances of his image and spirit, there is no us changing them, we are meant to submit to them and follow them.

[Astreja]

We don't assign the name, God assigns the name...

That's the fallacy of circular reasoning.  A god can't assign a name unless it exists, and you have not demonstrated that to our satisfaction.

[Mystic]

We don't assign the name, God assigns the name...

That's the fallacy of circular reasoning.  A god can't assign a name unless it exists, and you have not demonstrated that to our satisfaction.

The proof of God proves God. It's not circular reasoning to search out a proof for God and submit to it when it's shown.  Of course, to assume anyone but God would assign and manifest this proof, is the dumbest thing we can do.  If God exists, the proof is upon him to prove, and the guidance will be from him regarding himself.

And the proof is so passed into God, the light and guidance is so passed into him, it is expressed that God is the light, that he is the light of the heavens and the earth, the light of all light.

It's connected to him.

[Astreja]

The proof of God proves God

No, it certainly does not.  Your "proofs" are no more than bald assertions.

As I've said many times before, I do not accept scriptures or personal testimonies or philosophical exercises as evidence for gods.  I only accept empirical evidence that can be consistently measured and analyzed, so your chances of convincing me with your silly arguments are zero -- literally zero.  If your god exists, it would theoretically know where to find me and how to convince me, but so far that has not happened.

[Mystic]

The proof of God proves God

No, it certainly does not.  Your "proofs" are no more than bald assertions.

As I've said many times before, I do not accept scriptures or personal testimonies or philosophical exercises as evidence for gods.  I only accept empirical evidence that can be consistently measured and analyzed, so your chances of convincing me with your silly arguments are zero -- literally zero.  If your god exists, it would theoretically know where to find me and how to convince me, but so far that has not happened.

You are not trying to understand. I'm saying the living name of God which is his word of light and truth brought to life, is the proof.

But don't confuse the two: Proving God as abstract reality without proving the exact nature of his personality, that is what my arguments do.  That I have essentially done.

What I am talking about here, is the proof of God for who he is, which is deeper, and choosing who God is, was a huge sin I did for a long time. It's not up to us to choose God nor who represents him nor build the tree of light ourselves and make our own path or leader. It's upon us to submit.

I am talking about something more deep, more essential, and more important, then the proofs I have presented in the past.

This proof will also prove God's existence, but it's about recognizing the way and path to God and what essentially in theory can be the only thing to prove his personhood and the only way God can be truly approached.

[Astreja]

You are not trying to understand. I'm saying the living name of God which is his word of light and truth brought to life, is the proof.

Rubbish.  Utter rubbish.  I see no evidence at all for your god, just believers who for some reason are desperate to convince non-believers and who cannot meet the non-believers' evidentiary requirements.

[Mystic]

You are not trying to understand. I'm saying the living name of God which is his word of light and truth brought to life, is the proof.

Rubbish.  Utter rubbish.  I see no evidence at all for your god, just believers who for some reason are desperate to convince non-believers and who cannot meet the non-believers' evidentiary requirements.

The Quran better explains why you don't see from my perspective, it has nothing to do with proofs and evidence not there from our perspective.

[Astreja]

The Quran better explains why you don't see from my perspective, it has nothing to do with proofs and evidence not there from our perspective.

And why should I take the Quran seriously?  It's just a book.

[ignoramus]

[Mystic]

The Quran better explains why you don't see from my perspective, it has nothing to do with proofs and evidence not there from our perspective.

And why should I take the Quran seriously?  It's just a book.

It has a very good argument why you should.