"What you write takes on a truth of it's own."

See here is where the deception is. Thought and words are not truth. At best they are beliefs.

If I stated something as true with nothing to back it, its a view. My view.

At most it becomes a perceived truth (the world calls it a perceived reality). But its not real or truth that we know for sure. I provided nothing to prove it.

But you can chose to believe that there is no real truth. Thats a choice. It is the thoughts of a adolescent fool but we all chose fooling things all the time.

There is truth and it is search-able. Be wise. Again to argue this is adolescent. Seek it and stop trying to prove there is or isn't truth. Your only distracting yourself from the journey.

Now I will state what I have found to be truth based on proof of testing.

I see the Biblical written word prove itself daily now. The foundations are there. Over and Over and Over. I see lives really change. Not band-aids, Not fakers,(they are there too), but real lives that were beyond messed up finding complete peace and lasting joy even in the world they created. And that includes me.

And I find most of my friends who are still attempting to argue and avoid seeking answers as broken, laking peace and joyless. Having momentary happiness at the most. Usually followed by dread shortly after what ever they did to feel happy at that moment.

I don't need to test if there is a God anymore. I don't need blind faith. I have proof. Every day now. And when my peace is broken, it wasn't anyone else or God that caused it. It was always me who broke it. Choosing to do something harmful to me. Sometimes hidden as something fun or erotic or daring.

I cannot convince you to believe in God. That's actually not my job. I can only encourage you to seek truth and express and witness what I have found to be true. It's your job to do the work.

You are apparently well educated. Consider questioning Pyrrhonism. It's interesting to consider how many ideas there are in the world. So many that we may never learn about them all in a single lifetime. So many formulas to help us find the truth and define "real truth" or "ultimate truth". Can knowledge ever give us a complete picture of reality?

Sounds to me as if you may be upset by the whole question (i.e. is God real?) If you have already made up your mind, then I wonder what your motivations are for posting. Perhaps you would like to see if others agree with you? Perhaps you wish to persuade someone with your point of view? Nothing wrong with that. But are you genuinely be interested in the question?

I am not upset at all. But thank you for proving my point. By suggesting the concept that I maybe upset establishes the thought that this might be truth. Lol. Some will just take it as truth, some with question it and probably no one will actually ask me to get the truth. And the birth of perceived truth is born.



As an Atheist, I am sure it seems that I am trying to convince someone that God is Real. Even though I tried real hard to state that this was my view and encourage others to seek there own answers. But if your a true Atheist who has come to the conclusion, based on your own seeking, that there are no Gods or creator and we all got here some other way, then for you, the search for any further truth is over.

Therefor my post isn't really for you. Its for those who are not sure one way or the other. and I believe I stated my intention fairly clearly. To encourage others to never stop seeking answers. I still seek them myself. Hence responding to the topic, "Is God real?"



I hope that clears it up. I am open if you have more questions.

I agree with some of what you say. If someone comes here with a closed mind then the discussion must necessarily be over. The best we can hope for then would be some sort of debate or arguing. However, I would like to point out that labels may not be that important to this discussion. Atheists have become Christians and visa-versa, that isn't important to me.

"Is God real?" appears to be a meaningful question. If we are going to find out together, then it seems to me we should start with what we can agree on and then carefully build from there.

I was just going off your profile.

If you are still searching, I again can only point you to the things I have learned, witnessed and experienced.

There is an appeal here. I think it prudent for one to know as much about a subject matter as possible. While Pyrrhonism aims at suspending judgment in order to contemplate as many different aspects of any given subject matter, is isn't sustainable. I mean, it is interesting to contemplate the tenets and keep them in mind, especially while first contemplating something that has yet to have been contemplated. However, it just doesn't match how folk act in their daily routines. I mean folk behave on a daily basis without doubt regarding lots of things.

---

"Is God real?" indeed does look like a meaningful question. In order to answer it we must set out what being real consists in/of. Personally, I find the often used real/imagined distinction utterly incapable of setting out certain things. As you've already suggested, we could find a place of agreement('we' meaning the participants) and begin building upon that until we arrive at exactly what the question is asking for.

I believe you genuinely desire to help people. Despite what our profiles may say, I feel a connection with you.

Agreeing on a definition for reality seems necessary. But why do you feel that the common use meaning of the word is insufficient? Are you saying that the dictionary definition will be insufficient?

The definition for "reality" wasn't being questioned. What we mean by "real" when we ask the question 'Is God real?' is the current focus, or at least I think/believe that it ought be in order to make progress.

God does his own things the way he so wishes....Am afraid,your problem here is spritual dumbness.... You still have canal mind...you need the spirit of God for you to know him,cos if the same spirit of God that raised Jesus Christ from dead dwells in you,you would'nt ve made those anti-God utterances.....

For me, the word reality simply points to things that we both agree are factual. For example, I think everyone here would agree that a belief in God exists because it is a fact that people believe in God. On the other hand, belief isn't a tangible thing like the keys on my keyboard. I suppose there could be confusion there. In any case, reality is meant to be that which exists beyond mere belief.

Picture a rose in your mind...

Is that rose real? Or simply a real image in your head? Or not real at all as there is no phyical evidence?

Can you trust your eyesight or any of your other senses?

I don't need other people to agree to what I call real, I have my own tools for that.

seems to me that if someone is asking this, then the doubts are already there... but no, i do not think they are gods, but more advanced beings. If anyone of us went back 3000 years ago, with any modern convenience we have now, we would be a god in their non- understanding eyes. being scared and not understanding something can make people think up some weird thoughts... maybe that's why the early religions had so many gods, because of fear and doubt... no rain? pray to the god of rain, trying to win a war? pray to mars, the god of war... that why monotheism came into play, because people found that their gods were nothing more than nature, not a god pissed of at them and needing a sacrifice to make it rain...

This may need a bit of unpacking, but I'll suppose that we pretty much believe the same sorts of things. I mean, I hold the position that most everyone agrees upon much more than we disagree. With that much in mind...

It seems clear to me that the existence of God and a belief in God are utterly indistinguishable.

I suspect we agree here, but I'll wait for confirmation prior to continuing. You may like to know that there are serious logical issues with claims that require severing thought/belief from reality.

YES
THE ONE TRUE GOD
PROOF IS ALL AROUND YOU
but you have to be able to see and hear....
so you can be looking and listening

This is almost meaningful and/or relevant, but it doesn't really add anything. Let's look a bit closer...


1. We are asked to picture a rose in our mind.

Doing that is to remember what a rose looks like. So, we are asked to remember and/or imagine what a rose looks like. No problem(s) so far.


2. We are then asked "Is that rose is real?"

Because this question immediately follows the instruction to remember/imagine what a rose looks like(to picture a rose in our minds), and it specifies "that rose", it only stands to reason that the question refers to the one that we have been asked to imagine/remember(picture) - otherwise it's unintelligible. It is an odd question though. I say that that question is completely misguided. We are being asked if there is a difference between our memory of a rose and a "real" one. That is to ask if there is a difference between our memory and what is real.

Memories are real, not in the same sense of "real" that distinguishes the physical object from our memory of that, but rather in the "real" sense of existing. Our memories exist as product of thought/belief. We are a part of reality. Thus, as it's been used, the term "real" doesn't really add anything useful and/or relevant to our understanding.


3. Then "Or is it simply a real image in your head"? Any picturing of a rose in your mind would be called an "image in your head" So, what's the point of this line of questioning? And perhaps most importantly...

What does it have to do with what is being asked? I mean if it somehow tells us something about the question "Is God real?" it is certainly not clear what it is trying to say. Let's apply it to our focus and see bow it holds up to scrutiny...


Picture God in your mind.

Is that God real? Or is it an image in your head? Or not real at all because there is no physical evidence?







Assuming sanity, we all do just that. In fact, if we did not trust our senses in some fashion we could not go on about our daily business. What does trusting our physiological sensory perception apparati have to do with whether or not God is real.





You may not need another to agree with what you CALL "real", but it would be utterly meaningless without someone else agreeing. There are no private languages. If there is a difference between CALLING something "real" and something being real, then you've arrived at a significant problem.

What's this bit about tools for what to call "real" supposed to do? I mean, surely language is one. Language is necessarily learned from another and follows rules of social convention, which is necessarily social. That requires another - obviously so. Thus, it only follows that your own tools, whatever you may think/believe those are, required someone's agreement at the most fundamental level, lest you would not know how to use words as you do. If you had no words, what could you possibly say about anything?





So...

It seems that after analysis, the quote that this post addresses is rather uninteresting and irrelevant.

Says you... Who agrees with you? Who verified your method of analysis? Did you take a concensus before making your public statement? If it was uninteresting and irrelevant as you say, why take the time to respond?

I think there is something very important here. The word "rose" conjures up an image based on knowledge. The image isn't a real rose. It is memory. Memory tells us that roses exist.

Like the Rose, the word God points to all the knowledge that we have accumulated about God. God exists, God doesn't exist, the Mormons have it wrong because..., the Baptist are right because..., the Hindus this, Muslims that, so on and so on. Conflict in the world revolves around the knowledge that we hold on to, the knowledge we are unwilling to question, the knowledge we think everyone should agree with.

Do you see it?

Yes. Good evaluation. So based on this we can agree that the Mormons the baptist and Muslims all get parts of the truth right and all of them get parts the truth wrong. Some more than the others. Matter of fact, all church groups have got some parts wrong. Just as every person in the world doesn't have all the Truth figured out. If they did, they themselves would be Truth.

So to know Truth, one must keep evaluating what they believe. First I test the biblical word and it proves, to me, to be Truth. Then I seek out others who are searching for truth and look to see where we differ so I can test what I believe and see what is true. And when someone states that 1+1=3 when you factor x, I eventually realize what x was never part of the equation and its deception not truth.

I believe there is truth. And in our minds the "rose" can vacillate between real and imaginary. that doesn't eliminate the fact there was a rose. The existence of the rose was truth. That is why we don't just rely on our own understanding but we are called out in the word to keep seeking answers and wisdom.