Ahhhh, but when your "truth" is not static, you can make all kinds of true statements that a great number of people would say are false...

1 + 1 = 11
11 = 3
1 + 1 = 2
10 = 2
1 + 1 = 1

All of the above are true statements to me. Call me crazy or try to figure out why I would say that. The choice is up to the reader.

I took the time to respond to save an otherwise unwitting reader from being fooled. I have shown - in great detail - how/why what you've written is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you wish to argue against what I've claimed, then do so.

Just in case one didn't get the more complex points I've already raised, I'll be more direct and simple this time around...

Picturing a rose conjures up the memory of some thing that we can all point at. The existence of a rose is point-of-view-invariant. The existence of an imagined rose is not. Thus there is a clear difference between our imagining a rose and a rose. There is no possible distinction to be drawn and maintained between God and imagining a God. Thus, the line of thinking you've introduced does not lend itself to a good argument for the existence of God. God's existence is akin to our picturing a rose in our minds when no rose has been seen.

That is exactly why/how we have so many different religions. All those folk hold that what they think/believe about what they call "God" or "Allah" or whatever the case may be is true and what others believe is not.

The bit about truth is gibberish; prima facie evidence that you have no idea what truth is and/or the role that it plays in thought/belief and the statements that follow.

Why ought anyone here try to figure out why you would say anything at all? Your personal psychology is not the focus. Rather than instruct the reader to make sense of the words you write, why don't you say something clear, concise, and meaningful. Relevancy is always a plus too.The topic is "Is God real?" not why does Pan say the stuff he does.

Sigh.

Well, I feel that my words would also be a conflict for you.

Would you rather me say I have seen God. I see him in the works that are performed, in the creation we enjoy, the perfection of his instructions written at the hands of fishermen and doctors alike over 2000 years ago, in the healing of broken hearts and destroyed lives in ways psychology attempts to but cannot touch, In the grace and patients That I now have that I couldn't find or create before I met Him.

Those who don't want it to be true find me insane, a fool, a blind believer, a simpleton who will believe anything. It becomes foolishness for me to debate this type person.

I am non of those things. Nor am a a brilliant doctor or scientist. Yet so many brilliant people have also came to the same conclusion I have.

If you believe all the studies and questionnaires that have been around for a very long time, very few people actually believe that there was not a creator. Some have suggested it takes greater faith to believe there is no God.

But there are many who seek a creator who are still in great misery. That is true. So when you are seeking answers and you want a believers view, find someone who shows the signs of great peace. They are all around. But you have to be looking for them to find them.

And if your not looking. Then be at peace with your view.

What? You want to define "real" when just about anyone who believes in a god will tell you that you can't define god. If god were to be defined by science, there wouldn't be a question.
What's left to define if you limit god to the physical realm? Are not others allowed to think for themselves? Do you assert that images in the brain are not real?

Actually, don't answer that... :-/

Ok. Lets go another layer deeper. Science, psychology, Mormonism, feminism, catholicism, Christianity. These are believe systems. A set of beliefs as a whole. Some people chose to believe parts of these or others and some chose to believe in the whole belief system. Some try and combine multiple systems and make a new one based on the tenants of the systems.


You refer to science. Some scientist believe in Christianity and search for physics with the concept of a God. Other scientist believe there is no god and base there research with this being the truth.

But we can say the same thing with most isms. And now it becomes a question which ism do you put as your primary foundation. The others become filtered by your choice. If your a feminist first then a Christian, you will only believe in the tenants of Christianity that don't conflict with the tenants of feminism. If your a Christian first then you will only accept the tenants of feminism that agree with being a Christian. IF you have not learned to chose a foundation, usually your life will be chaos as you vacillate between beliefs based on your current feelings or views and you may abandon one of both out of the self made conflict and not out of evaluation or searching for truth.





My Personal view of science as this is the one you brought up?

Purest want evolution to be true and the patterns Darwin found in the adaptation of animals as a piece of that puzzle. They quickly ignore the huge missing links that have to be there for this to be true. And science isn't even close to solving the beginning of living tissue on a evolving ball of materials.




All science keeps doing is show the amazingly near impossibility of how the billions of calculations that are needed for our existence. even the existence of a tree. Or even a leaf. I love how hard some scientist look into space to find the missing links or the beginning of the big bang, only to bring more awe to the vast universe and its impossibility to explain by science. thats why so many scientist eventually become believers later in life after spending years dissecting our world.

Lets get real.

Well, the bit you've said about 'T'ruth is not so much a confict for me as it is a conflict for you. Whether or not I will be able to effectively explain how that is the case has yet to be seen. It would eventually require your agreement.




Yes. Folk have been attributing events that happen in our lives and the world to a supernatural being for as long as we've been curious about why stuff happens. As it turns out, most of the stuff that used to be thought of as an act of God doesn't require positing a God in our knowledge. Thunder storms, lightning, hurricanes, floods, untimely deaths from (previously)unknown causes, etc. All these sorts of things and many many more used to be thought of as 'evidence' of the existence of God. Entire belief systems have been built around the unwavering belief in God.

I've experienced - first hand - what you would may call "a work of God". There are many things that have happened in my life that I simply cannot explain. Events that defy common sense, rational thought, and/or reasoned explanation. I no longer attribute these sorts of things to God, not because I deny the existence thereof. Rather, because there is no reasonable means for distinguishing between which notions of God are accurate(assuming that that is possible) and which ones are not.

I am of the strong opinion that if there is a creator of this universe then this entity must exist beyond time and space. All human knowledge is limited to that which appears in time and space. Thus, we cannot have knowledge of that which may or may not exist beyond.





Just curious. Have you read all of these studies? If not, then how can you claim knowledge of what us within them?

I'm sure that there are lots of studies that could be used to support all the different sorts of belief. That is uninteresting really.

A bit on how definitions work. Some things are completely man-made. We define those. Other things are not man-made. We also define those. The former we cannot get 'wrong'. The latter we can. This all ties into how we go about identifying that which we are talking about. When someone says "X" and another understands, then we have an example of agreement upon whatever "X" is. That much being said...

So, just about anyone who believes in a god will say that they do not know(or cannot know) what it is that they believe in?

I find that an odd thing to say.





I assert that there are no such things as "images in the brain". If there were, it would require a viewer in the brain. Just say no to homunculi.

So, we still need an agreement upon what constitutes being "real" in order to proceed to answer any question which asks "Is 'X' real?" The variable X could be filled in with any appropriate term by substitution.

"Is the sky real?"
"Is government real?"
"Is thought/belief real?"
"Is love real?"
"Is this conversation real?"
"Is a cheeseburger real?"
"Is Newton's second law of motion real?"
"Is mathematics real?"
"Is the number 5 real?"

It ought be clear by now how important agreement is to the meaningful progress of this discussion.

This line of reasoning is based upon a couple of dubious presuppositions. One being that the primary foundation of one's belief system acts as the sole means for accepting and/or rejecting subsequent considerations, which may or may not conflict with the current content of one's belief system. The other being that if one doesn't 'choose' between conflicting views when they arise that his/her life will be chaos as a result of vacillating between these.

That is clearly not always the case. One can always suspend judgment and feel good about doing so. I would also say that some folk end up completely rejecting their original foundation in lieu of another.

Now, I would agree that the existence of conflicting beliefs within an individual's belief system can be quite problematic. That is compounded if and when s/he does not know what makes things true, what sorts of things can be true, what it takes for this or that to be true, the difference between calling something "true" and something being true, and perhaps even a reasonable grasp upon the different senses/uses of the term "true".

Thank you.

As people keep re reading what you wrote, they will begin to realize the importance of believing in real truth and hopefully stop the useless game of and psycho babble that truth is subjective.

There is real. I am really here.

I don't think I need to say anymore.


Thank you again.

So, it seems that we agree that truth is not subjective, by I am at a loss to understand what "believing in real truth" means. Could you explain that in different terms? Is there some kind of truth that is not real?

How does one believe IN truth?

Your clarification is imperative to my understanding what you're saying here.

It is the opposite that is the problem. Trying to believe that truth is selective or based only on each persons perspective. thats the deception.

The back side of trying to define truth is trying to suggest that truth is subjective and unknowable. I am attempting to shed light on this untruth about truth.


Please note that the subject is "Is God real" and that I am not trying to blindly tell anyone that God is real. I am only suggesting that the question is answerable. Or at least I was able to answer it for me based on investigation and fact finding, not blind faith and wishful thinking.

I suspect that you're attempting to distinguish between what different folks mean by "truth".

I am curious what you mean by "the backside of defining truth".

It does not follow from the fact that we define things that all things being defined are subjective. I said a bit about that earlier. You didn't answer my question...


How does one believe IN truth?

Perhaps it be better to ask what do you suppose truth has to do with whether or not God is real as I suspect that our views diverge tremendously regarding that.

God is real, the Bible is fake...

So sorry that creative can't read this since there are no "images in the brain", it must suck to be the center of the universe without any means of perception... :-/


Of course I expect a few paragraphs of fluff to explain how that wasn't what he meant and perhaps some in-depth definition of the "images in the brain" being merely electrical impulses, to which I am going to ask what the difference between "real" perception and "imagined" perception is... Back to square one...

If the almighty imaginary creator was real there would be no debate over it's existence or any other mythological deity based pantheon.
If he was real he or it or she is one roguish,scared to come out of hiding deity.I mean he supposedly floats on a fluffy cloud under the "firmament?" in a castle where a renegade rabbi jew(jesus) sits on it's right side.Yeah sure i'm really going to accept that as truth?NO!

See. Thank you for stating your view and your opinion of what you believe. I respect that.

I have a question though. What all ways interests me is that someone who clearly doesn't believe, spends all there time posting in a section relating to something they don't believe in. In you case a ton a posts in the religious section. Seriously. What draws you to the debate. Its not like you spend time in the other forums also but basically here, arguing against the believe of a God or creator. What is the draw for you?

Well, ought I take it that you are not going to explain what you think about how truth plays a role?

Well, let's get on with the "proof" requirements?