proof for god


You can’t win with apologists. First, they had logical proofs for the existence of god(s). Once it was shown that while the arguments could be sound and valid, that was just one hurdle. It’s one thing to have an argument and another to come from that argument to reality.

The author of this post argues that the proof for god cannot be arrived at through logic but

offer an ostensive argument: Open your mind and reach out to the transcendent. You’ll find something supremely good. Call it what you like. But call it. It will answer your call.

and how do you arrive at this?

Through prayer or meditation, we can try to open our minds to a reality beyond our ordinary experience. And most of us find something there, a feeling of transcendence.

And I hope among the things we can point to include a bird trapped in a forest fire without a chance of escape, or a zebra dying of asphyxiation having been attacked by a lion or people trapped in a hurricane. But we all know this is not what they mean. They want us to think about butterflies, roses and a beautiful scenery.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

129 thoughts on “proof for god

    • makagutu says:

      I know. Gibberish

      Liked by 2 people

    • makagutu is violating the truth by saying we would say “that the proof for God cannot be arrived at through logic” First of all we are bringing in the presented article what N.S. Palmer, an American mathematician who also writes for The Jerusalem Post writes about the proof for God.
      You also seem to forget that it is what Palmer finds that “The belief no longer has any obvious logical meaning”.

      A belief is not at all a proof of God. There are many beliefs even in no god.

      People can use common sense to come to look at nature or creation and come to see the Hand behind all creation and as such to find proof for the existence of God. (Please read the series about the proof of God, to get a better understanding of what we say, what others say and what we believe)

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        I am trying to understand what you are saying but you are all over the place. That the proof of god cannot be arrived at through reason I quote the work of Blaise Pascal. Maybe you should read that work.
        Why do you think I should read those proofs? And what makes you think I am interested in what you believe?

        Like

        • I do not at all think you would be interested in what we believe, but when you give criticism on us you should better get to know what we say and think before giving a remark on something we mentioned or talked about.

          Like

        • “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.”
          Quran 3:19

          Like

          • And what would you consider to be “Islam” and why would you not consider the faithful of God to be righteous?

            Like

            • “He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.”
              Quran 3:85

              Like

              • What is your Islam other than the meaning of “Islam”? Please when you read the set-apart or holy book the Quran, do not take the verses out of context but read them in their context.

                The Quran writes:

                وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

                And if one seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him; and he is among the losers in the Hereafter.(3:85)

                Or better read the next verse with it too:

                003.085 وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإسْلامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
                003.085 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

                003.086 كَيْفَ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ قَوْمًا كَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ وَشَهِدُوا أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ حَقٌّ وَجَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَاللَّهُ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ
                003.086 How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.

                Al-Qur’an, 003.085-086 (Aal-E-Imran [The Family of Imran])

                By which is meant “surrender to religion which is believing in Allah”, what we do.

                Like

      • This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.
        Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

        Like

    • Guestspeaker says:

      Do you not think when people are asking Allah that He would not be willing to show His Master Hand?

      Do you not believe in the fact that it is Allah Who calls man and gives him the possibility to come and find Him?

      Like

  1. Swarn Gill says:

    What I would argue is that what they are talking about simply isn’t otherworldly. It’s just taking a different perspective on a reality you already live in. It’s paying attention to things you didn’t pay attention to before. Robert Wright, in his book, Why Buddhism is True (not the supernatural part…he’s an atheist) talks about how after meditating he was moved to tears by looking at the beauty of what was before to him just a weed. What this person you’ve quoted described here is an experience of consciousness, not an experience of something beyond reality. It’s all reality, it’s just reality from a different vantage point. We might even see the lion killing the zebra as beautiful in its own way….but that doesn’t make the world good or bad…it’s still indifferent…you are just appreciating or noticing something new about it. That’s all.

    Liked by 2 people

    • makagutu says:

      It occurred to me after writing this post one could argue that had humanity not lived closer to oceans, they would not be at risk of hurricanes and looking at it from far, as tornado chasers do, they might actually find it beautiful. So there is a sense in which we could see the hunt as beautiful, I mean if you search on the tube, attack at Kruger national Park, you will admit the whole hunt is almost a work of art. But gratuitous pain like a toothache wouldn’t be seen in such a light.

      Like

  2. renudepride says:

    Or else we can all follow the trail of Peter Pan and his crew and find ourselves in NeverNeverLand! Same fantasy, different scenario! Take care, my Kenyan brother! Naked hugs!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. it’s the old blame the victim game. if you do this “offer an ostensive argument: Open your mind and reach out to the transcendent. You’ll find something supremely good. Call it what you like. But call it. It will answer your call.” and it doesn’t work, then it’s you who did it “wrong”, not that the whole thing is a lie.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. john zande says:

    Diving even a little deeper is not allowed, you know that.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. grabaspine says:

    Apparently, proof for God requires you to “open your mind” to the fact or possibility that he exists, then take that possibility as proof that he does.
    Otherwise you aren’t open, and are in fact biased against the possibility.
    Damned if you don’t, deluded if you do.

    Like

  6. basenjibrian says:

    Still doesn’t answer the question “Which God”? What happens if Smoking Mirror answers my wordless Call of Wonder?

    Or my favorite translated Mayan God Name: “Blue Hummingbird on the Left”?

    Like

  7. nasimolo says:

    God is that thing/creature/force that shapes all creation through the spirit World (as I mentioned in Is Death bad). Religion is mans attempt to make contact with that World and therefore understand life, which appears to be a mystery. When one experiences this force/God/creature, it is called a spiritual/transcendent/numinous experience, as indicated in the last quotation. Look at the work of Mercia Eliade

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I think religion was man’s first attempt to understand the world and remains useful because we live in a paradox; too much wealth and too great destitution, loss and then again, humanity has always been generally ignorant.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nasimolo says:

        Agreed, thats why religion goes hand in hand with philosophy

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          Religion, I think hijacks philosophy

          Like

          • nasimolo says:

            It can also be argued that Philosophy hijacks religion. Maybe they are overtly the Yin and Yang, and have a point of flow into each other in the midline

            Like

            • makagutu says:

              No, that argument I don’t think holds. When for example, the likes of Aquinas couldn’t defend the rationality of their beliefs, they turned to philosophy and we have had no short supply of scholastics

              Like

              • nasimolo says:

                They are opposite sides of the same, and all applied and worked on with different tools. The main tool for philosophy is the intellect, logic and reason, while religion is worked with intuition and imagination. To use one tool in place of the other confers different results. Both are important

                Like

                • makagutu says:

                  Well, a good imagination is good for both. But I think a person whose needs are taken care of has no need of religion. But then I find super wealthy pastors and then I see it is a good business to be religious

                  Like

                  • nasimolo says:

                    Are we here to just take care of physical/material needs? Isn’t there a deeper need that yearns to know what exists beyond the physical? Well, that need is/was to be addressed by religion. No doubt that religion has been misused, especially when it is assumed that its main/only role is to meet our material needs. When that is assumed, one can only conclude as you have indicated that once you are materially sorted, you don’t need religion. The perversion still doesn’t negate the essence of religion. Life beyond the now/physical is the main question in religion

                    Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      Religion did not address that need. Our ancestors had dreams and could talk to people in their dreams and thought that was another reality. Even our non material needs are satisfied without religion; I read, listen to music, walk in the park.
                      Look at our situation; the neighbourhoods with most churches are also the most dysfunctional and poor. I think a correlation can be found between these two issues.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • nasimolo says:

                      The problem is that in modern society, religion has been too institutionalized, and thus manipulated. We should not conflate religion to groupings, even though different groups organize around it.All those you mention are religious practices, and supported in ancient traditions. Religion is not a preserve of a few

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      I define religion as all those practices and beliefs around the supernatural and may involve a deity or deities. So I would not call a group of philatelists a religious group.
                      Religion was always going to be manipulated

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • nasimolo says:

                      No doubt it is manipulated. But that can’t be the reason to say its fictitious/non existence. If the philatelists are trying too satisfy a deeper need, then it is religious, a devotion to something beyond the physical. Walking in the woods, music, intellectual engagement are all geared to connect/experience the unknown/ineffable. Although not everyone who undertakes these activities feels or believes that this is what is happening. But those who consciously do it know that it is connecting with nature/God/beauty/goodness. I think the major block is language and semantics. People who have experienced the bliss of any of those phenomenon may challenge the naming of it, but not the validity of the experience itself.

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      I wouldn’t question the validity of the experience. It is what that experience is called that becomes a matter of debate

                      Liked by 1 person

    • and one more theist who wants to make his god so vague to be meaningless.

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        I have seen god made so vague anything could be god

        Liked by 1 person

        • basenjibrian says:

          You guys just don’t understand the “ineffable” thing very well! Get with “the spiritual forces” and “magical transcendent blah de blah de blah”

          ROFLOL

          These vague spirit gawd people are almost always very comfortable upper class people who don’t like the rather unpleasant digs at the wealthy contained in many conventional religions. It is better to just sit your comfort and chant “Om” all the time.

          The universe is cold and does not care. Meaning is what we make of our lives, not some “spirit” nonsense.

          Like

      • nasimolo says:

        Ha ha ha, he?she/it is everywhere and I can’t have a monopoly. Thats why is said to be transpersonal. Its a paradox, even meaningless can be a conclusion one makes. What is life? Your answer to that will be the same your answer to what is God

        Like

        • more baseless claims from someone who needs to feel special. How pathetic.

          Liked by 1 person

          • nasimolo says:

            I like how you dismiss everything without offering your countering explanation. I may understand disbelief in religion, but if science can explain a few things, do you now dismiss the science just because it is compared to religion. Has quantum physics become baseless? No, you can’t just wave off your hands dismissing everything right in front of you.

            Like

            • oh here we go with the claims about quantum mechanics. Woomeisters peddle that constantly, hoping to hide their nonsense under the skirts of science. and none of your claims are “happening right in front” of me. But, N please do explain how quantum physics supports your nonsense about the “spirit world”. How do bosons, muons, quarks, apply? How does super positioning apply? How does the uncertainty principle apply?

              What happens with woo peddlars is that they want to pretend that since there is an “uncertainty principle”, they construe it to mean that any of their claims “can” be true. They then think this means they must be true. All with no evidence and the desperate need to feel special and get external validation for their delusions.

              Liked by 2 people

              • nasimolo says:

                Broadly speaking, subatomic particles have a behavior that is different from atoms. Consider the issue of space and communication, hasn’t it already been observed that this particles can appear in two different places at the same time? And isn’t it also true that they greatly affect/influence each other even at great distances? If thats in agreement, hasn’t religion stated that God/energy is omnipresent and can influence man given that man was created in his image (energy/atoms)? Doesn’t psychic phenomenon then have at least a theory to call for more study?
                And what is man? Isn’t it he energy whose organs emit electric energy detected by electric detectors (electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram etc) ? So why is it hard then to see how man may potentially send this energy to great distances consiously? Or we just say that only man made devices can do that?

                Like

                • ROFL. Oh my, you have done a wonderful jog of showing exactly why woo peddlers try to lie about quantum physics. Wow, you’ve gone from things possibly being in two places at once to things being omnipresent. And funny how this god never created anything, much less being able to “influence” humans. by magic telepathy.

                  Still no evidence for any god, or psychic phenomena, etc. And no dear, telepathy doesn’t exist so there is no reason to study it. We may as well study fairies or reptiloids or any other made up idiocy that you invent to feel ever so special.

                  You’ve done quite a job at inventing your god, N. Just like L Ron Hubbard and his intergalactic DC-10s and Xenu. both of you are just pathetic.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • nasimolo says:

                    Well, but what is the meaning of omnipresent? Going back to your usual cave once anything you are uncomfortable with pops up.
                    Just think about it, do humans have atoms? Do they also have subatomic particles? Then why should you assume their particles wouldn’t behave like all other particles? Humans emit energy (This is beyond theory , it is a fact), whether consciously or not, and that is the source of psychic phenomenon and telepathy.

                    Like

                    • and now we have the typical attempts to redefine words to salvage your nonsense. Yep, humans emit heat and electrical energy. This doesn’t mean that magically we can send thoughts through the air.

                      Present evidence of “psychic phenomena and telepathy” happening. Now, if this does happen, and it’s just the usual energy from human bodies, then we should be able to register it on common instruments. Surprise, we don’t.

                      and why don’t you show how humans can be “omnipresent”. We’d all be fascinated.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Why shouldn’t we? Thoughts and thinking generates energy, it can move from source to destination through concentrating on the destination. You may argue about reliability/success rate, but that has more to do with how well we understand the phenomenon, but its theoretical basis is as solid as it can be.
                      Why common instruments? Do we detect all the energy in the environment, from electromagnetic to sound? No we don’t, all require a source and a receiver, and knowing their specific frequencies.

                      Man is more than the physical body, his mind/thoughts can travel beyond his physical limitation, and again, thoughts are energy as detected by EEG, which show that different mental practices produce different wavelengths. This can be compared to cellphones, they can communicate with other devices far from physical their own location.

                      Like

                    • The energy that thoughts are made of doesn’t travel magically through the air. And again, you have no evidence at all that any “psychic phenomena” exist. There is no success rate since it has never occurred. Andn we do indeed detect all of the energy in the environment if we have common instruments.

                      And no evidence at all for your claims of dualism. It’s pathetic to see you try to lie to me about such things. You want to claim that cellphones are the same as the brain, so show what other entity can brains communicate with far from their location. Where is your evidence? We can only detect the electricity within the brain by applying instruments within inches of the source.

                      You, like so many ignorant woo peddlers, try to claim that their is some entity seperate from the body. But you can’t explain why damage to the brain damages the person. If there was some “soul”, then damage to the brain would do nothing. And if this “soul” somehow influences matter, then we would be able to detect whatever it uses to do this by other physical instruments.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      At least will are in agreement that the brain generates energy, what you strongly disagree with is the issue of the energy moving “magically”. It doesn’t move magically, its through intention. Man is the machine that detects those energies and still even when we have common instruments, they have to be tuned at the same frequency with the source e.g their are many radio frequencies, but one can only perfectly tune to one frequency at a time. There are more sensitive individuals who sense the energy fields around them, they may not know the exact cause, but they have a feeling something is not right. Have you ever have a feeling that someone is starring at you and turns out true? This is a well known phenomenon and intelligent agents are trained not to set their gazes directly on their targets.

                      what is far fetched about the brain being like a cell phone? Isn’t it a receiver and a generator of energy? We respond to peoples action through nerves, its the only way we communicate at basic level after which we convert it to language and mechanical movements. Minds communicate with minds, synchronicity is such a phenomenon especially when people are in sync with each other e.g lovers.

                      The ancient scientists knew about the soul and led them to speculate where its seat is, they even tried to measure its weight. Plato’s cave analogy is a good story that differentiates the physical life/matter and the soul, only that we should add, that the soul is the source of the images/shadows being reflected on the screen (physical world). That is why the physical world is called the world of illusion/shadow/phenomenon.

                      Like

                    • yep, that’s all we agree on. All the rest of your claims are baseless nonsense. Still no evidence and still you desperately try to lie to me. And synchronicity isn’t what you claim it is, it isn’t magic. Funny how ignorant ancients weren’t scientists at all, and they utterly failed to find a “seat” for this “soul” and they failed to weigh something imaginary. Plato’s cave analogy is nothing more than humans not being bright, and ignoring evidence, assuming, like you, that they know some secret knowledge to make them feel special. No evidence for a soul, ,no evidence for anything based on the premise that souls exist.

                      now, if you want to claim that the physical world is “illusion/shadow/phenomenon”, I ask you to put your hand in molten steel or heck, even a pot of boiling water. If it is true that the physical world isn’t real, you should have no problem in doing this. It’s always great to see someone like you try to make believe that you know some special secret on how the universe “really” works, but when it comes to demonstrating this, you refuse.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Isn’t synchronicity a coincidence? How do you support it in your framework? The ancients were scientists and its from them that modern science originates. Magic, astrology, alchemy and philosophy were their specialities. From those we got modern physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry and philosophy.

                      While they could find the seat of the soul, anatomically, the existence of the soul is a fact. What is death? Isn’t it the separation of life/soul/energy from the physical material body? The soul is the life force, the energy that animates the physical body. Once the spirit separates from the body, the body remains as a mere shell, unable to do anything on its own and decays. Thats why the body is said to be the house of God/soul/life.

                      Carefully looked at, Platos analogy of the cave describes the spirit and physical world, a central theme tackled in Phaedo. Yes, humans ignore evidence by assuming what they see on the screen is all there is. In this context, ignoring the existence of the soul (as defined above) can only result in error. The evidence is right around us, the mistake is to examine for unseen phenomenon with eyes.

                      Why shouldn’t it burn? The laws of nature reign in the physical world. But assume there is a special screen, as in Cave analogy, onto which the image is projected onto is set on fire. Wouldn’t it burn? It would, and the images also disappear. But the projector will remain. The soul withdraws from the body, just as the projections withdraws from the destroyed screen. Even a TV, you won’t be able to view any channel if you burn/destroy it, even though they are still being beamed from the source. The image on the TV is not real, it is an image (preprogrammed/live) of something else away from the living room.And simply, that is the analogy of the cave.

                      Like

                    • more baseless nonsense. synchronicity: the simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related but have no discernible causal connection. aka the lies that theists and woo peddlers spread.

                      from the ancients, we got rid of the lies and dross of their delusions and we have modern science. What they had was not science.

                      There is no soul so there is no “seat of the soul”. But please do tell us where that is. There is nothing to “separate” from the body. What happens is that chemical processes end and the energy in the body ends too.

                      You still have no evidence for your god or your soul, or anything else that you’ve claimed. Your premises are imaginary so any argument you make from them are imaginary. And it’s hilarious to watch you try to claim that your “illusory world” shoul have some physical effect now, when I challenge your lies.

                      All you are baseless assumptions and lies, N. Your “special screen” is just such a perfect excuse told by a failure like yourself. You keep having to add more magic to the cave analogy when someone points out how your claims fail.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      I like your boldness C, “there is nothing to separate from the body”, I have never heard of that perspective. Is this the consensus view/cornerstone of atheism, or you just want a clever way of denying a well established scientific fact?

                      Are you aware that chemical processes continue even after death? How do you explain your claim given this fact?

                      Like

                    • I’m sure you have heard that your dualism is silly from many people, N. All you seem to be trying to do is create an imaginary crowd to agree with you. And yep, chemical process wind down after death; there’s a lot of cells to die. They do not all of the sudden start up again.

                      And nope, it’s not the consensus view of atheism, it’s reality. Please do show your well-established scientific” facts that there is a “soul”, as you claim, an energy that somehow leaves the body and keeps coherent.

                      I’m waiting.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      No C, we are in a conversation trying to find a middle ground. I have started from the scientific perspective to show that science and religion talk of the same thing though in different languages. So I went to the basics about life and death, a concept that is well understood. This would be the common ground from which we would then proceed further, step by step. But here we are, now you even wont take what a well established scientific fact which leaves me to wonder what your theoretical framework is. Let me try again.

                      As per your argument that life is a mere chemical process, death would then only be confirmed once the the last cell dies. But that isn’t the case. Further, it would then also be possible to use any surviving cell to spark life back to the other cells.

                      Like

                    • there is no middle ground. Your baseless opinions aren’t equal to reality. Your lies about an afterlife are not supported by evidence. and no, religion and science do not talk of the “same things”.

                      Still waiting for evidence for your claims. Of course yuo have none. There is no packet of energy that survives death, no “soul”. But you are welcome to show evidence.

                      Nice lies, N. a death certificate doesn’t have to wait until the last cell dies because that is not when the activity of the brain stops. that one cell in your toe is still undergoing mitosis doesn’t make it possible to resurrect the whole person. Chemistry and biology don’t work that way. That you are so terribly ignorant about such basic things is pathetic, the usual woo peddler who depends on willful ignorance and lies.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Easy C, lets pick up my falling pieces that you keep dropping without sufficient reason. I think you see the error in your point because science doesn’t work that way. Life is not a chemical process, life controls the body chemical processes.

                      One doesn’t become a dualist by merely identifying/observing two extremes, they become dualists by identifying with one side and believing it to be the only valid part. There are always two dualist opposing each other: for our topic, its materialists and fundamental religionists/spiritualists.

                      For you, you deny the existence of soul, which as I told you it is what is called life.
                      Lets take the brain then. What is the difference between brain and mind? And what is the difference between conscious mind and subconscious mind? Are those my wild creations? I don’t think so. Extremes/opposites are facts of science. Positive and negative, visible and invisible. The body is matter (physical energy), while life/soul is non physical energy. Science will call it electromagnetic, while in religion/spirituality its called spirit. In both (because they are the same), the invisible controls the visible

                      Like

                    • As I have already indicated, I point out your nonsense that has no evidence to support it. And funny how you keep trying to claim I agree with you, when I don’t. That’s terribly dishonest and completely inept. Life is a chemical process. There is no life without a chemical process. But again, show your evidence, N. Otherwise, you are just making up nonsense again.

                      One is a dualist when one makes claims of body and spirit being separate. The problem with dualists is that they have no evidence for spirits at all. And it seems you have no idea what a dualist is, and think it means the same as a duelist. Sigh.

                      I certainly don’t care what you “tell” me, especially when I know it’s utter nonsense. The structure of the brain and its chemistry create the mind. If the brain is damaged the mind is damaged; if chemicals/electric charge are added to the brain, the mind changes. If it were some immaterial nonsense, then that wouldn’t happen, would it? There appears to be a conscious and subconscious mind. Depends on how you define them, and they don’t mean that the brain is magic. And yes, your baseless claims are your wild creations to make yourself feel ever so special that you know some “secret” to the universe. Your nonsense is not science and your invented extremes and opposites are not science.

                      If this “soul” is electromagnetic, then it isn’t “nonphysical energy”. There is no such thing. Electromagnetic energy is quite physical and is in this universe and is all around us (sunburns are quite physical). It’s also not invisible at all, we have plenty of ways to see it, just not with our unassisted eyes.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Great. I keep telling you that you evade as much as you can, the last thing you want to see is you agreeing with me even when looking at facts. You say my opposites/extremes are my creations yet it is a fact of science e.g hot and cold, positive and negative, visible and invisible, east and west, north and south etc. Sure C, you can’t claim these are my creations.You have also accepted that the brain and mind are separate then claim that opposites are my creations. You need to make up your mind here C, which is which?
                      I did not say that body and spirit are separate, they only separate during death to become independent entities. In life, the two are bonded together and once the bond is broken, they separate. When the body is severely damage in or ages, the bond is broken and the spirit progresses to the spiritual/energy realm.

                      The electromagnetic energy is non physical C, you can only physically see its effects, just like electricity. Not even with an electron microscope to aid our eyes can we see it. i.e you perceive them, But isn’t that what I have said that spirit is unseen but its effects are perceptible?

                      I have not told you my own things, I am using scientific facts, which you independently agree but refute them any time they come from me.

                      For clarification, magic is a phenomenon which one may not have a theoretical basis, something that confounds our perceptions e.g magnets produce magic when one is not aware about magnetism. The brain is magical as its power confounds our theories, understandings and beliefs. transference, hypnosis etc

                      Like

                    • You keep lying, N, so I’m not terribly interested in what you think you are telling me. Again, nothing to show that your “soul” exists, nor that it is some “extreme” or “opposite” of anything. There are gradations of heat, cold, positive, negative, visible, direction, etc ad infinitum. And nice try dear, but no one is calling reality your creation. I haven’t either. We just have you, running around frantically, making up more nonsense since his claims are garbage. I have not accepted that the brain and mind are separate, so you are just lying again. How truly pathetic.

                      Yep, now you are trying retcon your lies and what you’ve said, now we have a new pile of nonsense, that only after death the soul becomes independent. That’s also a fantasy, N. No magic bonds, no nothing, just your baseless claims again. And you try to claim that I only see the “physical” effects of EM energy, when I can quite happily assure you that touching an electric fence will convince you otherwise. You won’t see a thing different about an energized wire, but you certainly will feel it. And if you were unlucky and had some electrical problem with your heart, that might be the last thing you feel, as the electricity from it screws with the electrical system of the heart. My spouse had quite a electrical problem with his heart and went through 2 very long catheterization processes to fix it. And funny how I can see lightning quite nicely, as well, as light shining from an emitting diode, get burned by the sun, etc.

                      Yes, you have told you your own baseless claims, and still no evidence to support them, N. I refute your idiocy and certainly don’t agree with it.

                      Magic doesn’t exist. It might be a hypothesis e.g “magic causes rocks to levitate”, but it certainly isn’t a theory, nor is it based on reality, no evidence of rocks levitating at all. And no, magnets do not produce magic just because someone doesn’t understand. They always produce magnetism. But nice try to again try to redefine words when your claims fail. You pathetically wantn to laim that magic exists and then to claim that magic is “really” something we already know about. And we know how the brain works, and there is no magic, only what we don’t understand. No mind that is separate, no magic from hypnosis only focus, and there is nothing about the brain that confounds any theories we have. Like ignorant theists, you want to cling to your nonsense because we don’t know everything *yet*, and you want to pretend your magic is in those gaps that theists try to shove gods in. People like you have tried to claim that magic is really existent for thousands of years and funny how there is still no evidence. Of all of the Wicca I used to hang out with, no magic spells worked, no mind reading, no fortune telling, etc ever worked. They offered excuses, that having an non-believer in the room stopped their wonderful magic. Humans do love to believe themselves special. They aren’t.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Ha ha, it appears you hanged around the wrong company of Wiccas; look beyond that narrow sample.

                      Sound, light, heat etc, are effects of energy, not energy itself. If the heart doesn’t work properly clots will form due to stagnation or turbulence.
                      You indeed aren’t considering any fact,you oppose my statements and go ahead to explain them in your words. I repeat,you really need to tie your theories together e.g you consider brain and mind to be the same thing. To give you another analogy, computers are made up of a software and hardware. The mind corresponds to the software, and the brain to the hardware. How do you run away from this? and please remember the computer is modeled after the human nervous system.

                      Like

                    • Again, N is simply wrong and makes up nonsense. amazing how willful ignorance allows for such failure. I oppose your lies and your baseless claims, N. You have no facts. And nice to see you still have to lie and baselessly claim that I think that the brain and mind are separate and that the brain and mind are the “same thing”. They are not. The living brain creates the mind as long as it is intact and healthy No, brain, no mind. And your computer analogy fails since brains aren’t computers with the necessity of software from outside of them. and no, the computer is no modeled after the human nervous system. Computers have no where near that complexity or interconnectedness. Maybe someday, not now.

                      So, N, since you want to claim magic works, do some. Affect something with just your “mind” or cast a spell to affect something. Surely you can, right? Of course you’ll refuse and make up an excuse.

                      Like

                • makagutu says:

                  Man is a biological machine. I agree with Lemaitre on this; man a machine

                  Like

                  • nasimolo says:

                    Once that is agreeable, then we can slowly pick certain ‘claims’ by religion and check if they have any theoretical basis. Take prayer as an example, can one pray for another and have effect? If he is a machine, then he can generate energy and direct them as he desires. How is it directed? It is said to be through thoughts directed at the person being prayed for (meditation).

                    Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      Are there any studies that show prayers are effective? Last I checked, it was the contrary.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Any system not well understood/poorly developed my be hard to upscale. But yes, individuals have claimed it to have worked. We as observers can not claim to deny their experience when we can their is a scientific basis to the claim. We can argue about the specifics, but surely, not its scientific basis.

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      That would make us poor students; to accept claims we cannot verify just because someone made them, no. In what other basis would you want us to analyse the efficacy of prayer?

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Not really, if we don,t take them wholesome we find a few people and talk to them to verify the facts. We thus move from the generalised population study to small scale/individual study. Keep in mind that before we meet the prince, we will have to meet thousands of frogs/charlatans. But we must keep because it has a theoretical basis

                      Like

                    • makagutu says:

                      No, I think this would be a chasing after the wind.

                      Like

                    • nasimolo says:

                      Lets chase it if we have to, as long the possibility to catch it still exist. We have to be those who do not merely consider what falls within the average but also look at the outliers

                      Like

            • and I don’t need to offer a counter explanation since your claims are imaginary.

              Like

    • Guestspeaker says:

      May we add: God is The Being = the matter and the possibility to Exist and that is why He is: Eh-heh-yeh ashair Ehheh- yeh (I Am Who I Am), the One Who Is.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. basenjibrian says:

    Club: I note that you cannot argue against my God, Shimano and his trickster rain storms! Checkmate, Atheists!

    Like

  9. inspiredbythedivine1 says:
    March 4, 2019 at 20:27

    “The God will say: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind ‘Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?’ ‘Glory to You, ‘he will answer, ‘how could I ever say that to which I have no right?” (Surah 5:114-)

    Why would he think we would worship Jesus and Mary or any other human being?

    As real followers of Jeshua, (Jesus Christ/ Isi/ Chesu/Jesu) the man of flesh and blood, we worship the same God as he did, namely the God of Abraham, Who is an eternal Spirit Being no man can see.

    The gods besides God we do not at all worship because we only the Only One True God, Allah, the elohim Hashem Jehovah.

    Like

    • From the Quran: 2:120: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, Islâmic Guidance is the only Guidance. And if you were to follow their desires after what you have received of Knowledge, then you would have against Allâh neither any protector nor helper.”

      Like

      • 002.120 وَلَنْ تَرْضَى عَنْكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلا النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللَّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَى وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلا نَصِيرٍ
        002.120 Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.

        Al-Qur’an, 002.120 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

        is talking about Jews and Christians who went away from the Torah and had starting following human doctrines instead of Biblical doctrines.

        Throughout history there have always been sincere Jews and sincere followers of the Jew Jesus Christ (whose real name is Jeshua) who worshipped the same God as the patriarch Abraham who a Muslim should follow as well.

        Like

    • basenjibrian says:

      You mean your failed Creator God who so botched creation that he has to inspire bloodthirsty religious armies to FORCE us to follow His petty rules and requirements? And then blamed us for His botched creation, despite his supposing to be all knowing and all powerful, promising an eternity of torture for after his followers have raped and pillaged their fellow humans?

      This is wickedness. Nothing but wickedness.

      Even were such a “God” true and real, the only reaction to such an evil monster would be rebellion.

      Like

      • “You are a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor!” Darth Vader

        Like

      • makagutu says:

        Nothing but wickedness. To continue to worship such a being is the height of madness

        Like

      • It is not God Who calls for battle but it are human beings who first rebelled against their Maker and afterwards, still in rebellion against Him, also fight against other human beings and also do not respect other creatures nor the creation itself and as such bring damage to the creation.

        Like

        • basenjibrian says:

          How do you KNOW this? Thousands of years of human religious leaders, human religions, human history would disagree. And as a warm and fuzzy self delusion does not constitute definitive proof of what your particular flavor of God WANTS, you have no evidence for your statement on March 5.

          Like

          • Just look at what is going on in the world and how man treats nature. Look at the climate change and wonder how it has come so far. Look at the industrial countries and see how people but also nature is treated in China and U.S.A. for example. Look at the way certain people treat others.

            Everywhere it are human beings who influence circumstances. Throughout history it where human beings who decided to fight against each other. It was not God Who made war, but man. It was not God Who polluted the earth, but man.

            It would be wrong to call God the guilty one.

            Like

      • Guestspeaker says:

        The divine Creator does not force people to use violence. Where do you get such an idea from?

        Like

        • basenjibrian says:

          The Bible. Or, if you prefer, the Koran. The Book of Mormon. Heck, given their behavior which includes kidnapping people, Scientology. The “peaceful Buddhists” also like violence (see Myanmar). There was a civil war for decades in Sri Lanka between the Buddhists and Hindus.

          AND, one can only observe the “violence” of the natural world. Tornadoes just killed multiple people in deeply pious Alabama. Hurricanes, earthquakes….the universe itself seems pretty violent and hostile to human life.

          It is almost…willfully blind…to make a statement like yours.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. Guestspeaker says:

    Sorry for this later reaction. You write “The author of this post argues that the proof for god cannot be arrived at through logic but”” and mention our writing by which we present a writing of the The Jerusalem Post. So you should make a difference of what we ourself write or what we mention an author brings up to think about.

    In the article is spoken about the (“cosmological”) argument for God’s existence. we say “According to us “The Proof that God exists” is one of the major facts where you could say there is the only Biblical Doctrine is given, something which we might not be able to cope or to understand or to explain, but should accept as a reality, namely that there is a Divine Universal Supreme Being Who is the Cause of everything and the Maker of all.” We also mention logical thinking as a possibility to bring insight into the vision of a divine Creator. Looking around you you shall be able to see enough elements which can bring you to see that there exist a Special Something which makes everything possible and Which is much more powerful than any human being.

    Like

    • basenjibrian says:

      Quite a bit of bland, generic, religiobabble here. Your statements here are so generic that they are meaningless. When humans try to bring this down into specifics, they are eager to kill each other.

      Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s