Can you prove the existence of God rationally? NOT SERIOUS AT ALL

[cuteguy]

Here is my simple proof.

Logically, shouldn't there be nothing at all, instead of a universe?

There shouldn't be anything! Therefore, there is something fishy here. That fishy thing, is God!

Please share your proof if you have one. I would love to hear it. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by cuteguy

[Shin]

Why would it be logic that there should be nothing at all ?

[cuteguy]

1 minute ago, Shin said:

Why would it be logic that there should be nothing at all ?

I know what you mean. And if you go the other way with logic, then where that something comes from, is obviously fishy too, and God 

[Nahm]

Who says proof is rational.

[cuteguy]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

Who says proof is rational.

Rationality does. You went out of the rational framework to ask that question. You're cheating. LOL

[Shin]

7 minutes ago, cuteguy said:

I know what you mean. And if you go the other way with logic, then where that something comes from, is obviously fishy too, and God 

 

Can you prove to a blind man that color exist ?

[Nahm]

@cuteguy

What question? 

[cuteguy]

2 minutes ago, Shin said:

 

Can you prove to a blind man that color exist ?

No.

 

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

@cuteguy

What question? 

That wasn't a question? Nevermind then 

[peachboy]

Logically, all there can be is observation.

If there was no observation, there would be no observer to know that there was no observation. Therefore, observation is eternal.

Sometimes we observe nothing,  other times we observe something.

But it's observation... ad infinitum. 

[Forestluv]

@cuteguy How could one prove Now is Now? Wouldn’t we consider it irrational for a person to seek rational proof that Now is Now? Imagine asking a physicist to prove it’s Now.

[The0Self]

Is there something? Is there nothing? Is there both? Is there neither?

Those questions (as well as any questions) are brought into being by the apparent answer that the supposed questioner assumes to know or not know, thus defining the purpose of any question: limitation -- a container for duality to exist in.

Edited November 1, 2020 by The0Self

[Shin]

Imagine to prove to a man that a clitoral orgasm is real.

Most man can't even conceive this !!!

[cuteguy]

4 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@cuteguy How could one prove Now is Now? Wouldn’t we consider it irrational for a person to seek rational proof that Now is Now? Imagine asking a physicist to prove it’s Now.

1 minute ago, The0Self said:

Is there something? Is there nothing? Is there both? Is there neither?

Those questions (as well any any questions) are brought into being by the apparent answer that the supposed questioner assumes to know OR not know, thus defining the purpose of the any question: limitation.

You guys are boring!

 

12 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Here is my proof:

Does reality exist? I think most materialists would say yes.

That's God. At least according to my definition.

That works but it's too simple, because it would easily whoosh over a "rational" person's head. My proof is better, because I'm biased.

 

10 minutes ago, peachboy said:

Logically, all there can be is observation.

If there was no observation, there would be no observer to know that there was no observation. Therefore, observation is eternal.

Sometimes we observe nothing,  other times we observe something.

But it's observation... ad infinitum. 

How do you know that there is nothing without observation? The answer is Quantum Mechanics. But QM isn't rational or logical, so your answer is no good. Sorry buddy 

[Someone here]

You guys underestimate the depth of this question. Contemplate what GOD is before asking for proof. 

[peachboy]

12 minutes ago, cuteguy said:

How do you know that there is nothing without observation? The answer is Quantum Mechanics. But QM isn't rational or logical, so your answer is no good. Sorry buddy 

You're not hearing the nuance, and you're constructing a mini strawman.

I'm not saying that there is "nothing without observation."

I'm saying that observation has no opposite. Absolute un-consciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. If you could be un-conscious, you would not even realise that you were un-conscious, and therefore you can never be in the state of un-consciousness. If you cannot be in the state of un-consciousness then you cannot ever be un-conscious. And if you cannot ever be un-conscious, then you can only ever be conscious.

In the absence of first-person un-consciousness, all that remains is first-person consciousness.

And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter how many times you jump off a bridge. It doesn't matter how many times you put a gun to your head and blow your brains out. It doesn't matter how many times you die peacefully in a carehome.

You cannot escape from Eternity even if you wanted to.

And that's God.

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by peachboy

[cuteguy]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You guys underestimate the depth of this question. Contemplate what GOD is before asking for proof. 

Yeah, we're all dumb

4 minutes ago, peachboy said:

You're not hearing the nuance, and you're constructing a mini strawman.

I'm not saying that there is "nothing without observation."

I'm saying that observation has no opposite. Absolute un-consciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. If you could be un-conscious, you would not even realise that you were un-conscious, and therefore you can never be in the state of un-consciousness. If you cannot be in the state of un-consciousness then you cannot ever be un-conscious. And if you cannot ever be un-conscious, then you can only ever be conscious.

In the absence of first-person un-consciousness, all that remains is first-person consciousness.

And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter how many times you jump off a bridge. It doesn't matter how many times you put a gun to your head and blow your brains out. It doesn't matter how many times you die peacefully in a carehome.

You cannot escape from Eternity even if you wanted to.

And that's God.

 

 

 

I like that a lot, but my rational brain cells don't. Sorry, I'm biased.

[The0Self]

43 minutes ago, cuteguy said:

You guys are boring!

Ever wondered how an infinitely transcended God could get anything at all out of watching apparently finite happenings in the universe play out? Here's one way how:

God (all) is Self, and Self is God's imagination. God doesn't merely watch (meaning Self doesn't merely watch), Self is in character. Self is you, and there is no you other than Self (contrary to the experience of you). God, via Self (which is of course God's imagination), believes itself to be you to the exact same degree that you believe yourself to be you. God exists; you don't. Self is God rendered finite, egoic, and dreaming. You aren't deluded -- there is no you. Self is deluded into believing it is itself, Self, thereby forgetting it is actually God! As a result, fun, meaning, figuring stuff out, and everything else can happen.

= a story.

Edited November 1, 2020 by The0Self

[Gesundheit]

It's turtles all the way down...

[Rilles]

No. Only through the Holy Frog of the Sonoran can truth be revealed. 

[Shin]

41 minutes ago, Rilles said:

No. Only through the Holy Frog of the Sonoran can truth be revealed. 

 

Lick a frog

Realize he's God

 

Only in a dream such shit can happens