Is God Real?

[Age]

We have been through all this several times. Don't you remember?

AND, just like ALL of the other times you have, ONCE AGAIN, FAILED ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL here. THUS, leaving YOUR CLAIM here that 'it is clear' existing IN 'you' ALONE.

you have FAILED, AGAIN ABSOLUTELY, in providing ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL how the Universe, laughably, could have even had a beginning. So, this CLAIM ALSO you have based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL except on YOUR OWN BELIEF-system.

No, that leads to a regress in the creation of time.

It does NOT MATTER.

A 'regress' does NOT MEAN IMPOSSIBILITY, like you OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE 'it' DOES.

BUT, PLEASE FEEL FREE to continue on BELIEVING WHATEVER you WANT TO BELIEVE is true.

That is logically impossible unless you accept the singularity.

BUT for 'the singularity' to ACTUALLY WORK, and BE POSSIBLE, like 'it' IS, then you WILL HAVE TO CHANGE your IMAGINING of what 'singularity' MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

I am not going to discuss the obvious with you. We have been through this several times.

you do NOT want to discuss the so-called 'obvious' with me BECAUSE you have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL that backs up and supports the so-called 'obvious'.

And YES we have been through 'this' a few times ALREADY, and EACH and EVERY time you have FAILED to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that could even begin to back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

you, literally, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL here other than your OWN BELIEF. Thus, the REASON WHY you will NOT discuss here with me.

[Dontaskme]

you have FAILED to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that could even begin to back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

How does one back up and support one's belief anyway?

What ''thing'' would they use to back up and support the belief with exactly?

[Age]

you have FAILED to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that could even begin to back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

How does one back up and support one's belief anyway?

SOME 'try' with 'evidence', but I much prefer to USE 'proof', that way what is CLAIMED then becomes IRREFUTABLE.

What ''thing'' would they use to back up and support the belief with exactly?

They can 'try' absolutely ANY 'thing', but I found ACTUAL 'proof' IMPOSSIBLE to REFUTE.

Also, I suggest to NEVER BELIEVE ANY 'thing' is true UNTIL one HAS the ACTUAL PROOF that 'that thing' is ACTUALLY true, FIRST. Oh, and by the way, once one has the ACTUAL PROOF, there is NO need to BELIEVE 'that thing' is true. one, OBVIOUSLY, ACTUALLY now KNOWS.

[Dontaskme]

you have FAILED to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that could even begin to back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

How does one back up and support one's belief anyway?

SOME 'try' with 'evidence', but I much prefer to USE 'proof', that way what is CLAIMED then becomes IRREFUTABLE.

So then instead of saying any ''thing'' ...couldn't you just have said produce ''PROOF'' or and ''EVIDENCE'' ?

But you asked for a ''thing'' didn't you?
A ''thing'' is an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being. You asked for any ''thing'' to be used to produce a back up and support of one's claim. That can only infer that one must provide an inanimate material object and that this material object will be the irrefutable ''thing'' that can be used to back up and support one's claim to be nothing more than an irrefutable claim.

So say for example: Someone believed in God...what ''inanimate material object'' the ''thing'' you asked for, would be required to produce the evidence and support to back up their belief in God?
What would that 'inanimate material object' actually look like to you AGE?

That's basically what you are asking people to do here, but if you are not, then can you clarify exactly what are you asking them to produce as irrefutable evidence and proof of their belief as claimed?

[Age]

you have FAILED to produce ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that could even begin to back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.

How does one back up and support one's belief anyway?

SOME 'try' with 'evidence', but I much prefer to USE 'proof', that way what is CLAIMED then becomes IRREFUTABLE.

So then instead of saying any ''thing'' ...couldn't you just have said produce ''PROOF'' or and ''EVIDENCE'' ?

NO, and WHEN one is Truly INTERESTED, THEN I WILL.

But you asked for a ''thing'' didn't you?

NO, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, I ACTUALLY ASKED for absolutely ANY 'thing', which, OBVIOUSLY, includes A 'thing'.

AND, BEFORE you START ASSUMING some 'thing' here, which will MORE THAN LIKELY BE Wrong, just LOOK AT your QUESTION here. While we are AT 'this' take NOTICE of your PREVIOUS QUESTION here ALSO.

A ''thing'' is an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

NOT TO me.

You asked for any ''thing'' to be used to produce a back up and support of one's claim.

Okay.

That can only infer that one must provide an inanimate material object and that this material object will be the irrefutable ''thing'' that can be used to back up and support one's claim to be nothing more than an irrefutable claim.

you CAN 'infer', literally, ANY 'thing' you like, or whatever you like. But 'I' the SPEAKER and WRITER here NEVER EVER 'implied' ANY such 'thing' as 'you' have 'inferred' here.

When I USE the 'thing' word I do NOT mean, NOR refer to, JUST 'inanimate material objects' ONLY. Have I CLEARED 'this' UP ENOUGH FOR you 'now'?

What you just DID here is FURTHER PROOF and a GREAT LESSON of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST, BEFORE one BEGINS to ASSUME or even BEGINS to INFER absolutely ANY 'thing' EVER AGAIN.

So say for example: Someone believed in God...what ''inanimate material object'' the ''thing'' you asked for, would be required to produce the evidence and support to back up their belief in God?

ONCE AGAIN, I MUCH PREFER TO USE ACTUAL PROOF, INSTEAD and ONLY. As 'evidence' is NOT IRREFUTABLE.

As I SAID earlier, 'SOME 'try' with 'evidence', but I much prefer to USE 'proof', that way what is CLAIMED then becomes IRREFUTABLE.

Also, and do NOT FORGET that when I SAY and WRITE 'thing' I do NOT have a VERY NARROWED and LIMITED LIST as you DO.

Now, as you are LOOKING FOR ONLY an 'inanimate material object' as 'evidence' that would back up and support ANY one's BELIEF in God, then that is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to FIND, SEE, and PRODUCE. That is; the visible Universe, Itself. As I have MENTIONED numerous times ALREADY here, in this forum.

And, if ANY one wants FURTHER 'evidence', or even ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF, then there is ALSO 'THAT' in the non visible sense AS WELL. As I have ALSO mentioned numerous times here, ALREADY, in this forum.

What would that 'inanimate material object' actually look like to you AGE?

The Universe, Itself.

As I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, and INFORMED, here, in this forum.

That's basically what you are asking people to do here,

LOL NO IT WAS, and IS, NOT.

In Fact it was NOTHING like what you have SAID and CLAIMED here.

The VERY REASON WHY these human beings took SO LONG to FIND, SEE, and KNOW the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS BECAUSE they just did NOT STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BEFORE they OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY.

but if you are not, then can you clarify exactly what are you asking them to produce as irrefutable evidence and proof of their belief as claimed?

Firstly, I suggest NO HAS NOR HOLDS any BELIEF here. That way they will NOT be SO CLOSED.

Secondly, I do NOT ASK FOR 'evidence'. I ASK FOR 'proof', INSTEAD.

Thirdly, I am ASKING for, LITERALLY, ANY ACTUAL PROOF, AT ALL, which consists of the 'visible' AND the 'non visible', which, to me, is what 'things' are made of.

[Dontaskme]

Also, and do NOT FORGET that when I SAY and WRITE 'thing' I do NOT have a VERY NARROWED and LIMITED LIST as you DO.

Ok fair enough, so what is this ''thing'' you wrote about in the days when this was being written? can you name it? oh I see, you say ''visible Universe''


If you say this 'thing' was meant as proof or evidence, then what will a believer in God have to show as evidence and proof, so that you AGE can then tell the believer,yes indeed, you have provided me with what I asked for?

Can you tell us what would need to show up, as proof and evidence?

If you say the visible Universe is proof and evidence of the belief in God, then why call it God, why not just call it the visible Universe ?

Why does the visible Universe have to be given another title other than what it is already?

[Age]

Also, and do NOT FORGET that when I SAY and WRITE 'thing' I do NOT have a VERY NARROWED and LIMITED LIST as you DO.

Ok fair enough, so what is this ''thing'' you wrote about in the days when this was being written? can you name it? oh I see, you say ''visible Universe''

Have you here now ANSWERED those TWO QUESTIONS that you 'were' ASKING me? Or, are you still wanting me to ANSWER them?

If you say this 'thing' was meant as proof or evidence, then what will a believer in God have to show as evidence and proof, so that you AGE can then tell the believer,yes indeed, you have provided me with what I asked for?

SOME 'thing' that EVERY one could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT.

Which is JUST THE SAME as WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE here regarding PROOF, Truth, Right, and Wrong.

Can you tell us what would need to show up, as proof and evidence?

Firstly, PLEASE just REMOVE the 'evidence' word COMPLETELY, as I ONLY deal WITH 'proof'. See, 'evidence' FOR some 'thing' does NOT mean that there IS 'proof' for 'that thing'. 'evidence' IS REFUTABLE, while ONLY 'proof' IS IRREFUTABLE.

Secondly, if you are ASKING here, what NEEDS to SHOW UP as 'proof' for 'God' ONLY, then what NEEDS to SHOW UP 'HAS', ALREADY. In Fact what 'It' IS, HAS BEEN 'sitting HERE', BEFORE 'us' FOREVER. Thus, 'It', THE PROOF, IS BEFORE, for ALL TO LOOK AT, and SEE, ALWAYS IN the HERE-NOW. BUT because human beings ARE an evolving 'thing', NOT EVERY 'thing' COMES-TO-LIGHT, or IS SEEN, and thus in a sense SHOWS UP, ALL, AT ONCE.

What IS, ALWAYS, SHOWING UP IS the Universe, Itself. Which IS JUST God, in the visible sense.

If you say the visible Universe is proof and evidence of the belief in God, then why call it God, why not just call it the visible Universe ?

Because 'me', "age", did NOT personally LIST ALL of the words. I am just USING the words that ARE ALREADY IN LANGUAGE, and IN USE.

Also, WHILE one is BELIEVING IN God, or has A BELIEF in or of God, then 'that one' does NOT NEED ACTUAL 'evidence' NOR even ANY 'proof'. 'They' have ALREADY FORMED A BELIEF, which WHILE MAINTAINED IS UNCHANGEABLE, anyway.

The visible Universe also does NOT PROVIDE the True AND Right IMAGE, or Picture, for ALL-THERE-IS.

The word 'God' brings with 'It' a connotation or perception of A Creator. Which is WHERE the, non visible, 'Mind' COMES IN.

WITHOUT the 'Mind', after all, EVERY human made CREATION would NOT have COME-TO-EXIST. And, if 'we' were to be ABSOLUTELY and Truly Honest here, human made 'creations' are REALLY ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, and even BEYOND BELIEF sometimes. Although 'they' are ONLY 'now' REALLY STARTING TO TAKE OFF, and BE EVEN MORE AMAZING.

AND, absolutely EVERY one of these 'creations', originally, CAME FROM IMAGINATION, itself, which ONLY exists in and from THE Truly OPEN Mind.

Why does the visible Universe have to be given another title other than what it is already?

But the title 'God' is NOT here being GIVEN to 'the visible Universe'.

I will SAY 'this' AGAIN:

God, in the visible sense, IS the Universe, Itself.

God, in the visible sense, IS the Mind, Itself.

God, HAS TO BE EXPLAINED IN and FROM these two senses BECAUSE 'you', human beings, talk ABOUT God IN the 'Spiritual' sense, AND, IN the 'physically Created' sense.

Now, obviously, one is visible while one is not.

[Dontaskme]

What IS, ALWAYS, SHOWING UP IS the Universe, Itself. Which IS JUST God, in the visible sense.

I don't agree, the universe does not show up, the universe is what's already showing.


Saying the universe shows up is like saying the universe shows up to it's own show, which is silly, the universe is all there is, it's already the show. It doesn't need to show up to it's own show.


And I still do not know why you need to call the universe by any other name, like God, surely if the universe is God then just stick to the one name, namely, God, and forget UNIVERSE, and not place another name like UNIVERSE on top of God.

Otherwise all you'd have is...Goduniverse. Or Universegod.


.

[Age]

What IS, ALWAYS, SHOWING UP IS the Universe, Itself. Which IS JUST God, in the visible sense.

I don't agree, the universe does not show up, the universe is what's already showing.

THAT IS what WAS MEANT BY, and through the USE OF the words, 'IS, ALWAYS, SHOWING UP'.

'It' IS ALWAYS SHOWING. Or, ALWAYS SHOWING UP, BUT just NOT EVERY one, "themselves", are SHOWING UP, and/or LOOKING 'UP', and SEEING.

Saying the universe shows up is like saying the universe shows up to it's own show, which is silly, the universe is all there is, it's already the show.

I ADMIT I could have CHOSEN BETTER WORDS here. BUT I WILL ADMIT I could just about ALWAYS CHOOSE BETTER WORDS, and BETTER WORDING. BUT, FINDING the Right WORDS, FOR EVERY one, ALL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, takes some time, and IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE with A LESSON TO BE LEARNED, ALL OF THE TIME.

Just IMAGINE it could be like SAYING, the LIGHT-OF-Life, Itself, is ALWAYS SHOWING UP the WONDER and BEAUTY OF Life, and OF living, BUT NOT ALL can ALWAYS SEE what IS SHOWING UP in FRONT OF 'them'.

BUT I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY AGREE that IF I LEFT OUT the 'up' WORD, then what I WAS and AM SAYING might have made MORE SENSE, TO 'you' personally, "dontaskme".

It doesn't need to show up to it's own show.

I NEVER though 'It' WOULD.

And I still do not know why you need to call the universe by any other name, like God, surely if the universe is God then just stick to the one name, namely, God, and forget UNIVERSE, and not place another name like UNIVERSE on top of God.

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

BUT you might have YOUR REASONS for NEGLECTING 'this Fact' ON PURPOSE, OR UNKNOWINGLY.

Otherwise all you'd have is...Goduniverse. Or Universegod.

ONLY IF one was TO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the OTHER 'things', which I HAVE BEEN SAYING and MENTIONING here.

[Dontaskme]

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

But you did say that the Universe is God.

You never said, the Universe is the Universe.

So back to showing proof or evidence to back up and support a claim ...explain again, how you suppose one who claims can be seen to support and back up their claim? and what will be required to meet with your satifaction that what is supplied is irrefutably correct in backing up and supporting such claim, in your opinion?

I ask you again, because I forget what you said about what would be required to support and back up a claim that would prove irrefutably true, in your opinion, if indeed, you said anything at all about that ''thing'' that is required.

[Age]

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

But you did say that the Universe is God.

IN THE VISIBLE SENSE, OR, THE VISIBLE Universe.

And, YES, I have SAID, 'the Universe IS God', AS WELL, as MANY OTHER 'things'.

You never said, the Universe is the Universe.

NO one HAS EVER ASKED me TO.

So back to showing proof or evidence to back up and support a claim ...explain again, how you suppose one who claims can be seen to support and back up their claim?

I am NOT SURE if you FINISHED 'that sentence' WITH ALL the WORDS, BUT, IF YOU DID, then absolutely ANY CLAIM can be backed up and support WITH PROOF.

Which can be IN physical or empirical form OR IN logical or written form.

and what will be required to meet with your satifaction that what is supplied is irrefutably correct in backing up and supporting such claim, in your opinion?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' as I SAID and INFORMED 'you' LAST TIME. 'That', which could be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY EVERY one.

Now, I have BOLD and UNDERLINED MY ANSWER, this time, SO that if you EVER ASK 'THIS QUESTION' AGAIN, ANOTHER TIME, then we CAN refer BACK to 'THIS ANSWER' here.

I ask you again, because I forget what you said about what would be required to support and back up a claim that would prove irrefutably true, in your opinion, if indeed, you said anything at all about that ''thing'' that is required.

Are you REALLY NOT YET AWARE of the 'thing' called LOOKING BACK, and JUST READING?

[Dontaskme]

And, YES, I have SAID, 'the Universe IS God', AS WELL, as MANY OTHER 'things'.

So you did call the universe God. But then denied you did, when I asked you why you would bother giving the universe another title.

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

If you are not naming or calling the universe God, then who is?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' as I SAID and INFORMED 'you' LAST TIME. 'That', which could be AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY EVERY one.

Well that's never going to happen is it?

Not everyone is going to agree that the universe is God, or that God is the universe, no more than everyone is going to agree that apples taste better than oranges.

[Age]

And, YES, I have SAID, 'the Universe IS God', AS WELL, as MANY OTHER 'things'.

So you did call the universe God. But then denied you did, when I asked you why you would bother giving the universe another title.

But I have NEVER given the Universe another title AT ALL.

If I recall Correctly, somewhere in this forum, IN 'conversation', I have USED the words and SAID, 'the Universe IS God'. BUT, UNTIL in 'what context' I SAID 'that' is KNOWN, CLAIMING that I have given the Universe another title is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If people ASK ABOUT what God IS, I just continue my LEARNING in HOW to EXPLAIN and COMMUNICATE BETTER what the IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS, EXACTLY.

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

If you are not naming or calling the universe God, then who is?

I do NOT KNOW.

Well that's never going to happen is it?

But 'it' has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Not everyone is going to agree that the universe is God, or that God is the universe, no more than everyone is going to agree that apples taste better than oranges.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER CLEAR and PRIME example of completely and utter MISSING the POINT.

AND, this is JUST BECAUSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE, BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ACTUAL CLARITY WERE EVER SOUGHT AFTER.

EVERY one of these human beings, back then, CAME TO 'this way' of 'thinking and looking at and seeing 'things' here. NOT a one of 'them' EVER SOUGHT OUT CLARITY, and thus WHY 'they' took SO LONG to COME TO and ARRIVE at the Truth of 'things', like 'we' HAVE.

[Dontaskme]

And, YES, I have SAID, 'the Universe IS God', AS WELL, as MANY OTHER 'things'.

So you did call the universe God. But then denied you did, when I asked you why you would bother giving the universe another title.

But I have NEVER given the Universe another title AT ALL.

If I recall Correctly, somewhere in this forum, IN 'conversation', I have USED the words and SAID, 'the Universe IS God'. BUT, UNTIL in 'what context' I SAID 'that' is KNOWN, CLAIMING that I have given the Universe another title is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If people ASK ABOUT what God IS, I just continue my LEARNING in HOW to EXPLAIN and COMMUNICATE BETTER what the IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS, EXACTLY.

you seem to KEEP NEGLECTING the Fact that I am NOT SOLELY CALLING the Universe, God, NOR SOLELY CALLING God, the Universe.

If you are not naming or calling the universe God, then who is?

I do NOT KNOW.

Well that's never going to happen is it?

But 'it' has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Not everyone is going to agree that the universe is God, or that God is the universe, no more than everyone is going to agree that apples taste better than oranges.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER CLEAR and PRIME example of completely and utter MISSING the POINT.

AND, this is JUST BECAUSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE, BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ACTUAL CLARITY WERE EVER SOUGHT AFTER.

EVERY one of these human beings, back then, CAME TO 'this way' of 'thinking and looking at and seeing 'things' here. NOT a one of 'them' EVER SOUGHT OUT CLARITY, and thus WHY 'they' took SO LONG to COME TO and ARRIVE at the Truth of 'things', like 'we' HAVE.

I've no idea what you are talking about, your responses/replies, whatever it is you write is becoming more and more incoherent to me to be honest.

I will however continue to try and communicate with you, as and when I can be bothered.

[Age]

So you did call the universe God. But then denied you did, when I asked you why you would bother giving the universe another title.

But I have NEVER given the Universe another title AT ALL.

If I recall Correctly, somewhere in this forum, IN 'conversation', I have USED the words and SAID, 'the Universe IS God'. BUT, UNTIL in 'what context' I SAID 'that' is KNOWN, CLAIMING that I have given the Universe another title is just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If people ASK ABOUT what God IS, I just continue my LEARNING in HOW to EXPLAIN and COMMUNICATE BETTER what the IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS, EXACTLY.

If you are not naming or calling the universe God, then who is?

I do NOT KNOW.

Well that's never going to happen is it?

But 'it' has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Not everyone is going to agree that the universe is God, or that God is the universe, no more than everyone is going to agree that apples taste better than oranges.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER CLEAR and PRIME example of completely and utter MISSING the POINT.

AND, this is JUST BECAUSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE, BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ACTUAL CLARITY WERE EVER SOUGHT AFTER.

EVERY one of these human beings, back then, CAME TO 'this way' of 'thinking and looking at and seeing 'things' here. NOT a one of 'them' EVER SOUGHT OUT CLARITY, and thus WHY 'they' took SO LONG to COME TO and ARRIVE at the Truth of 'things', like 'we' HAVE.

I've no idea what you are talking about, your responses/replies, whatever it is you write is becoming more and more incoherent to me to be honest.

Yes I AM AWARE of 'this', and WHY I also EXPLAINED that the REASON WHY you do NOT YET KNOW what I am talking ABOUT, EXACTLY, IS BECAUSE you keep making Wrong ASSUMPTIONS. If, however, you SOUGHT OUT and OBTAINED CLARITY FIRST, THEN you would KNOW, EXACTLY, what 'it' IS that I am talking ABOUT here. But, OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT even WANT TO KNOW, and this IS BECAUSE you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what is EXACTLY true and right here.

I will however continue to try and communicate with you, as and when I can be bothered.

Well 'this' was ALSO VERY OBVIOUS, thus you did NOT have to say.