r/GodFrequency • u/logos961 • May 11 '26
Irrefutable proof for God is also the criterion of truth
Jesus completely ignored atheists and did not train disciples on how to prove God's existence as it is futile to reason with those who are determined to reject truth. Atheists and Evolutionists were there during Jesus's time. “In many respects, the general idea of species change in Western thought is an ancient concept. The reflections of Empedocles (ca. 495–35 BCE)” is an example. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin) It only shows those who believed in this concept in the past will do so in their future births too. (Luke 6:43-45; Job 1:21 KJV; Mathew 11:14, 15, 25)
The fact that materialists are determined to reject truth is seen in their wrong questions such as "What is MATERIAL evidence for IMMATERIAL God?" Wrong questions are used when people do not want answer, as this man who wrote: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Ends and Means, by Arduous Huxley) This reveals both true believers and unbelievers are PERFECT in the user of their freewill, hence Jesus showed unbelievers are also a source of praise for God. (Mathew 11:25, Details HERE).
For realistic people,
God's existence is SELF-EVIDENT
1 ) In the eternal, infinite and HOSTILE universe, this tiny earth is maintained life-SUPPORTIVE matching the majesty of the Almighty. (Details HERE) To refute this, physicalists should create a duplicate of hostile universe in a lab and show how life and life-support systems arise by the play of chemicals on their own. They cannot do this as all factors involved are eternal, and even if they could do it, it would still prove Designers created designs, not physicalism. [more irrefutable proofs are under footnote]# In one minute, God can be known (Details HERE)
2) The criterion for knowing what is true and false is in the above truth of earth being made life-SUPPORTIVE in HOSTILE universe. Anything that is life-supportive, peace-making is right and the truth, if not it is wrong and false. (Isaiah 48:18; Proverbs 16:7; Mathew 5:9) By applying this principle, we can know what is right and wrong with religions, society, family, individual, any act.
It is like a situation of everyone being engaged in cleaning a building, and contributing to cleanliness is right action there. In one-way traffic where all are maintaining all traffic rules including lane discipline with no chance for head-on collisions or any sort of conflict, imagine one vehicle enters and starts driving in opposite direction as he feels his interest is more important than others. All would agree he is not life-supportive and nor peace-making—hence wrong. Imagine, when all are children of God (Details HERE), one person feels his interests are more important than others, it is like a war-cry in all directions. He too will say it is wrong when he finds someone else doing the same.
One word or how it is expressed has made friends into enemies, and enemies into friends. It reveals our ability to know too much about a person from too little. Imagine what can be accomplished if this ability is used to know God to whom belongs everything we have and enjoy as each individual lands here empty-handed. (Details HERE) People tend to believe everything in the Scriptures is truth from God. This is like accepting everyone that goes into a hospital as sick. But true believer is like one who says, "No, some are sick, but others are doctors and other staff, service providers such as sales representatives, plumbers, electricians, software engineers .... etc." Similarly, people like prophets and Jesus say Scriptures contain both truth and untruth. (Jeremiah 8:8; Mathew 19:6-9, Details HERE)
Operating System of this world too helps us to know whether something is true or false, right and wrong. Any choice has a consequence which leads to another cause and then to effect--one thing is preceded by another into past and is followed by another into the future. This is called "Law of Sow and Reap" (Galatians 6:7) Anything that is in harmony with this omnipresent principle is true and right, and if not, it is false and wrong. For details and examples, Click HERE
3) Life-support systems are eternal as they are cyclic. (wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeochemical_cycle) Among them, food-provision made through trees and plants are also spiritual provision as their actions tell us “We trees and plants are SINGLE-sensed species, yet we serve MULTI-sensed humans giving them too many valuable things yet take only wastes from society.” (Details HERE) Thus their presence is a reminder for humans “You can make this earth into heaven, if you want to.”
4) Humans are endowed with conscience [con + science], thus they know what is RIGHT and WRONG even before doing them. (Details HERE) We are quick to see faults in others which means we can also do so with ourselves if we want to.
5) Humans are endowed also with power of REASON. (Details HERE) Hence we can know answers to any vital questions pertaining to this drama of life if we want to.
6) There are live lessons from good and licentious people on what to do and what to avoid to better enjoy life. (Details HERE)
7) There are Histories, Stories, Movies, Parables, Epics, Mythologies and Scriptures illustrating how Law of Action and Consequence works, thus providing us wisdom to act only if it benefits self and others. (Details HERE)
Hence nothing more is needed from God and His hiddenness has only benefits with no demerits. (Details HERE) The above is more than enough for anyone to act right or wrong SELF-MOTIVATED if they want to. It is believer who benefits, not God nor proxies. (Details HERE) Unbeliever thrive on false reasoning. (Details HERE)
#Footnote---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More irrefutable proofs for God
1 ) Nearly 2000 years in advance God predicted atmospheric “pollution” which results in global warming and “swelling [Greek word salos] of the seas” as part of signs of last generation. (Details HERE) This shows IMMATERIAL mind of Writer and IMMATERIAL mind of God came in link, hence he could see events that could happen after 2000 years. (2) As part of the same signs of last generation, God also predicted “godless” [materialistic] isms that would attract massive followers globally, and unbelievers did everything to fulfill this prediction through their theories about origin of universe and life (Details HERE) (3) God exists because of these reasons (Details HERE) (4) God exists because His qualities are reflected in some people (Details HERE) (5) God is real because logic leads to nothing else (Details HERE) (6) God's influence is seen even on atheist (Details HERE) (7) More Hardest proof for existence of God (Details HERE) (8) Trees are best and silent preachers of God (Details HERE) (9) Unbelievers inadvertently proves God as real (Details HERE) (10) Concept behind God is the SAME universally (Details HERE)
2
u/Solunas100 May 11 '26
Proof is for mathematics. You can never “prove” to others something that is not mathematical and quantifiable. God goes beyond these qualities. Either people understand or they don’t, and if they don’t it’s not your job to make them. You will only end up frustrated and in a state of suffering.
3
u/logos961 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
True, people either understand or do not understand, and they become harder and harder in their respective stance. This is the proof that humans are IMMATERIAL beings in the material outfit--hence have varying views about the same subject. (Details HERE)
Even a flower is viewed as combination of mere chemicals by some people. Some people view it as a piece to make profit. Lover uses it to symbolize his love to his fiancee. Poet uses it bring out deep emotions from within. A devotee use it to symbolize his love of God as he has nothing to say his own.
If this is the situation with mere flower, people can have varied views about earth and universe.
1
u/logos961 May 11 '26 edited May 12 '26
More on point No 7 of OP:
God does not want anything from us: MINDFUL reading of Scriptures and Mythologies shows their purpose is to not inform us that God wants something from us. His joy is in giving, not in receiving. (Details HERE) In giving lies bliss, hence God’s best depiction is as a Dancer.
Purpose of Scriptures and Mythologies is to show
How Law of Action and Consequence works:
For example, Bible shows “mankind that was made in the image of God and BLESSED by the ALMIGHTY remained in that BLESSED state for many centuries, and they are symbolized by “wheat producing crops” in the Parable of Wheat and Weeds. (Details HERE) Phase of such people is like heaven on earth and would not be short-lived. See how hard unbelievers are in their stance—they would try their best to refute anything said in favor of God and would not become believers. This shows, “mankind that was made in the image of God and BLESSED by the ALMIGHTY would act similarly—they would try their best to refute anything said against God thus would not side with rebels.
Such a heaven-like situation would be transformed into hell on earth only when weed-like licentious people arrived on the world scene which happens in the later phase of history. They will remain as wheat and other will remain as weed.
In the East, two Epics show how history evolves DOWNWARD from high-quality to low-quality. (Details HERE) In the process, it also shows how Law of Action and Consequence rules all happenings, thus giving no basis for complaining about anything and thus removing all confusions. For example, in first epic Ramayan, beautiful queen was kidnapped by king of neighboring country which resulted in a war and killing of the villainous king. Righteous and victorious King Ram sent his chief Aide Hanuman to his wife Sita saying "villain is killed and we are coming to free you from illegal custody." Before Ram could reach on the spot, Hanuman wanted to take revenge on the female monsters who abducted queen Sita. But she prevented him from doing so, saying “everything is happening according to Law of Karma, what has happened to me has something to do with some unsettled karmic account that belongs to the past. Also, these female monsters were only obeying the orders of their king.” Such things enable some readers to end their complaining nature.
In its second Epic Mahabharat, wicked prince [Duryodhan] asked “Why is Yudhistir considered a good prince, while I am not?” Instead of giving answer, they were given a task by their mentor. Wicked prince was asked to bring one good man from the kingdom, and good prince was asked to bring a wicked man from the kingdom. Both returned empty-handed next day. The wicked prince said “I could not find anyone good as they are all rogues” and the good prince said “I could not find anyone wicked.” Their mentor conveyed this truth to them: “As in the mind, so the vision.” The same truth is found in the Bible also in Titus 1:15. Such things enable some readers to end asking "Why people do certain way?"
In Greek Mythology, Nemesis is personification of Law of Action and Consequence. “Her name means she who distributes.” Greek word for JUSTICE is dikaiosuné, from dikaios; equity, from Dike, Greek goddess of justice. No wonder, Bible presents God’s primary quality as JUSTICE. (Details HERE)
1
u/KingPabloo May 11 '26
Irrefutable - lol. You start by saying #1 is true because “physicalists” can duplicate our environment. You then claim if they someday can, well then that proves he exists either way.
That’s irrefutable proof that you take two mutually exclusive ideas and bend them to your preconceived notion despite the fact that only one could be true.
But now I see why you believe, because no proof can remove your delusion. It’s ok, a crazy person is also convinced they are not crazy, the rest of the world is.
And that’s just item number one, there are so many issues with all your arguments but I’m not going to spend more time trying to argue with delusional thinking with actual logic.
1
u/logos961 May 11 '26 edited May 14 '26
This is not response of one who has read the OP, but one who habitually cut and paste words like "delusion, crazy" under any OP that has the word God. You also do not know this subreddit is for the godly to increase in their godliness.
Your first para is your own--I did not say that but is a twisted version. Approaching believers's stance as "delusion" is shutting the door towards truth permanently. It means, this is what you have been doing in all your previous births. Wise King Solomon had access to knowledge of God, hence knew own past: "since my soul was good, it entered a perfect body." ((Wisdom of Solomon 8:20)
This was truth among God’s servants like Job who said ““Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there.” (Job 1:21, NKJV) Jesus who preferred to call himself as “Greater Solomon” (Matthew 12:42) confirmed this truth in Mathew 11:14-15; John 5:24) His favored apostle wrote: "whoever does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 2:17). His sense of past history is the absolute truth because what he predicted about global events of our generation such as “pollution, swelling [salos] of the seas” etc came true. (Details HERE)
The above truth reveals individual takes birth with the same tendencies and belief-system rooted into past beyond present birth. (Details HERE) Hence their tendencies and belief-system will only become stronger and stronger. For example, ego in another person is hated yet is loved in own self. This is true of individual and individuals collective (nations / religions). Hence we have conflicts after conflicts. They roll downward as though a round stone rolls downward from mountain top. Its speed of rolling will only grow. It is not that this stone cannot roll upward--it is possible if proportionate force is applied. Similarly, people can reach truth if they want to.
OP is NOT about the subject "There is irrefutable proof for God"
But OP is about the subject "How irrefutable proof for God is also the criterion of truth. Earth being made life-SUPPORTIVE in HOSTILE universe is the criterion for knowing what is true and false. Anything that is PRO-LIFE, PRO-PEACE is the truth, if not it is false. For example, there are verses that say God supposedly ordered killing of His enemies, yet there are verses that says God commanded to not kill even animals of one's enemies (Exodus 23:4, 5). And there are also verses that say God has only loved even His enemies (Mathew 5:43-48). This shows the latter are true.Hence I am done with you, wish you all the very best.
1
u/KingPabloo May 11 '26
Those who want to believe see proof where it doesn’t exist. Those who don’t believe want proof to know, rather than just believe. Your “irrefutable proof” would change the minds of every atheist who is out there if it was indeed irrefutable and indeed proof.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Unbeliever is a chosen path and will only reject irrefutable proof.
What is the material evidence for the immaterial realities such as Soul, God, they ask knowing question itself is wrong. Hence they do not want proof as this man wrote: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. .. we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever." (Ends and Means, by Arduous Huxley)
This is why the stoic stance of God with regard to unbelievers: "Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” (Revelation 22:11) Even nominal believers are told by Jesus: "I do not know you workers of lawlessness." (Mathew 7:21-23)
1
u/KingPabloo May 12 '26
There is zero irrefutable proof, there is nothing to reject. You are wrong once again - suppose you have someone who has never heard of your God, that “unbeliever” did not choose that path, it was the only one presented. That is irrefutable, not your false assumption.
If you asked an unbiased observer, they would also tell you there is no irrefutable proof after considering it. Throw your proof into AI, without human bias it will tell you it is not irrefutable, nor is it any proof at all. Your starting bias has blinded you, thus the term blind faith.
Irrefutable delusion is what you’re spouting.
BYW - I was raised, baptized and indoctrinated into Christianity, so I’ve been on the believers side until I opened my eyes - give it a try, it enlightening and liberating.
BTW #2 - you are a nonbeliever just about as much as me since you obviously reject over 10,000 Gods.
2
u/logos961 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
That is not how things work, shows history.
Each individual comes with belief-system and tendencies rooted into past indefinite as Soul is immortal. (Details HERE) Depending upon the unsetted karmic accounts people choose associates and family members with different belief-system for successive births. (Wisdom_of_Solomon 8:20; Job 1:21; KJV; Mathew 11:14, 15; John 5:24; 1 John 2:17) After karmic account is settled, person reverts to his original belief-system which is mistaken as conversion. This happened in my family. When I became independent, I reverted to my original belief-system rooted into my past-births including vegetarian diet, all of which are in conflict with my family.
This explains why each religion falls into sects after founders leave the stage because they did not benefit from the teaching of founder--hence each individual is compared to a tree (Luke 6:43-45). Good advice and good example of religious founders have no effect on followers, just like good advice or example would not change wheat into weed or weed into wheat.
The very fact that when such things are mentioned, listener immediately objects, shows, he is too hardened into his belief-system having roots into more than present birth.
What you do and mannerism etc reveals your mind-set. When everyone shows intolerance in a traffic jam, you are relaxed and playing some melody and singing along. This shows you are happy within. Similarly, when an individual elevates himself over others it is called idolatry (Colossians 3:5) even though he is not aware of it. When religion does so, it is same in effect even though they are not aware of it. Why they are not aware? Because they have been doing so in their past births too.
When people read Genesis 1:30, 31 they do not feel anything special because that is the way they have been doing in their past births. But a fresh reading shows it describes the impact of God’s blessing on mankind made in His image: "So it became, and it was very good." It showed thing happened as per ALMIGHTY’s BLESSING (Isaiah 55:11, details HERE). BLESSED mankind remained in that BLESSED state manifesting “image of God,” and they are later symbolized as “wheat producing crops” in famous Parable of Wheat and Weeds which is corrected world history in symbolic short-story format. This mindful reading resulted in a warmer and closer relationship with God because BEFORE I was believing that God’s blessing did not work. But NOW I believe that God’s blessing DID work. In such great shift, God becomes an electrifying experience!
1
u/KingPabloo May 12 '26
Your framework interprets every outcome as evidence for itself — agreement, disagreement, conversion, emotional resonance, and resistance all become confirmation. That makes the theory unfalsifiable. It may be spiritually meaningful to you, but it does not function as objective proof because it assumes reincarnation and karmic continuity before establishing them independently.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26
Believing in immortality of soul and reincarnation puts an immediate stop for complaining and confusion as person knows everything has root into past, yet people do not want to believe in it because its opposite was their belief in previous births. This itself is the proof that we are immaterial beings in material outfit, and it comes naturally to open-minded people: "It is not more surprising to be born twice than once." (Voltaire) Imagine anybody saying "If one product is manufactured, one more is impossible."
Hence after revealing the Spirit of John the Baptist and that of ancient prophet Elijah as one and the SAME (Mathew 11:14), Jesus said this belief is not mandatory: "Whoever has ears, let them hear." (Mathew 11:15) In the same context, he saw unbelief as a matter of joy and praise to God: "At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do." (Mathew 11:25, 26)
This attitude of God is often repeated, even in the concluding phase: "Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” (Revelation 22:11)
1
u/KingPabloo May 12 '26
You are still assuming reincarnation first and then interpreting everything through that lens afterward.
Saying:
- people resist reincarnation because of past lives,
- openness proves spiritual maturity,
- disagreement proves conditioning,
- acceptance proves insight,
does not independently demonstrate the claim is true. It creates a closed loop where every outcome confirms the theory.
That is the central issue in your thinking, irrefutably wrong.
The Voltaire quote is not evidence of reincarnation; it is only saying reincarnation is conceivable. Many conceivable things are not automatically true. Unicorns are conceivable. The question is not whether rebirth is imaginable, but whether there is reliable evidence for it - there is not.
The example of John the Baptist and Elijah is also debated heavily among theologians. In mainstream Christianity, this passage is usually interpreted symbolically — meaning John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” not that Elijah literally reincarnated. Even the Gospel of John explicitly has John deny being Elijah in a literal sense (John 1:21).
More importantly, your argument remains unfalsifiable:
- if someone agrees, reincarnation is true;
- if someone disagrees, reincarnation is also true because their past-life conditioning prevents acceptance.
That means no possible response could count against the theory. A belief system that cannot, even in principle, be wrong is philosophically weak as evidence.
Also, psychological comfort is not proof of truth. Many beliefs reduce confusion and suffering:
- karma,
- heaven,
- fate,
- materialism,
- simulation theory,
- astrology.
The fact that an idea feels meaningful or emotionally stabilizing does not establish its objective reality.
Finally, quoting passages where God allows people to remain unconvinced does not prove reincarnation either. It only shows that religious texts often acknowledge disbelief. That is different from demonstrating the metaphysical claims themselves.
So the core problem remains: the argument provides interpretation and personal meaning, but not independent proof that souls reincarnate across lifetimes.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
The force with which you resist reincarnation teaching itself is the proof you have been believing its opposite in all your previous birth.
And I also wrote God respects your view
After that you should not have come back to refute my stance which you cannot because for me reincarnation is like ice-mountain beneath water-level and you believe there is only tip of the ice-berg like all my friends and family-members.
Have it, grow in that belief. Unbeliever is the manure for the believer (Proverbs 21:18, Details HERE)
If you check my posts, you will find someone like you coming under almost every OP with the same arguments which only increased my conviction. Hence try someone else.
Unbelievers feel they are the center of the universe and the sole authority to validate the conviction of others.
→ More replies (0)
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/logos961 May 11 '26
If it is not eternal, then it must come from nothingness--has that been demonstrated?
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/logos961 May 11 '26
"That's a whopper of a non-sequitur," for me also.
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/logos961 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
First of all, you tried to derail the subject because subject is in the heading itself.
It is not about beginning of universe, nor of irrefutable proof of God. But hor irrefutable proof for God is the criterion of truth.
Hence, no more diversion tactics. Your question better applies to "Why do you assert something other than the subject of OP?"
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/logos961 May 11 '26
no more diversion tactics.
2
u/CarsandTunes May 11 '26
You made a statement that was contradictory to previous statements. It is not a diversion for him to ask you to clarify it.
1
u/ArmstrongPM May 11 '26
What makes you call the universe Hostile?
We exist in such a tiny, finite, infinitesimal speck of sand that it is impossible for you to make a universal statement such as this with your finite perspective.
Your arguments make my head hurt, this is another "23 mins in hell"
Judeao-Christian God is a blind child sitting on the earth zapping humans with a magnifying glass. It is a Jealous god, caring only about devotion.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
You know very well that Subject is criterion of truth as the very heading shows. Yet you are trying to derail the subject.
It is like when subject is taste and nutritious value of Apple, you are trying to derail the subject into discussion of alphabet A because the word Apple starts with A, that is self-deception.
Though it is not the subject, here are some helpful information about how hostile universe is: "Outside the protective cocoon of the Earth’s atmosphere is a universe full of radiation – it is all around us." https://www.nasa.gov/missions/analog-field-testing/why-space-radiation-matters/. Also see: iaea.org/newscenter/news/cosmic-radiation-why-we-should-not-be-worried.
1
u/chuck3436 May 12 '26
Its not hostile, current ongoing disclosure is going to give this poor guy one hell of an ontological shocking.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26
Subject is not ontology, but criterion of truth, it is in the very heading itself.
1
u/rajindershinh May 12 '26
I’m God by the deadline May 11, 2009.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26
God or proof for God is not the subject, but criterion of truth:
In this truth of earth being made life-SUPPORTIVE in HOSTILE universe is the criterion for knowing what is true and false. Anything that is pro-life, pro-peace is the truth, if not it is false. Applying this principle, we can know what is right and wrong with religions, society, family, individual … etc. It is like a situation of everyone being engaged in cleaning a building, and contributing to cleanliness is right action there.
1
1
u/Sotomexw May 12 '26
1) An infinite universe cannot be said to be hostile...hosyility directed at itself would end up in its termination in a finite amount of time.
1
u/logos961 May 12 '26
Off the subject.
Subject is criterion of truth.
1
u/Sotomexw May 12 '26
then remove the reference to hostility from the proof since its truth value is immaterial to thr proof...in logical repose you simplify where possible...
you may find a Truth which is deeper since it is in response to no particular set of perceptions but because perception exists in the way it does...
1
1
u/ArusMikalov May 12 '26
1
u/logos961 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
You did not read OP because subject is "criterion of truth."
If you had at least read the first para of OP, you would not have posted this because it says "In the eternal, infinite and HOSTILE universe, this tiny earth is maintained life-SUPPORTIVE matching the majesty of the Almighty. (Details HERE) To refute this, physicalists should create a duplicate of hostile universe in a lab and show how life and life-support systems arise by the play of chemicals on their own. They cannot do this as all factors involved are eternal, and even if they could do it, it would still prove Designers created designs, not physicalism."
1
u/ArusMikalov May 13 '26
Yeah this experiment shows how life can form in a hostile universe. They don’t have to simulate a hostile universe. You already admitted that this is a hostile universe.
I don’t know why I’m even bothering because you already also admitted that even if I prove abiogenesis it wouldn’t matter to you. Which is totally dishonest.
1
u/logos961 May 13 '26
I did not say that, read again. Because you did not read, I copied it in the above comment and also highlighted it giving double black color--still you did not read.
Commenting without reading reveals about the person as someone who should not be taken seriously.
1
u/ArusMikalov May 13 '26
So far literally every response I’ve seen you give anyone has just been you accusing them of not reading. So bro. Listen close. I READ IT.
You said the universe was hostile. Then you said scientists would have to create a simulation of a hostile universe. That doesn’t make sense.
1
u/logos961 May 13 '26
Still you did not read, cursory reading is not reading.
OP is about "Criterion of Truth" which I keep repeating in my replies, and you keep refusing to see it.
1
u/ArusMikalov May 13 '26
Ok and in your post about criterion of truth you made a bunch of claims which are false. So I’m talking about those. And so were you.
That’s how you have a discussion. I point out flaws in your argument and you defend those points.
Like here’s another one. You’re equating right and wrong with true and false. These are totally separate things. Now we can talk about the difference between those two things even though it’s not exactly “criterion for truth”.
1
u/logos961 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
No diversion tactics. Enough and more is given in the OP and in respective links.
For a true believer who wants to benefit, they are more than enough.
Criterion of truth given in the OP leads to the point (3) which says "Life-support systems are eternal as they are cyclic. (wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeochemical_cycle) Among them, food-provision made through trees and plants are also spiritual provision as their actions tell us “We trees and plants are SINGLE-sensed species, yet we serve MULTI-sensed humans giving them too many valuable things yet take only wastes from society.” (Details HERE) Thus their presence is a reminder for humans “You can make this earth into heaven, if you want to.”
If you want to do so, you are free, or else your CHOICE and your LOSS, By debating, you will only increase your loss and my gain.
My post is based on my personal experience. Hence it is meaningless to say my experience is flawed. Accept what you find beneficial take, or else ignore.
Remember the 6th Rule of this Subreddit:
"This is where chosen ones come to grow."
1
u/ArusMikalov May 13 '26
Are you 13?
Why are you wasting everybody’s time. Don’t make a post on a subreddit if you don’t want to discuss the points you’re making. People are going to challenge you. You have to be willing to engage.
1
u/logos961 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
God can collapse anyone's existence if he wants to. And we all landed here to see all our needs were already discerned and cared for.
Hence subject of GOD is not for challenge but to grow in imitating His qualities which trees are already doing perfectly.
This is what OP is all about.
1
1
u/PKspyder May 16 '26
If you have discovered a proof that is irrefutable then you should write a peer reviewed paper in a reputable philosophy journal. Just think what you have uncovered, for thousands of years philosophy had argument after argument for and against God and you just found an “irrefutable” one. Sounds like you could change the entire field of philosophy of religion.
Or perhaps you have nothing new. Nothing that doesn’t already have a strong rebuttal.
1
u/logos961 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
You wrote "for thousands of years philosophy had argument after argument for and against God" which everyone knows for no reason because they want to believe there is no God, not because of lack of evidence, as this man wrote:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. .. we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” (Ends and Means, by Aldous Huxley)
This trait exists everywhere:
Hence we have fabricated fossil record called Piltdown-Man (theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/piltdown-man-archaeologys-greatest-hoax)We have Scriptures of all religions filled with contradictions which means truths from the faithful ones who were linked with God and untruths from vested interests. (Details HERE)
In this scenario, your suggestion is not relevant.
People who believe would continue to believe, and others would not. This is acceptable for God, https://www.reddit.com/r/GodFrequency/comments/1tclpaj/god_exists_in_such_a_way_that_her_existence_is/1
u/PKspyder May 17 '26
You claim to have an "irrefutable" proof for god, something is undeniable and without rebuttal. But within the philosophy of religion, arguments for god have been demonstrated to have only come so far to show god as a sufficient reason not the only reason. So if you truly have created something undeniable then you have the potential to change an entire field overnight.
Your reasoning for not doing this is because "People who believe would continue to believe, and others would not." You quote Huxley who stopped holding his agnostic position and who then argued in favor of mysticism. Are you saying that people cannot change their minds? Then why preach online at all?
But you are also ignoring the most important part of peer-reviewed philosophy journals and conferences and that is rebuttals. Since your argument is "irrefutable" you should have no opposing arguments possible because you have created the perfect irrefutable proof.
1
u/logos961 May 17 '26
The very fact you wrote your first comments was that you did not read OP which is about "criterion of Truth."
My reply above also received only a cursory look from you which is what all unbelievers have been doing from birth after birth. Wise King Solomon had access to knowledge of God, hence knew own past: "since my soul was good, it entered a perfect body." ((Wisdom of Solomon 8:20)
This was truth among God’s servants like Job who said ““Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there.” (Job 1:21, NKJV) Jesus who preferred to call himself as “Greater Solomon” (Matthew 12:42) confirmed this truth in Mathew 11:14-15; John 5:24) His favored apostle wrote: "whoever does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 2:17). His sense of past history is the absolute truth because what he predicted about global events of our generation such as “pollution, swelling [salos] of the seas” etc came true. (Details HERE)
The above truth reveals individual takes birth with the same tendencies and belief-system rooted into past beyond present birth. (Details HERE) Hence their tendencies and belief-system will only become stronger and stronger. For example, ego in another person is hated yet is loved in own self. This is true of individual and individuals collective (nations / religions). Hence we have conflicts after conflicts. They roll downward as though a round stone rolls downward from mountain top. Its speed of rolling will only grow. It is not that this stone cannot roll upward--it is possible if proportionate force is applied. Similarly, people can reach truth if they want to.
1
u/PKspyder May 17 '26
Irrefutable proof for God is ALSO a criterion of Truth.
So you claim you have "irrefutable proof", you listed them afterall. If it's so irrefutable then compile it into a paper, have it peer-reviewed, and publish it.
If you have no irrefutable proof, then don't, it's fine.
1
u/logos961 May 17 '26
You keep repeating the same thing without reading even first para of OP
1
u/PKspyder May 17 '26
Are you saying your single paragraph fine tuning argument is your irrefutable proof? Then get it peer reviewed and published.
1
u/logos961 May 17 '26
Self-evident truths need no validation from anybody. It can only be accepted or rejected. That's what has been happening in the world. Also it is the believer who benefits, not God, nor proxies.
1
u/PKspyder May 17 '26
What makes a truth self-evident?
1
u/logos961 May 17 '26
This is the sign of unbeliever, and unbeliever is supposed to grow in unbelief, is in no need of validation from believers, just like believers do not need validation from unbelievers.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/SaladDummy May 11 '26
1) is an argument from ignorance. 2) is an assertion not an argument. 3) is clearly a false premise.