I find these endless questions regarding proof of existence of a nonexistent entity (or one that stubbornly resists all attempts to reveal itself) quite mind numbingly boring in their repetition.

@Marionville Must agree there. When new people up to about level five discuss I have understanding for their position as they may have just escaped a manipulative environment and need reassurance.

When it comes from Level 7 or above, I always hope that the remark will be erudite and thought provoking. On most occasions my hopes are dashed!

@TheMiddleWay I have heard the same arguments so often..during my lifetime that by now I’m afraid I do find it rather boring. Forgive me for that, because there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone has come up with that is new or original to present to me that I find in the least novel or worthy of consideration. As this is an open forum I’m surely at liberty to say honestly what I think, as is @Geoffrey51, and to say that we are bored with this topic being regurgitated incessantly. Perhaps you only want a good argument and “don’t cares” and “boring, not this same old argument agains” just leave you nowhere to go argument-wise!

@TheMiddleWay You will note that I made a personal statement of my position and then went on to open the argument to another possibility.

Would you not agree that exploration is an important aspect of argument?

@TheMiddleWay apparently you didn't read this sentence.
"However if I'm told that if I pray to gods for something it will come true, and then it consistently does come true, I will begin to believe. The more consistent and the more miraculous the granted prayers, the more I will believe"
Actually any evidence at all would lead me toward being a believer. I didn't become an atheist by not believing evidence. I became an atheist, because of a lack of evidence.

No that just means that the person whom you think did this has the ability to make you believe the water is now beer. The question is what beer is it, Heinekin, Pabst, Hamms, if this is the case there was no dog involved, just a person with good sleight of hand skills.

@dalefvictor There's no sleight of hand involved in my example. Stipulate that the demonstrator at no time does anything other than speak, which I thought was clear. I'm prepared to accept the evidence of my senses, but the purported beer could also be subjected to any chemical analysis you cared to name if required.

My point is, anyone who could turn water instantly into another substance merely by their word has something going on there.

@TheMiddleWay I never said it was proof. I said it was evidence. Please don't twist my words.

@TheMiddleWay The impossible and the improbable rolled into one, the existence of any "god" is as probable as time travellers, none of them have ever come back to visit us!

@TheMiddleWay Yes this being can do those stuff with technology.
But if the tall and strong guy with a gun says he is the coolest guy in the locked room, will you say that he is not? (this was a joke, but you can think about)

no reason these can't be true imo, "an image of Yah" and "the dust of the earth"

"if an Atheist is not of the "god cannot be proven" camp, then it can be proven"

This is false.

Not accepting X does not mean accepting not X.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not aware of any atheist that claims what you are claiming for them (not to say that they don't exist). All claims must be falsifiable in order to be tested. If they are not falsifiable, then they do not even qualify as a hypothesis.

Also you can't lump atheists (or even agnostists for that matter) into any grouped category of thought. Every single one has different views on the world and what they accept as true or not true. The ONLY thing they[atheists] agree on is that they are not convinced of specific claims about god(s). Every other thing is soley their own held conviction.

"However, that is not the view of the Atheist (broadly defined). Hence, if an Atheist is not of the "god cannot be proven" camp, then it can be proven, and my question is how!" I'm not really sure what this means. If god is unfalsifiable then it cannot be proven or disproven. Period. Full stop. There is no way to even investigate the claim. When you ask "how?", there is just no way to prove it one way or the other, so why accept the initial claim as a reasonable one anyway? I don't bother with claims of fairies and leprechauns, and claims of god(s) are no different.

As well atheism only addresses the affirmative of the argument. It is a reaction to a claim. They say "god(s) exists, atheism is simply a rejection of that claim. Atheism does not state that there are no gods. It makes no claim for itself. It is a reaction. Now, there are atheists that go further and do make that claim and the burden is on them to back that claim. But, if I don't believe your claim, I am not saying that you are absolutely wrong, I am saying that I am unconvinced that you are right.

"what type of evidence, falsifiable included, it would take to change your mind as an atheist?"
I don't know. But nothing even remotely close to the fallacious reasoning and arguments that theists espouse.

I have no time for anybody who regards non-falsifiable evidence to be of any use to anybody.

Also, this "god" thing must first be defined in observable terms.

Miracles mean nothing as most of the time there is not enough information to make a determination of why something happens.

I think Jesus was being disingenuous when he quoted Psalm 82:6. To the best of my knowledge, the word is being used there to signify the leaders and judges of Jewish society and not actual gods.

@TheMiddleWay book being copied is a show of quantity not quality. Many books published shows popularity of content not correctness per say. So I use the world record fact to up hold the fact that it is writren not debating facts of what is written.

@TheMiddleWay, @brentan "God" is not a Hebrew word. What the Hebrew consideed Elohim gets translated into English as Gods. The Hebrew gods are the Judges, Kings, popular people, movie starts, excetra.

@TheMiddleWay If you understand Jewish teachings as I heard once, the Angel's were like less creation than man kind. The Angelic host was like the servants the people are the gods. Jesus is Angelic lord of host which would be a servant to the people gods. Jealousy? For being "created" or forced to serve?

.’luke 22:27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

The servant-slave wanted to be like the "master". Study the fall of the one that wanted to be like the most high. Jesus angel servent wanted to be like most high creation people gods.

@TheMiddleWay ontological creation of Jesus character was that he was spoken into existence by the people gods. That which is born of Pnuema is Pnuema (spirit) not a ghost ..

Jesus refered to himself as "son of man" because he was a product or a creation of the people gods speaking him into existence.

ontological can something be cause to form a zygote because of the kinetic energy of spoken words? And can that thing then exist in the flesh because it was spoken with energy to cause a zygote in a virgin to form?

@TheMiddleWay John 1:14 ... logos become flesh.

@TheMiddleWay what is the ontologically of logos? What is the ontologically of cognition? What is the ontologically of spoken words?

@TheMiddleWay super-
/ˈso͞opər/
combining form
prefix: super-
above; over; beyond.
"superlunary"
to a great or extreme degree.
"superabundant"
extra large of its kind.
"supercontinent"
having greater influence, capacity, etc. than another of its kind.
"superbike"
of a higher kind (especially in names of classificatory divisions).
"superfamily"

Of nature phenomenon what could be the "super" of known existence? Cognition? Thinking ability? Intellectual capabilities to learn and aquire more knowledge by way of cognition?

@TheMiddleWay can 2 all-powerful god thingies exist at the same space at the same time? Omnipotent of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

If there is question of more than one God thingie in same realm, same space at same time, can the be omni? He could each over power the other if the opposed each other?

Any multiple God thingies exists at same time would not be omni God thingies

@TheMiddleWay so No God(S) exist. Are we talking about uni-omnipotent omnieverywhere style singular God thingie or are we talking about possibly of many or multiple lesser than all powerful god thingie

OR, 2 or more different all-powerful God thingie BUT at different times to where their all powerfulness cannot, would interact.

@TheMiddleWay spoke words are not real? You cannot measure the decibels of spoken words?

@TheMiddleWay images can be equil, but nothing else, right? People can look like God, that's only thing equil?

The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎, romanized: tzelem Elohim; Latin: Imago Dei) is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism,[1] Christianity, and Sufism of Islam,[2][3] which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Philosophers and theologians have debated the exact meaning of the phrase for millennia. Following Jewish tradition, scholars such as Saadia Gaon and Philo argued that being made in the Image of God does not mean that God possesses human-like features, but rather that the statement is figurative language for God bestowing special honor unto humankind, which He did not confer unto the rest of Creation. Further reading at [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@TheMiddleWay we speak, we record the things spoken(or sang) we transform the speach from a physical form into electrical and light and back into sound.

@TheMiddleWay Do you know anything about physics? here's a little info. on the physics of knowledge. Sound is a thing with kinetic energy? Sound can transfer information. cognition or thinking is the processing of that information. [informationphilosopher.com]

@TheMiddleWay "is not ontological, is not real, in the sense that another culture could hear the same vibrations and measure the same frequency... but ascribe to it a radically different meaning."

Meanings are learned?

You are saying it is not real when not understood?

3 people: one speaking English one only understanding English and one only understanding Chinese and not understanding English.

You are saying the sound is not real to anyone because the Chinese cannot understand? Or it is only not real to the Chinese? Or it is real to the Chinese but not a REAL understanding of what the sound is conveying?

@TheMiddleWay so, the fact of spoken words are real. The meaning sent and the understanding recieved or lack of understanding from what was received is subjective.

Chinese takes English sound that is not understood, records English sounds of the words and then learns and translates those to his understanding after acquiring the English translation.

Is it still not ontological? Turning unreal into real?

@TheMiddleWay 4.3 Sounds as Pure Events
Scruton (2009; see also his 1997) proposes a non-physicalist account of sounds. He is impressed by the fact that when we hear sounds as music we (can) hear them as events detached from their physical causes. He then suggests that sounds are ‘pure events', things that happen but which don’t happing to anything, and that they are ‘secondary objects', entities whose nature is bound up with the way we perceive them. <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sounds/#Con" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" class="forumlink">[plato.stanford.edu]

So, subjective or not it is still a thing, an event?

@TheMiddleWay You say subjective is a reason for something to be NOT real?

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   "his views are highly subjective"

dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

Dependence of a factor makes something NOT real?

The first invention of a thing makes it "real"? I make a paper air plane for the first time in known history. I burn the paper air plane and no one else in existance has a paper air plane. It was not real, became real then is no longer real?

Is the paper air plane real? subjective to a specific time?

@TheMiddleWay So then we would have to say that biblical translation of elohim into God is the wrong translation. AND THEN, we would have to say that debate of "biblical god" would be falious because biblical "God" in English is not what was originally intended in original language.

@TheMiddleWay People are recognized as "Biblical style" gods. Childen of the "most high".

People are now considered homo sapiens the most high *intellectual) creature.

As written, Jesus said, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father". To understand this study Osiris Horus the father reincarnated as the son. This is what biblical text is attempting to say or purport actually happened is the Egyptian myth come to pass.

different references that people are Gods. With out disputing truth or fiction of Jesus character, it is written that Jesus style God argued that people are Gods.
Isaiah 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

@TheMiddleWay The biblical text follows out of Egypt and most do not understand nor know the connections that the biblical text actually saying in new testiment that the Egyptian stories come true.

The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance." Isaiah 19:25

The "Lord" of Israel was Egyptian.

As to Osiris of Egypt:
But he did not just represent death in the physical world, also rebirth or what you may call being born again.

a)   John 3:3 

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

As to Osiris of Egypt:
He was married to his sister Isis, who was goddess of the sky and love. Isis and Osiris had a child Horus, who is believed by many to be a reincarnation of Osiris.

John 14:9 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Osiris is usually identified as the God of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead. He is also called the King of eternity, King of the living, Master of souls; He who appears as ram in Mendes, and the Sovereign of Amenti.(1) Another curious title that you will find for Osiris is the “Morning Star.”

This same Morning Star of Osiris found in the Book of the Dead, appears to be the same Morning Star that we can find in the Book of Revelation, where Saint John says, “I will give him the Morning Star (Rev. ii. 29).

@TheMiddleWay Cognition the "super" of known natural phenomenon. Yes, no?

Any one know chemistry? My high school chemistry teacher repeatedly said, "all roads lead thru moles". Meaning converting from one kind of unit to another must be calculated thru moles.

I would like to discuss aspects of this word - super. From defination of super it can be used in atleast two ways: the super superior greater of a KIND ( of a thing) or a KIND (some/any) super superior greater than another kind.

SUPER
above; over; beyond.
"superlunary"
to a great or extreme degree.
"superabundant"
extra large of its kind.
"supercontinent"
having greater influence, capacity, etc. than another of its kind.
"superbike"
of a higher kind (especially in names of classificatory divisions).
"superfamily"

I would like to try to make comparison of cognition to be like moles. Maybe, to say "all things known lead thru cognition. "

Single cell organisms (and zygote) evolved by way of chemical reactions to become people. I could post a video that explains DNA is a form of intelligence. Monkey(prehuamans?) and other known creatures have cognition but of a lesser capabilities than supercreatures know as homo sapiens. The cognition of or existence of a kind superior to people kind would have to be known thru cognition.

In considering cognition as its own "kind" of phenomenon as seen with levels of cognitive ability with in known creatures. The answer to the question of a higher cognitive ability than seen in humans is not cognitively understood by humans.

If all known "kinds" were listed, what kind would be superior even superior to any kind above people kind? Cognition capability is the "super" of any kind what so ever.

John 1: 1 in the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God.

Logos is word/thought capabilities, cognition.

Illogical atheist be like 2 year old temper tantrum ,"we want Harry Potter cognition capability ". God damn Jesus.

@TheMiddleWay Jesus style God a type of elohim.

Lucifer as a title not proper name. Angelic lord of host leading the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers since their freedom from England July 4th, 1776 .

Straight outta Egyptian

The uneducated with no interest in mystical traditions and the esoteric may regard Ancient Egypt as little more than a place of pagan worship, strange hieroglyphics, and monuments erected by thousands of Hebrew slaves. But those more learned, especially those having undertaken the initiative rituals of Freemasonry, will see a link between the Egyptian metaphysical tradition and modern mystery schools, of which Freemasonry is one. [gaia.com]

Lord of host Lucifer the devil leading the Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshippers in the establishment of the mark of the beast 666 identification for taxation and government control. No justice for the innocent, more children can be trained to speak and act abused to wrongfully prosecute innocent people especially those that oppose there Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worship "my teacher made me touch her p.p ". Rape the original indigenous inhabitants of their land call it America call them such as Mexicans, Indians and native Americans

Lucifer (UK: /ˈluːsɪfər/ LOO-si-fər; US: /-sə-/; 'light-bringer' is a Latin name for the planet Venus in its morning appearances, and is often used for mythological and religious figures associated with the planet. Due to the unique movements and discontinuous appearances of Venus in the sky, mythology surrounding these figures often involved a fall from the heavens to earth or the underworld. Interpretations of a similar term in the Hebrew Bible, translated in the King James Version as "Lucifer", led to a Christian tradition of applying the name Lucifer, and its associated stories of a fall from heaven, to Satan. Most modern scholarship regards these interpretations as questionable, and translates the term in the relevant Bible passage (Isaiah 14:12) as "morning star" or "shining one" rather than as a proper name, "Lucifer".[1] wikipedia

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

"beast" in the book of Revelations is metaphor for laws of government. Mark as in give a mark for identification: mark of the beast means identification for taxation and government control . Such now as the establishment of the mark of the beast-666 begun by requiring birth certificate, social security card and photo identification by the Masonic lodge secret religion government most commonly known as United States of America.

Written almost 2000 years ago in metaphor and riddles not always understood.

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelations 13:16-17

@TheMiddleWay I do not know forsure the mathematical equations but I have thought of Time dialation as a possible answer. The explination for time dialation below where that one cognitive capability is observing the creation event at "time dialation speed" which would make one observer as we look back in evolutionary time, see 15 billion years while the other observer only seeing 1 day.

"god" of Old testiment biblical Biblical text description would be a lot like a bodiless mind.

The cognition of a person is dependent upon the kinetic energy of the brain atmosphere. Where I have considered that this "earth mind" ,if possible, might be capable within the atmosphere of the Earth.

Something going at tine dialation speed might require that only the cognition capability is traveling that speed of time dialation not the entire mass of a physical human animal.

The biblical text indicates that it was a cognitive capabilities that was "god" in the beginning that eventually turned into a person as people are.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, the logos wad with God and was God. John 1:14 ... the logos became flesh (a person). John 10:34 ... "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Logos from greek means thought word capabilities or basicly cognition - the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

@TheMiddleWay Ruach is a force: it is described to be like breath, wind or a storm.

Do you know any thing about Physics? Do you know what force is?

Biblical God thingie is Ruach. Father, son holy Ruach (spirit) is considered one.

Spirit in English often has a connotation of ghost. This is not an accurate translation.

Force, kinetic energy, Ruach. Speech of spoken works has force with an intelligible pattern.

@TheMiddleWay some Hebrew on the word ruach. This might help in addition to knowing physics to understand biblical God thingie and how people gods spoke Jesus god into existence according to the theme of biblical text as to how logos become flesh. As biblical text says according to Jesus character "that born of Pnuema is Pnuema. That is saying he was spoken into existence by the people gods. Jesus character referred to himself as "son of man" this is to say he is an offspring or a product of mankind, the people gods.

[hebrew-streams.org]

@TheMiddleWay you say, "Sorry Word, but people are not gods; that makes no sense for what it means to be people and what it means to be gods."

one major attribute to "God" is to be a creator.

Create means bring (something) into existence:
"he created a thirty-acre lake"
synonyms
generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, ...

People(parents) create children. People are creators of beings(children).

People are Gods.

@TheMiddleWay non-biblical reference that people are accepted as being gods.

@TheMiddleWay Lastly, let me go back to All-powerful omni everything God. Only ONE could logically exist at same/one time and place.

So, people being many of them couldn't be an all-powerful together.

One all-powerful god could not have a partner of equal unless all-powerful was not all powerful.

God OR gods. Totally all-powerful can only be one God. 2 all-powerful opposes each other would be contradictory. 2 all-present gods means both occupy same same of infinity in every direction at same time. Would they really be 2 different gods?

@TheMiddleWay I would like to know if you understand me trying to distinguish from "God or Gods" which is used in most common definitions of atheism. God maybe referring to the monotheism all-powerful "God" (singular) because 2 all-powerful could not exist at same time.

gods (plural)then would be referring to lesser being accepted as not being all-present everywhere or occurring space for infinity in every direction, not all-powerful which mean there could be multiple at same time.

@TheMiddleWay God in English comes from Germanic origins meaning to call or to invoke.

The people translating, that first come up with using "God" understood, it would appear, the connection with ruach(a force like breath) and kinetic energy as being what "God" is, connected to cognition and word, logos, speaking.

@TheMiddleWay ok, take your time

@TheMiddleWay Ok, my repeated information must not convey better clarity so you can understand what a force is.

@sterlingdean you ask about my observations of how biblical text defines aand creates a Jesus style God. I have posted or tagged you to this different discussion if you want to look back on my previous comments about how force creates a person and other such biblical observations that I understand biblical text explains what a jesus style God is and how it is made.

@TheMiddleWay then use your physics to understand ruach

@TheMiddleWay to my assumption, book of buddha does not explain that Jesus style God was spoken into existence.

@TheMiddleWay That is how you can think by the force of you thoughts that is a force holding your understanding the way you think.

@TheMiddleWay see last post

@TheMiddleWay ruach is defined as being a force: like breath, wind or a storm.

How and with what do you you as a physicist study and measure the force of breath, wind and storms?

@TheMiddleWay

@TheMiddleWay if a God thingie were to give a person al thought because the "ruach of the lord come upon ... " then the person spoke

Information is knowledge. knowledge is information. There is physics of information as I sent the video

@TheMiddleWay No, I cannot give you specific information as you request about ruach force units and such. however, I will give one link for you to begin to get this information you want. from wikipedia this may appear to be some new studiies going on so all the exact information you want may not still be avaliable.

Quantum cognition is an emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception

[en.wikipedia.org]

@TheMiddleWay i work nights right now and have time to think, but I will try to not bombard you with a lot of post.

Here is what I am giving as a speculation perposal QUESTION:
If cognition can over take single cell organism and be BRAINLESS to work together, why could a cognition capability not be able to over take multi cellular organism, or people?

Here is my thought for the night and maybe I will try to keep it to this one. First, look over illogical atheist website [christianitymeme.org] This website gives some types of verification to biblical text.

What I would like to point out is how this "psychicological meme" of christians is basically what the biblical text is saying according to what was written by Paul the apostle. "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16

So, collectively, the mind of Christians IS the mind of Jesus style God. If you want to do a study of the mind or cognition of Jesus style God then do a study of all the collective minds of christians. Once you complete a study of all the christian minds you might could put together information and evidence to understand the Jesus style God mind.

What I would like to perpose is for you to consider the slime mould cognition capabilities. Slime mould might easily be one of the strangest life forms on our planet. They are neither plants, animals, nor fungi, but various species of complex, single-celled amoebas of the protist kingdom. Sometimes they form colonies able to grow, move, and even exhibit a strange kind of intelligence.

Even without a nervous system, they are able to learn about substances they encounter, retaining that knowledge and even communicating it to other slime moulds. Now a team of scientists at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) has figured out how: slime moulds actually absorb the substance into their veins. [sciencealert.com]

Parasitic cognition? How the Zombie Fungus Takes Over Ants’ Bodies to Control Their Minds [theatlantic.com]

Maybe you could use your physics math knowledge to calculate how that 2 cognitions can operate on the same brain structure?

@TheMiddleWay I disagree entirely, but apparently my disagreement is evidence, if not outright proof, that i am wrong, because i have to have some preconceived notion of SOMETHING in order to answer at all. Whatever.

g

@TheMiddleWay that is the point. Something being falsifiable, does not mean we can test it.

Different health statistics or miracles in controlled environments ARE a falsifiable evidence.

IF we have techniques, knowledge or technology to test it is another problem.

Many scientific hypothesis are falsifiable, but no test could be designed with current technology to test it YET. But they are built to be falsibiable.

What happens with a god is that if you isolate the religious factor and there is no different health statistics, the believers will claim that god don't accept to be tested, or that the "false believers" are making too much noise in the sample you are using. THUS the hypothesis becomes non falsifiable...

@TheMiddleWay About the miracles, the series Star gate G1 shows a very advanced race that has HUGE knowledge is dominating the galaxy using superior technology and posing as a gods. So i agree with you, even miracles will only show that someone has some higher degree of control over nature than our technology, but it don't indicate god-like control.

But lets say.. what is the difference between someone that can reverse entropy and a god in practice?

Plus lets make an exercise, if there is an omnipotent god (or a being advanced enough to look like one) which all creation is basically his puppet show in action. Is there any sense in rebelling against him? It would be like to play a match against the referee. At this point the power of this advanced being is close enough to a god. If he says the is, what can I do?

@TheMiddleWay And third when I say about miracles IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT means that we could for example see the weight of an isolated system increasing, or entropy being reversed, or even an abnormal fluctuation in quantum fields when some pray is invoked. The central part there is the controlled environment, being able to detect the exact miracle.
Wine can in thesis be made by CO2 in air and water, but a lot of energy will need to be accumulated on that bole, or some very nice nuclear reactions might happen, some entropy being reversed or simply the liquid be altered in the atomic composition itself, what would generate some nice electromagnetic waves around it.
Current science would be able to "see" this phenomenon in so many ways and so many basic physic laws need to be broken in order for this to happen, and if it can be repeated, lets say god send a prophet saying that he will make it happen 10 times and we could choose any time, any body of water under any surveillance.

We could test the same thing under Heavy water, salty water, large water reservoirs, radioactive marked molecules, precisely weighed water to have a precise number of atoms and many other controlled environments that could determinate what laws of nature were (at least apparently) broken for this to happen. And after all this test if this god-like entity is capable of show the power (or another one like summoning meteors from a region of the sky that we knew was empty). Well, we have to accept that a superior being exists. if this superior being is an advanced technological race or some god, than it is another problem.

But in the end what is the difference from a guy that can run a precise universe simulation from a god ?
(on the POV of the beings inside the simulation).

@TheMiddleWay My feeling is that the ultimate questions of existence are beyond the reach of human understanding and that any wrangling over the subject amounts to absolutely nothing and is meaningless.

A person who is in an emotional war with religion is not going to accept any evidence at all. If they were sincerely interested in the question they would be searching rather than blasting away. It really has nothing to do with evidence.

@TheMiddleWay I think you’re right.

Well, there are ways of being religious without belief in stuff.

@TheMiddleWay ok, for this i am wondering in what situation irl i would be wanting to distinguish the natural from the supernatural anyway, aside from some purely "intellectual" pursuit? And i bet that would quickly reveal that no "test" for that is practically possible...as you are saying, and tbh i would wonder to what end anyway?

"one can always imagine a scientific reason for the supernat..."
well, so you say, but any imagination there would be a "theory" right, and that theory would be subject to review? And fwiw again what is the end there? To reliably reproduce the miracle or determine if ones beliefs are valid or not? Bc i dunno about the second, idrc about the next guy's beliefs, and there is no judgement in the Bible for beliefs, only actions/works.

Call yourself a satan worshipper for all i care, and im pretty sure for all Yah cares too. If you're doing the righht thing then so what

anyway, those imaginings have more or less created the theories we have today, right; and i guess most scientists will tell you that resolving a theory generally just creates lots more questions? Like as if we were to discover that all ufos come from Vorbojulon Prime, some impossibly gorpy distance away, other side of the known universe, i mean...kinda...like woo-hoo? Sorta? You learned another fact?

Wouldnt most of the As to the deeper Qs we have be functionally meaningless to us anyway?

@TheMiddleWay dunno if this will help any--everything i say is a lie anyway--but in satan's dialectic it is quite easy to Quote "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," and as im sure you aready know "believers" Quote it all the time; yet in the naive dialectic--the way it was written, albeit in carefully constructed syntax, to hide on purpose--we find something much closer to prolly "We are cock-sure, i tell you, and even wish we were already dead and partying with Jesus..." (which is not even the payoff v in that passage, yet most believers cannot Quote the next v to save their lives) [biblehub.com]

imo you might at least contemplate a Yah that does not exist, yet is very real, the Unknown God

@TheMiddleWay There is only One Immortal, Who lives in unapproachable light
God is Spirit
et al

ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb

1. have objective reality or being.

@TheMiddleWay I AM further makes the case i guess, also Unknown God, but really it is obvious that YHWH has no "objective reality or being?" Moses could not "see Yah," but only His "passing" so to speak, many other passages in this vein. The gods that "exist" are idols made of wood, and the passages on those. Also said that we cannot know Yah, but only know of Yah, stuff like that.

I don't know, but i suspect the reasoning is that any "God" that "exists" can be fully known and defined, and is thus more a product of human imagination rather than truth, which cannot be known, He who says he knows, does not...

"If any non-falsifiable evidence of a god's existing came to light, I would be persuaded to change my mind."

If any non-falsifiable "evidence of God" came to light, i would run for the hills myself

@TheMiddleWay then you might Quote the vv that suggest evidence for Yah's "existence" i guess, pls note that it is not in here [biblehub.com] except in English, disappears in the original. But i suggest that our disagreement is mostly over the term "exists," which you maybe think is necessary for something to be "real?"

fwiw even the term "God" is...extremely generic, and although most of the Names of Yah have been xlated "God" into English by our scribes, this is a terrible xlation, as is "Lord," an English Landholder, after all.

but really bottom line is you have no "objective evidence" for Yah, right, only something must "exist" for it to be "real" to us?

So iow our training from the cradle to accept satan's dialectic (hegelian, logical, whatever; A=A, something is either A or not A, no middle path) over the naive or eastern dialectic, which is just after all a diff way to reason, the way little kids reason, in fact. I have a link for that somewhere if you like, or the terms search

"supernatural" being sought up there, see, but the Bible even says that miracles are for chumps

@TheMiddleWay well wadr that is in code so to speak, as we speak in a diff dialect from the one Scripture was written in. However, Moses could not "see" Yah, but only His effect, so to speak? Also in the story of Jacob "wrestling" with an angel, but in many other passages as well. Really the most substantial evidence might be that our scribes have written Yah's "existence" in there, in that last v i Quoted, if you note how that disappears in the original? Also Yah is said to be the "Creator of everything that exists," but Yah "was not created," ergo "does not exist."

but i am detecting now that you are maybe a Christian believer? To which i say you might believe that Yah "exists" if you like, doesnt matter to me ok. You might believe you are going up to heaven after you have died, despite plain Scripture, or that you might become an immortal and live forever, despite very plain Scripture, etc.

No judgement for beliefs anywhere that i can find

@TheMiddleWay so, are you at all fam with the Naive Dialectic? Bc nothing is ever directly stated as fact in the naive dialectic, its more like pertinent questions with an obvious answer are asked, but the answer is not stated. We reason from logic, a diff "dialectic" iow

@TheMiddleWay “ The new testament is all about how god exists.” In Satan’s dialectic, certainly, however in the naïve dialectic, not so much. You might note that you cannot Quote “God exists.”

@TheMiddleWay with all due respect "satan's dialectic" does not necessarily suppose an actual satan; that is just what it is called by some? The hegelian or logical or socratic then

"@bbyrd009
"You might note that you cannot Quote “God exists.”"
Sure I can. First line
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1"
so then yes, in the hegelian dialectic Yah exists; in the Naive dialectic, Scripture agrees with reality. I think so that hypocrites might be more easily revealed? Or i mean ppl who use the Bible for their own ends, i guess we are all prolly hypocrites

"For anyone to create something, they must exist."
ah well i don't think there are any "persons" in Yah either, no old white guy with a long white beard imo, Yah is Spirit, so i have issues there on two counts i guess. And fwiw the same argument can be applied to the Big Bang ("theory" ), yes? Yet we have no objective evidence of either one, right?

Unless you are willing to consider the order that comes out of an otherwise entropic existence? How does order come from entropy iow? I find that the most...theologically compelling, as Big Bangs are not doing that
"And if the bible TRULY puts for the idea that god didn't exist, then who is this "God" that created the heavens and the earth that is not god?"
again it seems our disagreement is chiefly over whether things that are real must "exist" or not, iow have objectively verifiable existence, which fwiw is the classic hegelian dialectic; A or notA, no middle ground, etc, logical reasoning.
You fam with Dao stories at all? "perhaps, we'll see, maybe, so you say?"

Does that make you close-minded?

Silly question. If I didn't exist, I would not be here to convince and you would have no one to convince.

It looks to me like you're trying to project your closed-mindedness onto others.

I don't claim to know that I exist.
I don't know what it would take to convince me that I don't exist, but I'm willing to listen to someone who wants to convince me that I don't exist, and I accept that someone might be able convince me of that.

If I would not exist there would be no proof to present to me so this is a wrong question.