Do you believe in God?

[Spurgy 777]

Google does:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical

I read this one and couldn't see how they were the same, but then English was never my strongest subject.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physical

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Perfectly amicable!

The difference is between stating one's belief in a god / higher power, and claiming that that belief is fact.

"I believe in god" - Fine. Perfectly entitled to do so.
"I believe in god, he exists and [insert religious doctrine] is true" - No. Requires evidence.

Sorry, but either one is fine.
Likewise it is fine to question it as well.

What are these problems which you speak of?

Also, by "immense destructive power", I'm assuming you mean weapons of mass destruction?

Yes.

Yes, there are errors.

Religion doesn't define morality. Sorry, you can't claim ownership for religion.

http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html

Sorry but 1,250 people with no differentiation of religions or sects, isn't much of a study.
Not to mention, there is no distinguishment of the moral or immoral acts committed, and no way to examine the hundreds of years of established religious influence as compared to, if that did not exist.

But further practically all of moral origin and definition' is from and of religion.

And your Bible condones rape, slavery, murdering of children and so on, which I find repugnantly immoral.

Yes, a pity indeed there was not a better alternative in that era.
We already talked about things done under the "law" or the Old Testament.
The preservation of the promise.
However, through the law, and a preserved remnant, that which is perfect could be established and by grace, made available to all men.

So your god can get away with anything and it's still moral? Like your assertion that he killed everyone on the planet except for certain members of Noah's family a few thousand years ago. (Which is still nonsense in my opinion.)

Not anything.
Just somethings.

Genesis 6 Amplified Bible (AMP)


5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.

11 The earth was depraved and putrid in God’s sight, and the land was filled with violence (desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power).

12 And God looked upon the world and saw how degenerate, debased, and vicious it was, for all humanity had corrupted their way upon the earth and lost their true direction.

So what would you have done?

Don't know what dictionary you've been using.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical?s=t

Not exactly an obscure reference.

 

[Liquid]

Sorry, but either one is fine.
Likewise it is fine to question it as well.

Why are both of these fine?

"I believe in god"
"I believe in god, he exists and [insert religious doctrine] is true"

What is it about the second one which allows one to make spurious, unverified and ludicrous claims without presenting evidence to prove it true?

Much like @Famine's often quoted link about No, You're Not Entitled To Your Opinion, you cannot bring claims to the table without backing them up. You can bring beliefs, and say what you believe, that's fine. But as the article details, to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth one must present evidence; no one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven, but it leaves the argument falling flat and the believer looking ignorant and ill-informed, no matter how much 'truth' they apparently believe in.

So I repeat, there is nothing wrong with saying you believe in god. But saying that you believe in god and that he exists, and X, Y, Z from doctrine is true, you must present evidence. Otherwise you are being deliberately obtuse, ignorant, stubborn, unhelpful, arrogant and not at all conducive towards interesting, stimulating discussion.

Argue the toss all you want about spirituality, to which the discussion has shifted because obviously picking holes in religion is 'too easy', but nobody will give you credence or take your claims seriously unless you can back them up. And you cannot back any of your claims up. Fact.

 

[Scaff]

In that example, there is nothing to see.
Once again, you can apply the standard at any point in time.
The results will be the same for the given point in time.
The motivation for application, is irrelevant.

No the results would not be the same, if they were you wouldn't have needed to redefine it.

Let me make this simple for you, please either provide a source that cites that the Scientific Method is the 'basis for existence' or retract the nonsense.

Its not considered objective, because there is no way for scientific standard to distinguish whether it is, or is not.
Again, that has no bearing on the fact, it can be.
My standard takes that reality into account, and therefore does not preclude testimony as non evidential, even though it is considered subjective.
Which BTW every court in the world does as well.
But we have already been there.

Yes we have and you utterly failed to show that subjective evidence is proof to the same standard.

Came across this website which reminds me of the debate in this thread.
Interesting read.
http://www.integratedpost.com/2013/01/proof-and-evidence-are-subjective.html

Which conflates existence with ownership, a rather different subject (unless you are now attempting to prove you/we own god?)

Right out of the dictionary:
"noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter."

So science by your logic has nothing at all to do with gravity?

Which would make gravity non-physical.

However the scientific method can be used to demonstrate that gravity exists (repeatably, objectively and with falsification).

So if the scientific method can be used on this non-physical item then why not on others?

No, not all four have it.
It originates with the Jewish covenant and promise, and is made available to all through Christianity, in the fullfillment of the promise.
And as I just stated, this was accomplished through Isaac, not Ishmael.
There is no moving anything.
That was, and is, the direct line for it.

Ergo its not unique to Christianity, which was the claim you made, quite clearly moving the goal posts.

The New Testament explains all of that.

No it doesn't and nor it seems are you able to.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Why are both of these fine?

"I believe in god"
"I believe in god, he exists and [insert religious doctrine] is true"

What is it about the second one which allows one to make spurious, unverified and ludicrous claims without presenting evidence to prove it true?

The most pertinent reason is the heading of this forum:

"Opinions & Current Events"
I draw your attention to the first word in that title.

The second reason is the title of this thread.
"Do you believe in God"

Both clearly invite a personal perspective.
That perspective may or may not, be evidential from another personal perspective.
Which of course is wholly irrelevant, since in the final analysis, all of it is from personal perspective and hence "opinion".
Which of course again, is clearly invited and definitively encouraged.

Much like @Famine's often quoted link about No, You're Not Entitled To Your Opinion, you cannot bring claims to the table without backing them up. You can bring beliefs, and say what you believe, that's fine.

As just outlined above, to the contrary, you can claim anything you want, with or without evidence, fact or fantasy.
How it maybe percieved from another personal perspective is irrelevant.

But as the article details, to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth one must present evidence; no one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven, but it leaves the argument falling flat and the believer looking ignorant and ill-informed, no matter how much 'truth' they apparently believe in.

First off Famine is taking the dubious position of authoritative and collective assumption from his personal perspective.
Whereby, insisting upon his personal perspective as the deciding factor in all things, which in reality are actually undeterminable from an absolute standpoint.
Evidence.
Wow thats a big one.
Evidence according to who's personal perspective or what perspective.
As I have shown repeatedly in this thread, evidence by consensus of world standard, is comprehensive and includes all forms of evidence, not just the dictates of science. Thats because evidence is evidence, whether it be convincing, conclusive, scientific or otherwise.
How one's claim may look, is also of no consequence.
For example those who believed the Earth to be round, looked pretty stupid, at one point in time.
Likewise those who first testified to seeing a UFO, have as well.

So I repeat, there is nothing wrong with saying you believe in god. But saying that you believe in god and that he exists, and X, Y, Z from a holy text is true, you must present evidence. Otherwise you are being deliberately obtuse, ignorant, stubborn, unhelpful, arrogant and not at all conducive towards interesting, stimulating discussion.

Not necessarily.
You just may not be meeting the expectation of some other personal perspectives.

Argue the toss all you want about spirituality, to which the discussion has shifted because obviously picking holes in religion is 'too easy', but nobody will give you credence or take your claims seriously unless you can back them up. And you cannot. Fact.

According to your personal perspective, it is deemed factual.
I can only, for the reasons already described, testify to it.
Which BTW, is evidential, everywhere in the world, except maybe this thread.

 

[Famine]

As just outlined above, to the contrary, you can claim anything you want, with or without evidence, fact or fantasy.

No you can't. Facts require evidence.

First off Famine is taking the dubious position of authoritative and collective assumption from his personal perspective.
Whereby, insisting upon his personal perspective as the deciding factor in all things, which in reality are actually undeterminable from an absolute standpoint.

Where am I doing this?

Evidence according to who's personal perspective or what perspective.

No-one's. That way it's objective and thus actually evidence.

As I have shown repeatedly in this thread, evidence by consensus of world standard, is comprehensive and includes all forms of evidence, not just the dictates of science. Thats because evidence is evidence, whether it be convincing, conclusive, scientific or otherwise.

As you have claimed repeatedly and only been able to support by grossly misunderstanding language and even changing it to suit your own ends, but which has been shown to be absolute nonsense at every turn.

 

[Dotini]

objective and thus actually evidence.As you have claimed repeatedly and only been able to support by grossly misunderstanding language and even changing it to suit your own ends, but which has been shown to be absolute nonsense at every turn.

True, sort of. But his thinking is exemplary of the overwhelming bulk of this world's population.

 

[Carbonox]

11 The earth was depraved and putrid in God’s sight, and the land was filled with violence (desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power).

12 And God looked upon the world and saw how degenerate, debased, and vicious it was, for all humanity had corrupted their way upon the earth and lost their true direction.

So what would you have done?

Used my godly powers to turn evil into good.

 

[DK]

I'm just wondering what newborn babies did to get drowned.

 

[GBO Possum]

Genesis 6 Amplified Bible (AMP)


5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.

11 The earth was depraved and putrid in God’s sight, and the land was filled with violence (desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power).

12 And God looked upon the world and saw how degenerate, debased, and vicious it was, for all humanity had corrupted their way upon the earth and lost their true direction.

So what would you have done?

What would I have done?

Rather than resorting to mindless violence which destroyed vast numbers of small children who could hardly be described as "wicked", I would have resorted to communication with humanity.

A frank, persuasive and open discussion in "town hall meetings" all around the world, simultaneously, so that everyone had a chance to get on the same page.

Given the problems God faced, it hardly seems sensible to resort to "violence (desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power)."

 

[orimarc]

Thats because evidence is evidence, whether it be convincing, conclusive, scientific or otherwise.

How can something be evidence if it's not convincing or conclusive?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

evidence
[ev-i-duh ns]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear

If it's not convincing or conclusive it doesn't prove or disprove anything, or make it plain or clear ergo it's not evidence.

 

[SniperRed3]

Do you have any valid evidence of God? Yes or No?

 

[Danoff]

Regarding the lengthy debate about the ability for atheists to not believe in gods, and not believe in a lack of gods:

 

[RalliArt/////]

Including me, so I have no idea why you're talking about it. If we were talking about that, it'd be a pretty short conversation since we could just look at genesis and figure out which words it comes after and which words it comes before.

I know, but you did say...

Two major arguments put forth in those links - that the bible was mistranslated, and that when god said "let there be light" that doesn't mean it happened in the order it was written

So what is your objection to the video? This is my 4th time asking. I can only assume you think "contradiction" No. 1 on your list is not a contradiction at all.

You're right. I thought you were referring to a different post.

Now that you know, you can respond to it.

Ok. Since you're obviously wrong, I gather that you're going to go back and re-evaluate the thought process that led you to that incorrect conclusion.

After you...

it looks like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was) and so the logical progressive account of the creation of the universe doesn't actually make sense.

 

[Danoff]

I know, but you did say...

Yes that's what I said.

So what is your objection to the video? This is my 4th time asking. I can only assume you think "contradiction" No. 1 on your list is not a contradiction at all.

I've answered. My issue is that the account of creation in genesis is nonsensical. and the video tries to sweep this under the rug by claiming that "let there be light" was just God musing out loud about stuff he'd do later.

Now that you know, you can respond to it.

It didn't require response.

After you...

You're the one with a point to make here. I've made mine - that Genesis is out of order.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Here's the order:
- God creates heaven and earth (made out of water)
- God creates light
- God creates sky
- God creates land
- God creates plants
- God creates stars (rest of universe)
- God creates sun and moon

Note that light (which comes from our sun) was created before the sky or the sun. Your video claimed that when he said "let there be light" and then saw it and named it, that he was really just talking about what he was going to do when he created the sun. It's nonsense. This quite clearly says otherwise.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

True, sort of. But his thinking is exemplary of the overwhelming bulk of this world's population.

Thank you Dotini, for such a rational and insightful comment.
It is truly a breath of fresh logical air amid this debate.
It is of some reassurance, to know, in spite of belief differences, rational thought may still exist here.

No the results would not be the same, if they were you wouldn't have needed to redefine it.

Let me make this simple for you, please either provide a source that cites that the Scientific Method is the 'basis for existence' or retract the nonsense.

I don't find your threatening tone any more amusing than your baseless accusation.
Likewise it is not conducive to a productive conversation.
In the absence of any explanation, substantive or otherwise, by you, other than "I said so", this point cannot be answered for clarification.
If I'm not mistaken, you charted a similar course as this, the last time I was posting in this thread.
Lastly, if one's required evidence is of scientific standard for "proof of existence", then it obviously also supports "basis for existence".

Yes we have and you utterly failed to show that subjective evidence is proof to the same standard.

That's because it is not proof to the same standard.
But neither does it have to be.

Which conflates existence with ownership, a rather different subject (unless you are now attempting to prove you/we own god?)

Hardly.
It is a quite logical and rational argument, as to the futility of a proof insistence requirement from either side.

So science by your logic has nothing at all to do with gravity?

Which would make gravity non-physical.

No, that is your incorrect assumption.

However the scientific method can be used to demonstrate that gravity exists (repeatably, objectively and with falsification).

So that makes it of the physical.
Gravity is common, universal, readily observable, consistent, measurable.
Not at all peculiar.
As a matter of fact, it is referred to as "a physical law"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical law?s=t

Ergo its not unique to Christianity, which was the claim you made, quite clearly moving the goal posts..

No again.
God clearly designated it exclusively through Isaac, the Jewish covenant and into Christianity.

Genesis 17, 17-21

 

[SniperRed3]

Why are you ignoring my question?

 

[Famine]

Why are you ignoring my question?

Be grateful - he'd say "yes" and then redefine both "valid" and "evidence" to suit.

 

[SniperRed3]

I'm spared from the god-botherers. Can I correct a spelling mistake of yours?

 

[SZRT Ice]

Does anyone know where one could find satellite imagery of the sky dating back to spring of 2008? I have proof via a phenomenon I experienced.

Yes. I know of God's existence, it's far past belief at this stage. Unfortunately, God can't be solely found through science and debates.

God is found through faith, and his existence is (most commonly) revealed to us on an individual and personal level. Earnestly seek Him and you will find Him. Just be prepared for a change in your reality and perspective, because you can't "un-believe" in something once you know of it's existence. It is not just a matter of the mind that draws one close to God, but a matter of the heart and of the spirit. Wisdom is important, of course, but one must mature spiritually as well.

Get saved & baptized & God will come to you. Christians aren't choosing to be fools, believers in fairy tails, legends, or make believe for no reason or because they have no sense. Something happens when you accept Jesus Christ into your life and receive Him as your Lord and Savior. It's not something that can be shown to others, it's not entirely something that can really be explained, but more so that needs to be experienced... God is God. Before, and after all... His knowledge and understanding far exceeds our own... If He chooses to only reveal Himself to those who seek Him in heart and spirit, nothing else anyone does can change that. You can quarry amongst each other until your hair turns gray, and not move an inch closer. No man has ever seen God (In His Heavenly and actual form) with their own eyes.

When the time is right, and He wants to be revealed to the world, He will. Better if we seek and accept Him now, then wait for Him to reveal Himself to us.

 

[Dagger311]

Does anyone know where one could find satellite imagery of the sky dating back to spring of 2008? I have proof via a phenomenon I experienced.

Which part of the sky? Adress?

 

[Scaff]

I don't find your threatening tone any more amusing than your baseless accusation.
Likewise it is not conducive to a productive conversation.
In the absence of any explanation, substantive or otherwise, by you, other than "I said so", this point cannot be answered for clarification.
If I'm not mistaken, you charted a similar course as this, the last time I was posting in this thread.

You have been supplied countless links to the scientific method in the past, not one of which details the use of the scientific method as a 'basis of existence' as that would require it to be either partly or wholy the creating agent, which it is not nor has it ever been.

Yet that is the entire basis of you 1800's argument!

Lastly, if one's required evidence is of scientific standard for "proof of existence", then it obviously also supports "basis for existence".

No it doesn't and not have you been able to cite any source that states as much, the two are totally diferent.

That's because it is not proof to the same standard.
But neither does it have to be.

To do what exactly?

Hardly.
It is a quite logical and rational argument, as to the futility of a proof insistence requirement from either side.

Hardly?
No that's exactly what it does.

No, that is your incorrect assumption.

No its not, its based on the exact definition you supplied, gravity meets none of those criteria.

So that makes it of the physical.
Gravity is common, universal, readily observable, consistent, measurable.
Not at all peculiar.
As a matter of fact, it is referred to as "a physical law"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical law?s=t

And the goal posts go flying again.

No again.
God clearly designated it exclusively through Isaac, the Jewish covenant and into Christianity.

Genesis 17, 17-21

Which does not make it unique to Christianity!

Judaism and Christianity may both be Abrahamic religions, but they are not the same religion (unless you are now also Jewish and have just rejected Jesus as the messiah), as such it is not unique to Christianity and regardless of you shifting goal posts, all of the Abahamic religions have a Holy Spirit.

That's a holy spirit in four religions, which is three more than you want for it to be unique.

So once again what is it that is unique and how does this uniqueness make it the 'right' one?

For something you claim to be self-evident you are seriously struggling to detail it in even basis terms.

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, you asked what I would have done, when confronted with god's situation.

God chose genocide, I suggested discussion. HERE.

Which do you support, genocide or proactive, inclusive discussion?

Given that your God has never chosen to communicate with any groups of people, I assume genocide is the preferred option. Am I correct?

 

[DQuaN]

Does anyone know where one could find satellite imagery of the sky dating back to spring of 2008? I have proof via a phenomenon I experienced.

It was a weather balloon...

 

[SZRT Ice]

Which part of the sky? Adress?

New Rochelle New York. Spring 2008. Days that had thick fog/overcast/rain (over a 2-3 day period). Whatever time of day the sun would have been centered in the middle of the sky.


DD (decimal degrees)*
Approximate Latitude: 40.93227778049346

Approximate Longitude: -73.7699693441391


DMS (degrees, minutes, secondes)*

40*55'56.2"
73*46'11.889"

It was a weather balloon...

Far from it...

 

[Dagger311]

New Rochelle New York. Spring 2008. Days that had thick fog/overcast/rain (over a 2-3 day period). Whatever time of day the sun would have been centered in the middle of the sky.


DD (decimal degrees)*
Approximate Latitude: 40.93227778049346

Approximate Longitude: -73.7699693441391


DMS (degrees, minutes, secondes)*

40*55'56.2"
73*46'11.889"



Far from it...

All the satellite photos I could find are from a more recent year.

 

[SZRT Ice]

-

All the satellite photos I could find are from a more recent year.

Sucks... I've been trying to figure this out for awhile now...

 

[Danoff]

So that makes it of the physical.

These videos were made for you:

 

[CodeRedR51]

Does anyone know where one could find satellite imagery of the sky dating back to spring of 2008? I have proof via a phenomenon I experienced.

Yes. I know of God's existence, it's far past belief at this stage. Unfortunately, God can't be solely found through science and debates.

God is found through faith, and his existence is (most commonly) revealed to us on an individual and personal level. Earnestly seek Him and you will find Him. Just be prepared for a change in your reality and perspective, because you can't "un-believe" in something once you know of it's existence. It is not just a matter of the mind that draws one close to God, but a matter of the heart and of the spirit. Wisdom is important, of course, but one must mature spiritually as well.

Get saved & baptized & God will come to you. Christians aren't choosing to be fools, believers in fairy tails, legends, or make believe for no reason or because they have no sense. Something happens when you accept Jesus Christ into your life and receive Him as your Lord and Savior. It's not something that can be shown to others, it's not entirely something that can really be explained, but more so that needs to be experienced... God is God. Before, and after all... His knowledge and understanding far exceeds our own... If He chooses to only reveal Himself to those who seek Him in heart and spirit, nothing else anyone does can change that. You can quarry amongst each other until your hair turns gray, and not move an inch closer. No man has ever seen God (In His Heavenly and actual form) with their own eyes.

When the time is right, and He wants to be revealed to the world, He will. Better if we seek and accept Him now, then wait for Him to reveal Himself to us.

 

[SZRT Ice]

What happened with me was much more than some abstract cloud formation.