Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

God is good. I have tested this.

How?

Once again, descriptive words misplaced. There's a difference between something being debunked, and offering an alternative solution.

Alternatives have been suggested many times in this thread. You want to know what they are, go read them.

I have shown your statement to be inaccurate with both my previous statements, and the fact that I exist as a critically thinking theist who disagrees.

You can say that your belief in god is based upon critical thinking all you want, but by any definition of critical thinking I know of, it's not. Critical thinking requires observing and analyzing independently verifiable evidence. If you have some, please share.

They most certainly are. How can you possibly know a single thing if not through a personal experience?

They just aren't. If you don't understand why, you're terribly ill-equipped for this debate.

Interesting that they have been observed simultaneously by other people.

Great. I can find thousands of people who have observed Bigfoot. Is that proof?

While this statement seems to parallel the statement that says that God exists, it is not even remotely close to the same thing. Once again, I will not apologize for its paradoxical nature.

It only seems unequal to you, because of the personal value you place on your belief in god. This blindness is common to many theists, unfortunately, and it really hinders effective conversation on the topic.

 

[Dennisch]

I haven't personally heard a voice, no, but on numerous accounts I have verified things about my life's events through the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I've verified things in my life. Even for other people. With an other kind of spirit.

I still don't believe there is a god.

It only seems unequal to you, because of the personal value you place on your belief in god. This blindness is common to many theists, unfortunately, and it really hinders effective conversation on the topic.

This. Most of the atheists in this thread actually think about something else could be out there. But we also keep in mind there could be nothing at all.

 

[Sach]

I've verified things in my life. Even for other people. With an other kind of spirit.

I still don't believe there is a god.

Free will exercised.

 

[Dennisch]

Free will exercised.

That wasn't the point. Your statements lack evidence. Personal experience isn't evidence of god.

In 'ye ol'days people eating mushrooms tought they where connecting with higher powers. We now know that eating mushrooms just intoxicate your brain, giving you a funky experience.

 

[Sach]

How?

I have explained this.

Alternatives have been suggested many times in this thread. You want to know what they are, go read them.

Alternatives do not equate debunking something unless they prove that an alternative solution is wrong. Please refer to your dictionary. More solutions do not immediately equate to the falsification of any one hypothesis.

They just aren't. If you don't understand why, you're terribly ill-equipped for this debate.

If you have evidence to suggest that any knowledge can be attained outside of the human experience, please, do share. It might be important to note that the existence of knowledge is in fact dependent on the human experience.

Great. I can find thousands of people who have observed Bigfoot. Is that proof?

It can be quite a strong form of proof, if they have indeed seen Bigfoot.

It only seems unequal to you, because of the personal value you place on your belief in god. This blindness is common to many theists, unfortunately, and it really hinders effective conversation on the topic.

I find this ironic.

 

[huskeR32]

I have explained this.

No, you've said "I've tested this." But you haven't said how. Just telling people that you've had experiences doesn't constitute a test of your claim.

Alternatives do not equate debunking something unless they prove that an alternative solution is wrong. Please refer to your dictionary. More solutions do not immediately equate to the falsification of any one hypothesis.

You're missing my point. You suggested that a shared sense of morality is evidence of god. The only way this could be true was if god was the only possible reason for that shared sense of morality. It's not the only explanation, therefore that is debunked as evidence of god.

If you have evidence to suggest that any knowledge can be attained outside of the human experience, please, do share. It might be important to note that the existence of knowledge is in fact dependent on the human experience.

Again, completely missed my point. Of course evidence of anything is part of a human experience. But it also has to be measurable and quantifiable to be "evidence." Your personal experiences aren't any of those things.

It can be quite a strong form of proof, if they have indeed seen Bigfoot.

But how do we get the "if" out of that statement? With physical evidence of course. The physical evidence of favor of bigfoot and god are the same: zilch.

I find this ironic.

OK 👍

 

[Sach]

To put it simply, your basic fault lies in that you assume that things are only testable or verifiable through the scientific process.

You also again make the mistake of attempting to test matters of spirituality with these methods, which is an inadequate approach.

Personal experiences don't prove anything... in the scientific realm? No, they do not. However, that is not required for them to actually be valid.

 

[Famine]

To put it simply, your basic fault lies in that you assume that things are only testable or verifiable through the scientific process.

Since all objective knowledge is science, only the scientific method is suitable for testing objective knowledge.

This is one of my favourite lines of enquiry with certain types of theists. Putting aside for a moment all of the gross inaccuracies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and flat out falsehoods that typically form an argument of the ilk "God is real, I have evidence and 'science' isn't up to the job of proving it", we're left with one core element: the desire to prove that God exists.

Once again ignoring the fact that the Judeo-Islamo-Christian "God" concept is imbued with characteristics that make it fundamentally untestable due to non-falsifiability - possibly deliberately so - that puts the believer in a staggeringly untenable position. Even if it were actually possible to prove the existence of God, the believer is stating a position of accepting proof and not, as the Bible requires, faith and belief.

Accepting that God is real due to proof isn't faith and it isn't belief. It's acceptance of proof.


That particular position alienates you both from the normal community of those who accept proof - by having a staggering low threshold of "proof", in accepting something that cannot actually be proven - and the normal community of those who believe in their faith. And, of course, God, who requires you to believe in him, have faith in him and not seek to test him.

It always makes me wonder what these people are seeking to achieve by "proving" God is real.

 

[Sach]

Since all objective knowledge is science, only the scientific method is suitable for testing objective knowledge.

This is an inaccurate statement.

"If you knew, you would know."

That is about the best answer that I can give you, but I will again not apologize for the paradoxical truth of my statement.

we're left with one core element: the desire to prove that God exists.

That is not my desire. I don't have to do that. I am not threatened in any way by these discussions because God is real whether I want Him to be or not, the same as with you all. He is real whether I have this discussion or not. It's like being in a cell with a group of people who have never been outside and therefore do not believe that the sky exists, but I have seen it with my own eyes, whether I can show it to you inside your confinements or not. Further, it's a situation where the sky exists whether you or I have seen it, etc.

Once again ignoring the fact that the Judeo-Islamo-Christian "God" concept is imbued with characteristics that make it fundamentally untestable due to non-falsifiability - possibly deliberately so - that puts the believer in a staggeringly untenable position. Even if it were actually possible to prove the existence of God, the believer is stating a position of accepting proof and not, as the Bible requires, faith and belief.

Touché, sir. I find your use of italicization on the word "staggeringly" as a clever attempt at a low blow in reference to previous trends in this thread. Please note that I have taken notice and enjoy the witty gesture. If I am wrong in this assumption, I still enjoyed it.

Unfortunately, I have not taken the position you have proposed. My position is in line with the teachings in the bible that knowledge of God by the means you are suggesting is not something that can truly be attained, that free will is His intention, that faith is His intention, and for this reason there exists the dilemma which we are addressing here today.

Accepting that God is real due to proof isn't faith and it isn't belief. It's acceptance of proof.

So why do you then write it off due to lack of proof? Again, you are thereby using inferior technology if you truly seek to know the answer.

That particular position alienates you both from the normal community of those who accept proof - by having a staggering low threshold of "proof", in accepting something that cannot actually be proven - and the normal community of those who believe in their faith. And, of course, God, who requires you to believe in him, have faith in him and not seek to test him.

A position not taken, but you have thought this through well. I applaud you for that.

 

[Jubby]

God is good.

Can you please provide tangible examples of how he is "good"?

All I can think of is that if he is the one who started our existence, he has allotted the introduction of evil, pain, suffering, and people who do wrong. I get free will and all, but the concepts could have been abolished or never thought of. There didn't have to be good and evil. Also, he banishes people who don't see eye to eye with him, and is unfair to those who even believe by testing them through trial and tribulation. How the hell is that "good"?

 

[niky]

The validity of spiritual matters can be tested. They are tested with the spirit, the heart, the soul, or whatever you would call it. Claims of such a nature can be confirmed or denied in this way, tested, and repeated, etc.

A subjective spiritual experience can be attributed to physical causes. And such general experiences are not proof of exactly something. They just mean something's happening.

A shared innate sense of moral right and wrong is but one evidence of this.

There is little innate sense of right and wrong. It has to be taught. I was trained as a teacher. And trained to teach right and wrong. Children know very little. They know if they get hurt, they cry. They know if they're happy, they laugh. They don't know and don't care why others laugh or cry. They're innately selfish. It takes time and learning to develop empathy. To learn that other humans are thinking and feeling creatures.

Sometimes, whether by fault of nature or society, a child can grow up thinking that other humans are not human. See the Nazis. See the Hindu caste system. See the Inquisition. Where was our shared innate sense of right and wrong there? To the purveyors of these crimes, what they were doing seemed wholly right, because their society, at the time, told them it was so.

All you have are black and white colors, and are attempting to discredit the value of the entire spectrum.

As noted elsewhere: A flower is just an arrangement of specialized leaves into a compound construct meant to attract insects to carry pollen, formed over millions of years of evolutionary change.

A diamond is just crystallized carbon.

I gave my wife a diamond ring for our engagement, and I give her flowers every now and then. Sometimes, we even engage in a purely subjective, spiritual experience and hug. A non-religious person's existence is not a bleak black and white one.

To reduce existence to the product of millions of chaotic parameters is an inaccurate observation.

Math is beautiful. The Universe is beautiful. How an essentially random and chaotic quantum reality, when viewed from further out becomes a neat and orderly Universe in the classical physical sense is a wonder. I don't need to invent an arbitrary abstract concept to worship this.

Additionally, many of the things proposed here by non-believers are exactly in line with what the Bible says you will do.

I'm sorry. I don't eat babies, try to coerce people into worshipping false gods or persecute and kill believers. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. I even contribute to charity. But I am also perfectly happy to speak my mind against the existence of a God who condones so much inequality, suffering and evil.

 

[Sach]

A subjective spiritual experience can be attributed to physical causes. And such general experiences are not proof of exactly something. They just mean something's happening.

"Could be", yes. "Something happening" could also point to the validity of the source.

There is little innate sense of right and wrong. It has to be taught. I was trained as a teacher. And trained to teach right and wrong. Children know very little. They know if they get hurt, they cry. They know if they're happy, they laugh. They don't know and don't care why others laugh or cry. They're innately selfish. It takes time and learning to develop empathy. To learn that other humans are thinking and feeling creatures.

Children know right and wrong, you are simply teaching them discipline.

Sometimes, whether by fault of nature or society, a child can grow up thinking that other humans are not human. See the Nazis. See the Hindu caste system. See the Inquisition. Where was our shared innate sense of right and wrong there? To the purveyors of these crimes, what they were doing seemed wholly right, because their society, at the time, told them it was so.

You speak for a lot of people there. More specifically, you speak for a lot of people who carried out orders for fear of death.

As noted elsewhere: A flower is just an arrangement of specialized leaves into a compound construct meant to attract insects to carry pollen, formed over millions of years of evolutionary change.

A diamond is just crystallized carbon.

I gave my wife a diamond ring for our engagement, and I give her flowers every now and then. Sometimes, we even engage in a purely subjective, spiritual experience and hug. A non-religious person's existence is not a bleak black and white one.

I used a two-color example as a means of contrast, not as a literal suggestion of black and white. Let's say, "billions of colors vs. trillions of colors" instead.

Math is beautiful. The Universe is beautiful. How an essentially random and chaotic quantum reality, when viewed from further out becomes a neat and orderly Universe in the classical physical sense is a wonder. I don't need to invent an arbitrary abstract concept to worship this.

Again, explanation is not the purpose of religion. Christianity is not an explaining device, it is a relationship. Explanations possibly resulting from this relationship are a by product.

I'm sorry. I don't eat babies, try to coerce people into worshipping false gods or persecute and kill believers. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. I even contribute to charity. But I am also perfectly happy to speak my mind against the existence of a God who condones so much inequality, suffering and evil.

This is an irrational response. I never accused you of these specifics, and I'm perfectly content with you speaking your mind. I would argue that God does not condone these things you speak of, however.

 

[Exorcet]

Inaccurate, yes. I would suggest a revision of your methods of testing.

Wrong. This is my personal experience. That makes it fact. Or did I misunderstand you before?

Let me also propose an example showing why experience is such a poor meter.

A person sees a train derail and run into a building. The train and building explode on impact. The person, who experienced this knows that the train and building exploded on impact. That is a fact. The person then assumes that the crash caused the explosion. Does witnessing the event make that so?

What if when police arrive on the scene, they find chemical traces of a bomb, and also determine that the energies and trajectories of debris suggest that a bomb went off. Does seeing trump that evidence?

Children know right and wrong

Hard to accept given that they will steal and damage property on a whim. Also hard to accept because right and wrong changes with time and culture.

You speak for a lot of people there. More specifically, you speak for a lot of people who carried out orders for fear of death.

Not the case in 20th century USA where blacks were second class citizens. Women wouldn't be killed for trying to vote or learn math in the 1800's either. Amelia Earhart was "unlady like" for flying a plane, she was not doing "what was correct for her gender" at the time. No one would kill her for it though. I also don't think someone would be killed for standing up for Native American rights during the time when their land was taken by force either.

On the other hand, you have religions, such as Christianity, who take extremely violent measure to get what they want, and then later turn around and say that things like that aren't right. They also tend to ignore or try to justify why their ancestors not only commited these acts and attributted it to the will of God, but they also try to weasel out of accepting the possibility that they are as wrong today as they were in the past by saying that people back then "were not true [followers of whatever religion]"

Also Sach, if you don't mind, could you give a full reply to my previous posts. You only acknowledged one line.

 

[Villain]

"If you knew, you would know."

That is about the best answer that I can give you, but I will again not apologize for the paradoxical truth of my statement.

This is why I don't bother debating in this thread. I admire the patience and persistence of those of you who continue to contribute to this thread regularly.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Also Sach, if you don't mind, could you give a full reply to my previous posts. You only acknowledged one line.

I echo this sentiment. I feel like several of us made rather coherent points that you openly and admittedly chose to gloss over, in favor of restating your position with no modification or clarification.

 

[Sach]

Wrong. This is my personal experience. That makes it fact. Or did I misunderstand you before?

You are incorrect in your assumption, yes. Again, "If you knew, you would know."

As Villain pointed out, there's really not much point to this because what I just stated is verifiably an accurate statement regarding the truth of Christianity, but it's verification only exists in a non-scientific realm, so you will either accept it (not likely) or write it off (as you have already done). Thankfully God sorts these things out, and it is ultimately not my responsibility for you to accept Him. You exercise free will just as I do. I will do what I can, but this is really a poor setting to try and discuss these things. Mostly it's simply a back and forth of micro-lambasting the semantics of the discussion.

Let me also propose an example showing why experience is such a poor meter.

A person sees a train derail and run into a building. The train and building explode on impact. The person, who experienced this knows that the train and building exploded on impact. That is a fact. The person then assumes that the crash caused the explosion. Does witnessing the event make that so?

What if when police arrive on the scene, they find chemical traces of a bomb, and also determine that the energies and trajectories of debris suggest that a bomb went off. Does seeing trump that evidence?

You see, a perfect example. I am talking about the validity of a spiritual exchange with an almighty God, through the intercession of the Holy Spirit, and the subsequent events arising from those precursory elements, which is really something quite different from your attempt to refute their validity, when you consider the means by which you would test or experience these two different things.

Hard to accept given that they will steal and damage property on a whim. Also hard to accept because right and wrong changes with time and culture.

Right and wrong has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the continual regression of people to want to refuse to acknowledge the moral truth written on the hearts of everyone, for the purpose of seeking out their own desires. The existence of God, even moreso the standard by which He calls us to live, is threatening to our selfish, sinful nature. Therefore our natural inclination toward Him is one of hostility.

Sin is present in a person from the moment they are born, they are corrupted from infancy. Even before the time that I could truly speak, I knew right and wrong. I also specifically remember doing things at three and four years old that I knew were wrong, and that I knew I could get away with. I understood selfishness, deceit, lies, and many other things, before I was ever disciplined regarding them.

Not the case in 20th century USA where blacks were second class citizens. Women wouldn't be killed for trying to vote or learn math in the 1800's either. Amelia Earhart was "unlady like" for flying a plane, she was not doing "what was correct for her gender" at the time. No one would kill her for it though. I also don't think someone would be killed for standing up for Native American rights during the time when their land was taken by force either.

If you have ever read anything I've posted about the history of the United States, you will know that I believe it to be built on lies, specifically the "Land of the Free" hogwash. I am very much supportive of the Native Americans' truthful right to every piece of property we pretend to draw our own lines of possession around.

Now, when you say that something was "unladylike" for women during a period, you completely miss out on the fact that the people enforcing these principles were in a position to be able to deny the sinfulness of their actions without suffering any repercussions, for a while. To say that we truly believed this was the right way to go about things is absurd.

Why then did we 'change' our ways? In fact, we never really did. The only thing that changed was the level of accountability involved concerning the actions we were taking. Take away accountability today and I promise you that women would again have no rights. Look at Gaddafi; I refuse to accept someone's belief that what he thought was he was doing was right. Yet that was an example of "his culture". It was however, clearly malicious. I might accept his corrupted thinking however on the grounds that in the bible there are examples of God letting people have their own way to the point that they become slaves to their own sins.

On the other hand, you have religions, such as Christianity, who take extremely violent measure to get what they want, and then later turn around and say that things like that aren't right.

You also have predictable people such as yourself who take things out of the context of God's calling. There is not a single obedient Christian alive today who would condone the actions of those men, or who would consider their actions to be Christ-like. Those were not acts of God carried out, and those men were not representatives of the Christian faith.

I can claim to be representing the Islamic faith, but in truth I would be a liar in doing so. Likewise, an atheist could go to trial for murder and blame it on Christ's teachings. While in our society it would surely be quickly lapped up by the masses and attributed as just another reason to avoid religion (specifically Christianity), it would be a lie. These men were liars.

1 John 4:20 "Any man who says he loves God and yet hates his brother, is a liar."

They also tend to ignore or try to justify why their ancestors not only commited these acts and attributted it to the will of God, but they also try to weasel out of accepting the possibility that they are as wrong today as they were in the past by saying that people back then "were not true [followers of whatever religion]"

Well, I am one of "they", and I just denounced their behavior. In addition, although your statement of 'weaseling out' doesn't make much sense to me, based on the intention I attempt to gather from it, I also find this to be misguided.


Again, this is scripture, not modern 'weasel-out' tactics -

1 John 4:20 "Any man who says he loves God and yet hates his brother, is a liar."

Also Sach, if you don't mind, could you give a full reply to my previous posts. You only acknowledged one line.

Possibly, but not tonight. I have a lot of work to do still.

I echo this sentiment. I feel like several of us made rather coherent points that you openly and admittedly chose to gloss over, in favor of restating your position with no modification or clarification.

I will try to later, but I am already truly doing myself a disservice by investing so much of the time I do not actually have into this 'debate'. I will look through Exorcet's other comments later.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

It seems to me that there's an essential point here from which we can move forward.

You seem to be claiming unimpeachable knowledge of the Will of God, and you are satisfied that your personal (and as yet unexplained) method of testing your belief is what makes it unimpeachable. You claim 'His Truth' is written on our hearts.

How are you any different from the billions of others throughout history who've made exactly the same claim, yet who have vastly different codes of behavior, and radically opposed concepts of what or who God is? Why is your God different? Why is your experience so special, and how can you confidently claim those billions are wrong, divorced from your personal experience? Why is your own morality, which you claim to be divinely inspired and universal, correct? You consider it universal by your own admission, but why do so many of us here feel absolutely nothing of the "tug" of God that you describe? Do you think we all simply go through life wearing emotional and moral blinders?

You place innate value upon Christian scripture. This thread is replete with specific reasons that all scriptures are essentially untrustworthy sources of specific factual information. How do you justify your belief in this scripture, again, without referencing your own personal revelations?

And lastly, to address your only attempt at an 'answer':

You say that if I knew, I would know.

Do you fail to recognize the unbelieveable hubris involved in this statement? Do you not grasp why it can seem so offensive and haughty?

You claim to have inherently true knowledge of the divinity of a very specific notion of God, yet you claim that your own personal experience is sufficient to justify this belief, and from this belief, assuming you trust your own Christian scripture, you have a divine calling to instill this sort of revelatory belief in others. You seem to be willing to label all of humanity as inherently evil (or sinful), which suggests to me that while you may pay lip service to the idea of nonjudgementalism, you will privately judge the morality and the destiny of the eternal soul of anyone you encounter.

I can't grasp how, if you take two steps back, you can't see that this reeks of delusion and, in fact, tyranny.

 

[Sach]

*sigh*, this is it for me for the night after this

You seem to be claiming unimpeachable knowledge of the Will of God, and you are satisfied that your personal (and as yet unexplained) method of testing your belief is what makes it unimpeachable. You claim 'His Truth' is written on our hearts.

Yes, I do claim that his truth is written on the hearts of all men, specifically, "that they are without excuse".

What I am not claiming is an unimpeachable understanding of the will of God. However, I will claim 'unimpeachably' that the will of God exists. And again, matters concerning the validity of God necessarily require a personal human experience. It does not work any other way, and I won't apologize for the paradox this may create for some.

How are you any different from the billions of others throughout history who've made exactly the same claim, yet who have vastly different codes of behavior, and radically opposed concepts of what or who God is?
Why is your God different? Why is your experience so special, and how can you confidently claim those billions are wrong, divorced from your personal experience?

Simply put, because Jesus was who he said he was.

Why is your own morality, which you claim to be divinely inspired and universal, correct?

Contrarily, my personal morality does not live up to the calling of God either. God's calling is authoritative, my actions are however not in line with that calling because of the corruption of sin.

You consider it universal by your own admission, but why do so many of us here feel absolutely nothing of the "tug" of God that you describe? Do you think we all simply go through life wearing emotional and moral blinders?

I believe you have hardened hearts, as the bible describes. To summarize Matthew 18:3 - "A person cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven if he will not accept it as a child". I believe in full confidence that a person cannot attain their highest calling until they accept their limitations and surrender to the authority of God. Now, true 'surrendering' really doesn't happen because we all fall short, as I have discussed, but what I'm getting at is an acknowledgment of His divine authority, one's utterly crushingly, inferior means to comprehend Him through the devices of human limitation, and both the presence and the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life.

You place innate value upon Christian scripture. This thread is replete with specific reasons that all scriptures are essentially untrustworthy sources of specific factual information. How do you justify your belief in this scripture, again, without referencing your own personal revelations?

I don't need to refer to this thread for validity concerning scripture, as arrogant as that may sound. This is simply a fact. Again, I won't apologize for the paradoxical fact that the validity of these matters is tested only through one's personal experiences as they are weighed by the heart, soul, and spirit. Additionally, you underestimate the fact that I have scrutinized the scriptures many times over, in discussion with other equally-skeptical believers, and have continually reached the same conclusions. That is not to say that all scripture can be interpreted conclusively, and this is also a fact that I accept.

And lastly, to address your only attempt at an 'answer':

You say that if I knew, I would know.

Do you fail to recognize the unbelieveable hubris involved in this statement? Do you not grasp why it can seem so offensive and haughty?

I understand fully how it can be taken. However, you must also understand that most often you cannot grasp the tone of a conversation through an environment restricted nearly exclusively to text. I have absolute confidence that I could become friends with the vast majority of people here, and that you would not consider me a pretentious person. Admittedly, at times I enjoy the apparent cynical tone of the intellectual debate here, but I assure you that I have no real malicious intentions.

But, back to the subject - Yes, I know exactly what that statement sounds like. Again, I have stated that I am very similar to the critical thinking non-believers here in very many ways, in that I have taken their position countless times. The difference is that I am willing to accept the paradox that is created because of the fact that God does exist, he has convicted His people through the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was who he said he was, and that it is merely an attempt of folly to boast against Him. So many aren't willing to consider a paradoxical answer that could fill a missing placeholder in the 'model' of theism. They are limited, in my opinion, and biased to do this for scientific matters but not ones concerning spirituality.

- I make that statement only because at this time I find it to be the simplest way to describe the truth of God's existence:

- "If you knew, you would know", includes all of the paradoxical anomalies that would follow, and the position of humility concerning the workings of reality that you must take, because you are forced to, because God is very real despite your inability to work it out, and He does not require your very limited logic to exist.

you have a divine calling to instill this sort of revelatory belief in others.

This is a very specific claim which you are making about me, which is untrue. I acknowledge my calling to share the gospel, as it is instructed in the scriptures, however I do not personally feel an evangelical calling on my life. At the same time, I take a very similar position to Niky and have no problem addressing matters that I have tested and know to be true. I also do this because I enjoy the debate and discussion. Admittedly, I'm tiring of these lengthy replies.

You seem to be willing to label all of humanity as inherently evil (or sinful), which suggests to me that while you may pay lip service to the idea of nonjudgementalism, you will privately judge the morality and the destiny of the eternal soul of anyone you encounter.

Once again, not very nice of you.

I am not a 'good' person, and none of us can earn our way into heaven with 'good' works, or moral behavior regardless. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." While we all, as sinners, will ultimately cast these stones in error throughout our lives, I personally try to avoid this. For one, a person's judgment does not necessarily come to them while they are alive, and as long as a person is alive, they have an opportunity to accept Christ.

Additionally, I acknowledge that judgment rests solely with God himself. Scripture does however make clear certain things describing a model of Christian behavior, but it also makes clear that we are not bound by the law.

Lastly, if there does exist a separation between the wise and the foolish, then it does exist, and there should be no apology for it. It also happens to be true that God is the source of the greatest possible wisdom that one can attain. As one poster put it: it's just how it works. Those who deny Him are destined to folly, even moreso than believers who are also in a similar position. Theirs however, is at least one that involves the teaching and discipline of the Holy Spirit that leads to conviction, confession, and repentance.

Please refer to the book of Proverbs for many examples and descriptions of foolish people, their behavior, their character, and ultimately the outcome of their choices and desires. It's generally on the ugly side.



Good night. I have taken the time to write this out of respect to you (all), though I can't possibly keep this up on a regular basis. I hope that this will suffice for the moment as at least an honest response.

 

[niky]

"Could be", yes. "Something happening" could also point to the validity of the source.

The occurence of an event doesn't determine its source. You've experienced an event and have concluded its source without testing for possible sources. That's just not science.

Children know right and wrong, you are simply teaching them discipline.

I also specifically remember doing things at three and four years old that I knew were wrong, and that I knew I could get away with.

The things you knew were wrong were things that your experience with your parents had told you were not "proper" things to do. Through modelling and experience.

Children do not know property rights, the right to life and freedom from injury or the rights to privacy.

Children have no concept of the word modesty or shame. They don't understand what's wrong with vandalism. Children require exposure to adult values to form said values. In the absence of an adult who will teach them to discern these values, children will grow up believing it's perfectly acceptable to kill a human being from another tribe, chop off his head and eat his innards.

They will think nothing of slavery or the death penalty. How many generations of Christians grew up in the United States not thinking one bit about segregation? How many still support the idea of prisons and the justice system when their Bible tells them to "turn the other cheek"?*

-

*Note, I support the idea of a penal code. None of the above is a reflection of my own, personal values.

Sin is present in a person from the moment they are born, they are corrupted from infancy.

While beliefs may differ from sect to sect, Christ's dying on the cross was supposed to redeem man. Thus no original sin, though sects that force baptism would declare otherwise... even though baptism is merely a formality.

You speak for a lot of people there. More specifically, you speak for a lot of people who carried out orders for fear of death.

I do not speak for anyone but myself. But to think that all who did such things did so on fear of death is completely incorrect. Hindus discriminate simply because their belief system tells them it is right to do so. The same with Aryanists. Those who carried out holy inquisition and who pursued "crusades" against the Muslim natives of the Holy Lands did so thinking that they were doing it in God's Name, even if it's arguable that their leaders did such things for reasons of politics and wealth.

Once you get people to accept abstracts like "patriotism" and "God" as being superior in value to human life, atrocities happen.

This is not a criticism of "God"... merely an observation of the human condition. You can substitute "money", "communism" or "morality" for "God", and the truth will hold yet.

I used a two-color example as a means of contrast, not as a literal suggestion of black and white. Let's say, "billions of colors vs. trillions of colors" instead.

Irrelevant. Doesn't change my answer. You are implying that I cannot experience things beyond the purely objective. That is patently not true.

Again, explanation is not the purpose of religion. Christianity is not an explaining device, it is a relationship. Explanations possibly resulting from this relationship are a by product.

What use is the Bible, then, if not to explain? The Bible purports to describe the world, heaven and hell. It also explains, scientifically, why we should not eat pork. If those things do not exist in the manner the Bible says they do, then what's left? Why do Creationists stubbornly fight Evolution? Why does the Catholic Church stubbornly fight against condoms? The answers as to why are all in there.

Christianity codifies and formalizes your relationship. It tells you what you should believe in. If it merely told you to love God and your neighbor, without going into specifics as to the nature of the Holy Trinity, Heaven and Hell and etceterae, that would be a relationship, pure and simple.

This is an irrational response. I never accused you of these specifics, and I'm perfectly content with you speaking your mind. I would argue that God does not condone these things you speak of, however.

You said that much of what we say here is in line with what the Bible says we "non-believers" will do. Unfortunately, much of what we say isn't.

As Villain pointed out, there's really not much point to this because what I just stated is verifiably an accurate statement regarding the truth of Christianity, but it's verification only exists in a non-scientific realm, so you will either accept it (not likely) or write it off (as you have already done).

Let's break down what "verifiable" means.

It means that if aybody else... absolutely anybody else... be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic, performed the same test and experienced the same phenomenon, their conclusion as to the nature of that experience will be exactly the same.

If you can provide such class of evidence, then your experience is verified. If not, it remains a purely subjective experience.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

*sigh*, this is it for me for the night after this




Yes, I do claim that his truth is written on the hearts of all men, specifically, "that they are without excuse".

What I am not claiming is an unimpeachable understanding of the will of God. However, I will claim 'unimpeachably' that the will of God exists. And again, matters concerning the validity of God necessarily require a personal human experience. It does not work any other way, and I won't apologize for the paradox this may create for some.

If the Will of God exists, and you claim to have any sort of knowledge of it, should not such knowledge be unimpeachable by your own claims? Whatever knowledge God has chosen to impart to you ought to be pretty solid, unless he's a rather capricious sort of fellow.

No one asks you to apologize for the paradoxical nature of the demands for proof of the existence of God. We simply ask that you acknowledge them and move on from there. But, when you make such a claim, a rather appropriate "one liner" (which you'll clearly hate) comes to mind:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This sort of evidence must extend beyond descriptions of your own, unverifiable personal experience.

Simply put, because Jesus was who he said he was.

And for the umpteenth time, I ask, prove it. My supposed lack of knowledge confounded with your apparent and claimed inerrant knowledge are not proof.

Contrarily, my personal morality does not live up to the calling of God either. God's calling is authoritative, my actions are however not in line with that calling because of the corruption of sin.

So, by the nature of your specific quotable claims, you're at once self-aggrandizing and self-deprecating? That's realistic, if applied properly and wholistically. A bit schizophrenic, when applied to one single claim of knowledge.

I believe you have hardened hearts, as the bible describes. To summarize Matthew 18:3 - "A person cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven if he will not accept it as a child". I believe in full confidence that a person cannot attain their highest calling until they accept their limitations and surrender to the authority of God. Now, true 'surrendering' really doesn't happen because we all fall short, as I have discussed, but what I'm getting at is an acknowledgment of His divine authority, one's utterly crushingly, inferior means to comprehend Him through the devices of human limitation, and both the presence and the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life.

So you make the judgements I assumed that you made, given the logical implications of the position you've stated above. Now, please, define for us the nature of 'His Divine Authority', and 'Our Utterly Crushingly Inferior Means to Comprehend Him'. Define our human limitations, from a Christian perspective, and be prepared for the response. And again, for the uncountably umpty-fivegazillionth-time, give evidence for God's works, which you describe as the presence and the work of the Holy Spirit.

You will retreat to these icons as reflexive bastions against contrary opinion, and exceptions from the rules of evidence, but I, along with many others, have offered you serious challenges to these icons which you have, until now, totally ignored.

Now, defend them.

I don't need to refer to this thread for validity concerning scripture, as arrogant as that may sound. This is simply a fact. Again, I won't apologize for the paradoxical fact that the validity of these matters is tested only through one's personal experiences as they are weighed by the heart, soul, and spirit. Additionally, you underestimate the fact that I have scrutinized the scriptures many times over, in discussion with other equally-skeptical believers, and have continually reached the same conclusions. That is not to say that all scripture can be interpreted conclusively, and this is also a fact that I accept.

Define 'heart'. Define 'soul'. Define 'spirit'. And what you have underestimated is the fact that we (or, at least I) have scrutinized the scriptures just as many times over with just as skeptical colleagues. There is NO common conclusion, and if you claim there is, you are being actively disingenous. And if, just as you say, that for ALL scripture there is no conclusive interpretation, what are the specific bits of scripture that you think are conclusive? From that, why are they conclusive, and why are other believers who think that other bits of scripture are conclusive wrong? What has the Holy Spirit told you about that, that makes you inerrantly correct?

This is quickly reaching the point of absurd specificity with regard to scripture, which is why it's not a useful tool. As such, stop using it to support your position unless you are prepared for swift and specific rebuttal.

I understand fully how it can be taken. However, you must also understand that most often you cannot grasp the tone of a conversation through an environment restricted nearly exclusively to text. I have absolute confidence that I could become friends with the vast majority of people here, and that you would not consider me a pretentious person. Admittedly, at times I enjoy the apparent cynical tone of the intellectual debate here, but I assure you that I have no real malicious intentions.

But, back to the subject - Yes, I know exactly what that statement sounds like. Again, I have stated that I am very similar to the critical thinking non-believers here in very many ways, in that I have taken their position countless times. The difference is that I am willing to accept the paradox that is created because of the fact that God does exist, he has convicted His people through the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was who he said he was, and that it is merely an attempt of folly to boast against Him. So many aren't willing to consider a paradoxical answer that could fill a missing placeholder in the 'model' of theism. They are limited, in my opinion, and biased to do this for scientific matters but not ones concerning spirituality.

- I make that statement only because at this time I find it to be the simplest way to describe the truth of God's existence:

- "If you knew, you would know", includes all of the paradoxical anomalies that would follow, and the position of humility concerning the workings of reality that you must take, because you are forced to, because God is very real despite your inability to work it out, and He does not require your very limited logic to exist.

So you've, essentially, made a leap of faith, in your own words. We haven't made that leap. There is nothing you can point to that I can think of that would make your leap commendable, and our failure to leap reprehensible. There is definitely nothing in your statement that makes you objectively morally superior in any way, so if you want to continue to claim moral exclusivity, you need more. Also, you continue to make definitive claims of the existence of God, which, shall I emphasize,

is the purpose of this thread

without offering anything for evidence save repeating your opinions and citing your own unspecified experiences.

Then, you tell me what steps of logic I must take because you reiterate that your position is correct, AGAIN, with no further support. You specifically say I am unable to work out the existence of God.

This pretty much demands that you, if you hold an honest belief in your convictions, explain how this belief is worked out, which you have, over multiple pages, decided to avoid.

This is a very specific claim which you are making about me, which is untrue. I acknowledge my calling to share the gospel, as it is instructed in the scriptures, however I do not personally feel an evangelical calling on my life. At the same time, I take a very similar position to Niky and have no problem addressing matters that I have tested and know to be true. I also do this because I enjoy the debate and discussion. Admittedly, I'm tiring of these lengthy replies.

So you don't feel the evangelical calling? I assume from your position that you don't begrudge those who do. Why are they right, by the justification of their own unverifiable claims, when you are also right in a contrary position with only the support of your unverifiable claims? Things are right for you that aren't for others? That casts some pretty serious aspersions upon your previously claimed universal morality.

Wait ... let me guess. If I knew the answer, I'd know the answer.

Once again, not very nice of you.

I am not a 'good' person, and none of us can earn our way into heaven with 'good' works, or moral behavior regardless. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." While we all, as sinners, will ultimately cast these stones in error throughout our lives, I personally try to avoid this. For one, a person's judgment does not necessarily come to them while they are alive, and as long as a person is alive, they have an opportunity to accept Christ.

Additionally, I acknowledge that judgment rests solely with God himself. Scripture does however make clear certain things describing a model of Christian behavior, but it also makes clear that we are not bound by the law.

Lastly, if there does exist a separation between the wise and the foolish, then it does exist, and there should be no apology for it. It also happens to be true that God is the source of the greatest possible wisdom that one can attain. As one poster put it: it's just how it works. Those who deny Him are destined to folly, even moreso than believers who are also in a similar position. Theirs however, is at least one that involves the teaching and discipline of the Holy Spirit that leads to conviction, confession, and repentance.

Please refer to the book of Proverbs for many examples and descriptions of foolish people, their behavior, their character, and ultimately the outcome of their choices and desires. It's generally on the ugly side.



Good night. I have taken the time to write this out of respect to you (all), though I can't possibly keep this up on a regular basis. I hope that this will suffice for the moment as at least an honest response.

This last bit is pretty essential.

You cast these stones you describe merely by claiming the correctness of your position.

I see no compelling reason for you to say that you aren't a good person. And as you say, there's no reason that, in real life, we couldn't be friends.

You are the one claiming your own limits, not us, and honestly, not God, unless you allow the idea of God to impose limits upon you. You accept the precepts of this God, but you allow these precepts to define facets of yourself that should, I think, rightly be definied by you.

Scripture lays out certain claims, laws, or what have you - yes. You choose to believe them. Own responsibility for your viewpoint. If you are a bad person, it's not someone else's fault, it's yours. You accept a concrete code of morality; live up to it, or don't. If you fail, it's on you, not on your supposed 'nature'. This, in my view, has always been an essential failure of Christianity - it offers an escape from responsibility.

Also:

You act quite put-upon when asked, specifically, to defend your positions.

We all have real lives, and we all sacrifice our time to be here. Your time is no more special than are your claims. Don't act surprised when we ask you to defend those claims, and, if you aren't willing to invest the time in a properly reasoned and specific response, don't expect us to put any further value into your responses.

And, finally, I must point this out.

You have flatly ignored the essential points of the post to which you replied.

I asked you to explain why your particular faith is exceptional. Oh crap, he's going to italicize this because it's important ... GOD FORBID!


Why, in the face of so many contrasting views, even within Christianity, is your particular view correct?

 

[Famine]

This is an inaccurate statement.

Nope. Refresh your understanding of objectivity and the nature of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, I have not taken the position you have proposed.

Except for all the parts where you say God has proved his existence and that you have tested it, sure. However you're still asserting objective proof and testability, both of which deny faith and belief.

So why do you then write it off due to lack of proof? Again, you are thereby using inferior technology if you truly seek to know the answer.

I'm not. I'm writing off the objective nature of the non-falsifiable - because anything with the property of non-falsifiability is inherently non-objective. Technology is irrelevant - that would apply only to that which cannot yet be known or tested (the unknown and the unproven), not that which cannot be known or tested (the non-falsifiable).

 

[BobK]

Pi is infinite. So why can God not also be? What about the Golden Proportion? Are you also not aware that it represents infinity itself because it is infinitely divisible upon itself? Is it not the fingerprint of life on Earth? Therefore infinity is present in the workings of life itself, yet you ignore this. What about the Fibonacci Sequence? Convenient, isn't it?

Pi is not infinite, in fact it has a very definite value. We would need an infinite number of digits to express its exact value in the decimal system, but that doesn't change the fact that it does have a precise value.

We would also need an infinite number of digits to represent the value one third in decimal, but that doesn't mean that the number one third is infinite. In fact if we use another common system of representing numbers, we can express one third as simply 1/3.

What about the Golden Proportion? Indeed, what about it? Again it has a very definite value, specifically one half the sum of 1 and the square root of five. It can be used to generate an endless series of self-similar rectangles, but that doesn't make the number itself infinite.

The Fibonacci sequence has an infinite number of terms. So does the sequence 1, 2, 3, ... and that's much simpler and more convenient. So what's your point?

To return to your first premise in the quote, pi is not infinite, so why should God be?

 

[Sach]

Nope. Refresh your understanding of objectivity and the nature of the scientific method.

The scientific method is not required for God or the proof of God to exist, because the data in question not does have to, and indeed most often does not, exist in that arena. Since you clearly view the scientific method as being authoritatively conclusive, we'll just have to disagree with each other.

Except for all the parts where you say God has proved his existence and that you have tested it, sure. However you're still asserting objective proof and testability, both of which deny faith and belief.

Contrarily, both require faith and belief. "Knock and the door will be opened", "Ask and you shall receive, etc.", are examples of the relationship that God intended being demonstrated to be valid through his participation and interaction with the person of faith. There are others. Requiring faith because God chooses to remain to be unseen is one thing, God being uninvolved/unconcerned is another. If God were either of the latter, people would not possibly continue to believe in the vast majority of cases.

Again, I can't consider your position regardless of however clever you may think that you are in forming this model, because God's existence is a paradox, and I have experienced it in ways that are undeniable. I don't need to refer to your logic to confirm this. And once again, any logic you propose is merely humanistic, not universal. It's ultimately incapable of restricting the actions of God, or the workings of faith. Your perception of authority in this regard is a position of error, and the bible also discusses this fact many times over.

We can sit in this thread and go back and forth as long as any of us want, but the situation will not change. The paradox is by design. There's no point in restating these things a hundred times over. Furthermore, your model hasn't changed anything in the end, because by God's design I cannot offer you objective proof through my own experiences with Him regardless.

Sir, in light of your disrespect, this will be the last time I respond to you.

But, when you make such a claim, a rather appropriate "one liner" (which you'll clearly hate) comes to mind:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This sort of evidence must extend beyond descriptions of your own, unverifiable personal experience.

The fact that God is real amidst the limitations of your logic is quite extraordinary.

And for the umpteenth time, I ask, prove it. My supposed lack of knowledge confounded with your apparent and claimed inerrant knowledge are not proof.

It doesn't work that way.

You will retreat to these icons as reflexive bastions against contrary opinion, and exceptions from the rules of evidence, but I, along with many others, have offered you serious challenges to these icons which you have, until now, totally ignored.

Now, defend them.

Again, they don't exist in the realm of scientific objectivity, they are non-falsifiable, so what's the point. Example, changed lives. You'll simply write it off as the result of some other sociological/psychological occurrence.

Define 'heart'. Define 'soul'. Define 'spirit'.

Unfortunately, I cannot do that for you.

So you've, essentially, made a leap of faith, in your own words. We haven't made that leap. There is nothing you can point to that I can think of that would make your leap commendable, and our failure to leap reprehensible. There is definitely nothing in your statement that makes you objectively morally superior in any way, so if you want to continue to claim moral exclusivity, you need more.

It is of no matter to me that you wouldn't commend my faith. I do not claim moral superiority, contrarily, I have stated the opposite.

Also, you continue to make definitive claims of the existence of God, which, shall I emphasize,

is the purpose of this thread

without offering anything for evidence save repeating your opinions and citing your own unspecified experiences.

You won't like this, but I'll say it anyway. For one, I am done with you, personally. Additionally, I believe that we can tarnish the goodness of things that God has done by boasting them, and I will not do this. "Let he who boasts, boast in God". To present certain personal experiences I have had in this particular arena, would be to do so because ultimately it would result in another 10 pages of the thread where you attempt to tell me all of the other possible things they could be attributed to, by which we would simply just disagree further. In another setting, I would be more forthcoming.

Then, you tell me what steps of logic I must take because you reiterate that your position is correct, AGAIN, with no further support. You specifically say I am unable to work out the existence of God.

It does not require logic. It requires acknowledgment of God, repentance, and above all the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

This pretty much demands that you, if you hold an honest belief in your convictions, explain how this belief is worked out, which you have, over multiple pages, decided to avoid.

I fail to see accuracy in this statement.

I see no compelling reason for you to say that you aren't a good person. And as you say, there's no reason that, in real life, we couldn't be friends.

I say that because it is true. And we could be friends because I am reasonable and understanding, not because I am good.

We all have real lives, and we all sacrifice our time to be here. Your time is no more special than are your claims. Don't act surprised when we ask you to defend those claims, and, if you aren't willing to invest the time in a properly reasoned and specific response, don't expect us to put any further value into your responses.

I am not surprised, and my time is only of importance to myself. It is my responsibility to manage it effectively. For this reason, I must go at this very moment, as an example.



Good day to you, sir.

 

[Famine]

The scientific method is not required for God or the proof of God to exist, because the data in question not does have to, and indeed most often does not, exist in that arena.

Interesting that you make a massive error and a sound point at the same time.

The scientific method must be followed to demonstrate the existence of anything objective. If it cannot be validated by the scientific method it cannot be held to exist objectively. That's your error.

Your sound point is that the "data" (feelings and beliefs) surrounding deities is entirely subjective.

"God" cannot be validated objectively, due to intrinsic qualities of non-falsifiability, and therefore cannot be held to exist objectively.

Contrarily, both require faith and belief.

Faith and belief are both utterly denied by objective proof. Objective proof destroys faith and belief because there is no need to refer to feelings in that which can be objectively proven. If you have objective proof that God exists, you cannot have either faith or belief in it.

Again, I can't consider your position regardless of however clever you may think that you are in forming this model, because God's existence is a paradox, and I have experienced it in ways that are undeniable.

Demonstrate this undeniability.

I don't need to refer to your logic to confirm this. And once again, any logic you propose is merely humanistic, not universal.

Logic is objective, universal and independent of the thinker. Interpretations of logic can be subjective.

It's ultimately incapable of restricting the actions of God, or the workings of faith. Your perception of authority in this regard is a position of error, and the bible also discusses this fact many times over.

Your perception of the Bible's authority in this regard - or any other - is a position of error. The Bible is merely a multiply-retranslated series of writings anthologised by a Roman Emperor. You cannot regard anything as definitive that comes in so many "versions" even in our own language.

The paradox is by design.

Indeed it is. The non-falsifiability of the J/I/C "God" is an intrinsic property attributed to it quite deliberately by the creators of the faiths.

I cannot offer you objective proof through my own experiences with Him regardless.

Then you cannot state objectively that God exists. Only subjectively.

 

[huskeR32]

Stuff

I can see that you're very strongly dedicated to hiding behind the convenience of god being "outside the realm of science" and therefore immune to serious questions of validity. I'm not longer going to attempt to talk you out of that.

However, in all of your postings, especially the last couple pages, one thing has really made me curious.

You say that personal experiences of god's presence, specifically your experiences, constitute proof of god's existence. You also say that humans can never hope to be perfect and without sin. So how do you know that your human experiences are really due to god's existence?

Maybe instead, your imperfect, sinful human brain attributes normal, everyday occurrences to a non-existent divine being so that you can indulge in some good ol' sinful pride and hubris about being one of the chosen followers of the one "true" god.

If you don't hold yourself to be perfect, then how can you claim that your experiences and emotions constitute unequivocal proof of anything?

 

[Touring Mars]

If you don't hold yourself to be perfect, then how can you claim that your experiences and emotions constitute unequivocal proof of anything?

An excellent question 👍

 

[Exorcet]

You are incorrect in your assumption, yes. Again, "If you knew, you would know."

Shouldn't I know? Having been Christian for 20 years, and a fairly devoted one at that I would say.

However, my belief waned as my ability/willingness to think critically increased. They were at odds with each other. Logic and reasoning is what let me to escape and find what was actually true.

For something that's supposed to be written in my heart, and that I should clearly experience just by existing, God is pretty hard to find. Also, the idea that you need to know to know seems to go against your attempt to justify using experience as proof. My experience, which should be every bit as good as yours, says the opposite of yours, but you want to say that yours is better. You won't even consider that yours is wrong.

As Villain pointed out, there's really not much point to this because what I just stated is verifiably an accurate statement regarding the truth of Christianity, but it's verification only exists in a non-scientific realm, so you will either accept it (not likely) or write it off (as you have already done). Thankfully God sorts these things out, and it is ultimately not my responsibility for you to accept Him. You exercise free will just as I do. I will do what I can, but this is really a poor setting to try and discuss these things. Mostly it's simply a back and forth of micro-lambasting the semantics of the discussion.

You won't tell us how to verify it. If it was as you say, you could just provide the method, and bam, everyone on GTP would be Christian.

So far, spiritual things, unscientific realms, God, and so much more are things that you are assuming exist, and you're basically responding on that. This is why the debate would be pointless.

If God was there and was reachable, science would be more than enough to verify that this was the case. Taking some inspiration from your meter stick example, people make meter sticks, yet the sticks can measure not only everything else we make, but the makers themselves. If you want to convince me that God can't be measured (which really doesn't make sense because apparently, there are consistent ways of reaching him), show me that he can't be. Don't just state it.

You see, a perfect example. I am talking about the validity of a spiritual exchange with an almighty God, through the intercession of the Holy Spirit, and the subsequent events arising from those precursory elements, which is really something quite different from your attempt to refute their validity, when you consider the means by which you would test or experience these two different things.

Yeah, I've tried that probably a few million times and nothing happened. I then stopped and nothing changed. I'm confirmed, so I definitely have the Holy Spirit.

But I can fix my example. Someone prays to God to end his suffering (let's say he's too poor to afford food). He finds a winning lotto ticket in the garbage and cashes it in. God? There's nothing suggesting that it was God, especially since there were probably a few thousand other people in the same situation doing the same thing who weren't so lucky. Same thing happens when someone prays because they're sick, or confused, or whatever.

Right and wrong has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the continual regression of people to want to refuse to acknowledge the moral truth written on the hearts of everyone, for the purpose of seeking out their own desires. The existence of God, even moreso the standard by which He calls us to live, is threatening to our selfish, sinful nature. Therefore our natural inclination toward Him is one of hostility.

Evidence?

Also if right and wrong is fixed and so obvious, then everyone who isn't Christian should feel a bit guilty right? I'd feel guilty over convincing someone that religion is true, but not the other way around.

I don't see any selfish, sinful nature. People aren't perfect sure, but for the most part, they're good people. We live in large societies and cooperate. It's not everyone for themselves. It's not unheard of for people to naturally go out of their way and help others, and there's no voice from the sky telling them to do so. The concept of humanity as being on trial for crimes that our great, great, great, ........ great grandparents committed is ridiculous, unjust, and outdated.

Sin is present in a person from the moment they are born, they are corrupted from infancy. Even before the time that I could truly speak, I knew right and wrong. I also specifically remember doing things at three and four years old that I knew were wrong, and that I knew I could get away with. I understood selfishness, deceit, lies, and many other things, before I was ever disciplined regarding them.

And I remember running around a store ripping up clothes and trying to take the stuff I was stealing home. I wouldn't stop until I was told to because I was 3 or something and had no idea what I was doing because right and wrong is not obvious.

If you have ever read anything I've posted about the history of the United States, you will know that I believe it to be built on lies, specifically the "Land of the Free" hogwash. I am very much supportive of the Native Americans' truthful right to every piece of property we pretend to draw our own lines of possession around.

I don't see what having been built on lies has to do with it. People were doing things that today would be considered wrong, and it wasn't out of fear of death. It's because they thought it was completely justified.

Now, when you say that something was "unladylike" for women during a period, you completely miss out on the fact that the people enforcing these principles were in a position to be able to deny the sinfulness of their actions without suffering any repercussions, for a while. To say that we truly believed this was the right way to go about things is absurd.

Why then did we 'change' our ways? In fact, we never really did. The only thing that changed was the level of accountability involved concerning the actions we were taking. Take away accountability today and I promise you that women would again have no rights. Look at Gaddafi; I refuse to accept someone's belief that what he thought was he was doing was right. Yet that was an example of "his culture". It was however, clearly malicious. I might accept his corrupted thinking however on the grounds that in the bible there are examples of God letting people have their own way to the point that they become slaves to their own sins.

The bold is absurd. That's exactly what people believed. Women were weak, less intelligent, and fragile in all respects. Obviously, if they did anything meant for men (and I'm pretty sure the Bible is a huge force behind the inequality of men and women) it wouldn't turn out well. They needed to be protected from their own weakness and ignorance. It's fortunate that women realized that this was garbage and then fought back until this way of thinking was overturned. Accountability has nothing to do with it, because as long as people believed the above, they could justify what they were doing. What changed things was doing away with outdated ways of thinking that were long overdue for re-evaluation.

Why don't you think that Gaddafi thought he was right? The justifications are more interesting than the final answer.

You also have predictable people such as yourself who take things out of the context of God's calling. There is not a single obedient Christian alive today who would condone the actions of those men, or who would consider their actions to be Christ-like. Those were not acts of God carried out, and those men were not representatives of the Christian faith.

Can you really say that? You're speaking for a whole lot of people. Of course, you can make the word "obedient" be whatever you want, but then you're statement lacks value.

Those men were not representative of the Christian faith, they were the faith. They believed what they were doing was correct because this is how they thought God acted at this time. They would say the same things as you. Written in the heart, evidence all around. These people but Bibles and churches before everything else. Their error was believing in something false. Today, the current generation does the same thing and likes to pretend otherwise.

1 John 4:20 "Any man who says he loves God and yet hates his brother, is a liar."

Any one of the people who have killed in the name of God could use that line, and probably did use that line. This is one of the problems with the Bible being written in a "poetic language". It can mean anything.

Of course the Christians who murdered the Scandinavians loved their brothers. If they did not trample all over their country to convert them, they would have burned in hell.

I can claim to be representing the Islamic faith, but in truth I would be a liar in doing so. Likewise, an atheist could go to trial for murder and blame it on Christ's teachings. While in our society it would surely be quickly lapped up by the masses and attributed as just another reason to avoid religion (specifically Christianity), it would be a lie. These men were liars.

1 John 4:20 "Any man who says he loves God and yet hates his brother, is a liar."

They would only be liars if they did not believe it themselves.

Well, I am one of "they", and I just denounced their behavior. In addition, although your statement of 'weaseling out' doesn't make much sense to me, based on the intention I attempt to gather from it, I also find this to be misguided.


Again, this is scripture, not modern 'weasel-out' tactics -

1 John 4:20 "Any man who says he loves God and yet hates his brother, is a liar."

The last three quote blocks are basically what I'm talking about. Maybe weaseling out was a slightly inaccurate term because it implies that you know you're wrong. That doesn't have to be the case.

Possibly, but not tonight. I have a lot of work to do still.

I will try to later, but I am already truly doing myself a disservice by investing so much of the time I do not actually have into this 'debate'. I will look through Exorcet's other comments later.

I understand. I suppose to make things easier, I'll say that I'm most interested in knowing why a person of faith would receive not evidence at all. See below:

""Knock and the door will be opened", "Ask and you shall receive, etc.", are examples of the relationship that God intended being demonstrated to be valid through his participation and interaction with the person of faith."

My experience would say that either that's not true, or God is determined to ignore some of his followers.

 

[Sach]

The scientific method must be followed to demonstrate the existence of anything objective. If it cannot be validated by the scientific method it cannot be held to exist objectively. That's your error.

It's not my error. I'm not attempting to use the scientific method to do this. And God is inherently non-objective himself, hence the existence of judgment. While your statement is true as it pertains to the way that scientists would assess things, it really bears little weight on the validity of matters outside of that platform.

Once again, there is no confusion here about this.

Your sound point is that the "data" (feelings and beliefs) surrounding deities is entirely subjective.

Not entirely. The conviction of the Holy Spirit bears more authority over my feelings than I do myself. Spiritual validity does not end at the 'feeling' state.

"God" cannot be validated objectively, due to intrinsic qualities of non-falsifiability, and therefore cannot be held to exist objectively.

To scientists, no. I don't disagree. I have also addressed this previously.

Faith and belief are both utterly denied by objective proof. Objective proof destroys faith and belief because there is no need to refer to feelings in that which can be objectively proven. If you have objective proof that God exists, you cannot have either faith or belief in it.

Yes, I hear you, again. However, God himself is not objective, so this doesn't pertain.

Logic is objective, universal and independent of the thinker. Interpretations of logic can be subjective.

I agree, and I have exercised my own freedom to be subjective about many propositions of logic in this very thread.

Your perception of the Bible's authority in this regard - or any other - is a position of error. The Bible is merely a multiply-retranslated series of writings anthologised by a Roman Emperor. You cannot regard anything as definitive that comes in so many "versions" even in our own language.

A fine example of subjective logic applied to a misguided reasoning.

Indeed it is. The non-falsifiability of the J/I/C "God" is an intrinsic property attributed to it quite deliberately by the creators of the faiths.

More of the same.

Then you cannot state objectively that God exists. Only subjectively

Not scientifically, no. But that is ultimately irrelevant to the fact of His existence. One result of which is that you must accept Him then by faith, and not on scientific, objective truth, which is in fact according to His plan.

I can see that you're very strongly dedicated to hiding behind the convenience of god being "outside the realm of science" and therefore immune to serious questions of validity. I'm not longer going to attempt to talk you out of that.

Contrarily, rather than hiding, I have not closed myself off to what exists beyond the scientific realm, as you have done.

However, in all of your postings, especially the last couple pages, one thing has really made me curious.

You say that personal experiences of god's presence, specifically your experiences, constitute proof of god's existence. You also say that humans can never hope to be perfect and without sin. So how do you know that your human experiences are really due to god's existence?

By the conviction of the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Maybe instead, your imperfect, sinful human brain attributes normal, everyday occurrences to a non-existent divine being so that you can indulge in some good ol' sinful pride and hubris about being one of the chosen followers of the one "true" god.

I don't have any pride in this regard, I simply know that God is real, and that His teachings and dealings with His people are trustworthy. I have had numerous experiences and revelations that confirm this. You regard the fact that your opinion cannot change this for me as me being arrogant, but it's simply a matter where I answer to a higher authority than you do. You also deny the fact that knowledge cannot exist outside of the human experience, and you ironically write off the experiences I have as being invalid simply because they are personal experiences. However, if a science teacher explains the workings of RNA to me in a classrooms setting, I cannot likewise accept an understanding of these teachings apart from my own personal experience, etc.

If you don't hold yourself to be perfect, then how can you claim that your experiences and emotions constitute unequivocal proof of anything?

See any one of the many verses regarding the working of the Holy Spirit for the answer to this question.

 

[Exorcet]

However, if a science teacher explains the workings of RNA to me in a classrooms setting, I cannot likewise accept an understanding of these teachings apart from my own personal experience, etc.

You can go and validate everything that you're taught, though it might take some time depending on what you're trying to prove (ie become a PhD in biology or something). You can also make predictions based on what you are told.

You should be able to do the same with God, if he was there, etc. Just tell us all how to get in touch, and we should all instantly believe. It seems that the key is basically following religious teachings. But that is not something that the non believers here know nothing about.

 

[homeforsummer]

By the conviction of the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

The oft-edited and even more oft-translated book says it, so it must be true.

Personally, God has taught me nothing. I've taught myself much of what I know and use today, save for a few honourable exceptions where other people have taught me things.

Not once has any of that been the work of God. And since you claim he exists based on your experiences of him, surely I can claim he doesn't based on my lack of experiences?