Do you believe in God?

[Moontallico]

Yes, but how did mass gain these properties of gravity, when nothing was in existence before the big bang? Where did gravity come from? If you say that properties like gravity are innate to the universe and have always existed, then it is also not so far fetched to say that a God could have also always existed, and is also innate to the existence of reality, etc.

There you go man, it's all just supositions. We just can't know, so why not to believe in all ideas, or none? They're all just that, ideas, the big bang, the existance of a god(s), the evolution...
You name it!
So yea, it's just to pick whatever you like the most, or are more confortable with
As for me I choose to pick neither religion's or science side.
Unless someone actually comes with concrete proof, that is.
Anyway, I got what I wanted from this thread, so cheers!
Have fun discussing something pointless!

 

[dylansan]

Hello, SkateNj. I have offered what I have deemed to be proof for theism several times in previous sections of this discussion.

I'd like you to respond to this before claiming there is evidence for theism again.

Sorry, but I had a laugh at this. I would never say that science is not valid, although by its own self-prescribed definition it is severely handicapped when attempting to discuss reasons for "why", or when dealing with anything of a godly and transcendental nature.

I believe that science supports the possibility of a one true god, and you can look through my posts to see where I have done so with a degree of thought.

You can't have both a scientific and a "transcendental" philosophy. They're fundamentally incompatible.

A scientific viewpoint means accepting things only when there's evidence to support them. A transcendental one means accepting things even when there is no evidence. Pick one. Because you keep saying all your beliefs are supported by evidence and then that science is somehow limited because it only accepts things supported by evidence... That wouldn't limit science unless you admit your beliefs aren't supported.

 

[Sach]

@ Dylansan

You can't have both a scientific and a "transcendental" philosophy. They're fundamentally incompatible.

"Incompatible - So opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together"



I disagree with your claim. I believe in an author of the universe who created the world for mankind. He gave it to us to enjoy in the ways we would choose, and it was intended to be our kingdom, within his purposes. (One of his purposes was also the possibility of disobedience, but that is for another long-winded discussion.) The fact that he created it and that we are fascinated with his work, that we study its principles and properties, and are able to make discoveries to the point of formulating theories and laws as to how it operates, does not mean that we are in a position to now remove him from the equation as if we have reached some level of understanding to suggest he (or some other explanation) wasn't needed for it in the first place.


Science observes the observable and testable, the repeatable that is used to postulate the laws and constants of the reality we can actually work with. But every science teacher has always told me that you could wake up one day and all of the rules about reality could change, even if they were bound to scientific law for as long as we have known anything.


The point of stating that is to point out that scientists are aware that their field is limited, which you are probably tired of hearing me say. The reason you do not feel that a scientific and transcendental philosophy can both exist at the same time is because you do not believe in a spiritual reality. I believe in a physical reality and a non-physical reality. I believe in things that are known and observable, and things that are also unknown and unobservable, governed only by God.


I revere God as a father figure, the author of every piece of the universe and it's reality, the reality that we cannot even begin to scratch the surface of, and therefore a father whose understanding so far surpasses any of our collectively mustered up attempts that I leave room for things to exist that don't have to play by the rules as we know them. At the same time, I am not a delusional person. I acknowledge that these rules do exist, and have been designed to provide understanding and stability within our level of dominion. For example, I will not jump off of a building expecting God to save me just because I believe that he could. I know that it would take his intervention to change that outcome, but I also believe that there is a purpose directly tied to his will regarding everything that is happening, and I don't pretend to be so self-centered as to believe that his purpose revolves around what I want to happen. I believe that there is a small portion of existence that is for us to have dominion over, and likewise an infinite proportion that is his possession.


I'm not here to evangelize or to tell any non-believers that they are going to hell. The reason I respond to these kinds of discussions is to show that a person of faith can in fact successfully resolve these two necessary sides of the discussion through the observation of how God has revealed himself through what science observes about the design of the universe. These things also continually agree with the bible's teachings regarding God's character and qualities, and I am quite at ease as to find its explanations a sufficient catalyst for what we are discovering on our own.


Lastly, I do know for a fact that both the spiritual realm and the physical realm coexist, because I have experience both in irrefutable ways. Just as I cannot observe evolutionary breeding in a laboratory and denounce its validity, likewise I cannot also denounce the validity of God's continual presence in my life, the lives of those around me, or the scores of transcendental events that have been a part of that. Every single person who is of faith and in union with Christ and the one God of the universe will testify that this very thing is precisely how they know, his continual presence in their life. Incompatible? Nothing of the sort. The union of these two sides is absolutely necessary to obtain a true understanding of reality as we know it.

 

[Moontallico]

@ Dylansan





"Incompatible - So opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together"



I disagree with your claim. I believe in an author of the universe who created the world for mankind. He gave it to us to enjoy in the ways we would choose, and it was intended to be our kingdom, within his purposes. (One of his purposes was also the possibility of disobedience, but that is for another long-winded discussion.) The fact that he created it and that we are fascinated with his work, that we study its principles and properties, and are able to make discoveries to the point of formulating theories and laws as to how it operates, does not mean that we are in a position to now remove him from the equation as if we have reached some level of understanding to suggest he (or some other explanation) wasn't needed for it in the first place.


Science observes the observable and testable, the repeatable that is used to postulate the laws and constants of the reality we can actually work with. But every science teacher has always told me that you could wake up one day and all of the rules about reality could change, even if they were bound to scientific law for as long as we have known anything.


The point of stating that is to point out that scientists are aware that their field is limited, which you are probably tired of hearing me say. The reason you do not feel that a scientific and transcendental philosophy can both exist at the same time is because you do not believe in a spiritual reality. I believe in a physical reality and a non-physical reality. I believe in things that are known and observable, and things that are also unknown and unobservable, governed only by God.


I revere God as a father figure, the author of every piece of the universe and it's reality, the reality that we cannot even begin to scratch the surface of, and therefore a father whose understanding so far surpasses any of our collectively mustered up attempts that I leave room for things to exist that don't have to play by the rules as we know them. At the same time, I am not a delusional person. I acknowledge that these rules do exist, and have been designed to provide understanding and stability within our level of dominion. For example, I will not jump off of a building expecting God to save me just because I believe that he could. I know that it would take his intervention to change that outcome, but I also believe that there is a purpose directly tied to his will regarding everything that is happening, and I don't pretend to be so self-centered as to believe that his purpose revolves around what I want to happen. I believe that there is a small portion of existence that is for us to have dominion over, and likewise an infinite proportion that is his possession.


I'm not here to evangelize or to tell any non-believers that they are going to hell. The reason I respond to these kinds of discussions is to show that a person of faith can in fact successfully resolve these two necessary sides of the discussion through the observation of how God has revealed himself through what science observes about the design of the universe. These things also continually agree with the bible's teachings regarding God's character and qualities, and I am quite at ease as to find its explanations a sufficient catalyst for what we are discovering on our own.


Lastly, I do know for a fact that both the spiritual realm and the physical realm coexist, because I have experience both in irrefutable ways. Just as I cannot observe evolutionary breeding in a laboratory and denounce its validity, likewise I cannot also denounce the validity of God's continual presence in my life, the lives of those around me, or the scores of transcendental events that have been a part of that. Every single person who is of faith and in union with Christ and the one God of the universe will testify that this very thing is precisely how they know, his continual presence in their life. Incompatible? Nothing of the sort. The union of these two sides is absolutely necessary to obtain a true understanding of reality as we know it.

Just want to ask why you didn't even reply to my last replies to you, but whatever..

 

[TankAss95]

Just want to ask why you didn't even reply to my last replies to you, but whatever..

Dude, the guy is responding to lots of posts, and he has put quite a lot of effort in.

 

[Sach]

Sorry, Moontallico.

There you go man, it's all just supositions. We just can't know, so why not to believe in all ideas, or none? They're all just that, ideas, the big bang, the existance of a god(s), the evolution...
You name it!
So yea, it's just to pick whatever you like the most, or are more confortable with
As for me I choose to pick neither religion's or science side.
Unless someone actually comes with concrete proof, that is.
Anyway, I got what I wanted from this thread, so cheers!
Have fun discussing something pointless!

There is a false assumption that Christianity is 'comfortable'. Just consider who is taking the brunt of "Can you believe this guy?" comments in this discussion, as one small example. I can assure you that it is not easy, nor comfortable. I can also assure you that I'm about as 'normal' as anyone. I enjoy a good beer (or four?), I don't talk about God constantly as you may think, and most people wouldn't even know that I am all that different without a bit of investigating. And if you read much of my previous post you will see that I don't believe everything to simply be different suppositions that I pick and choose from. I have experienced the concrete proof from both the scientific side and from God's side, and they are not at odds with each other. I believe they work together, that they are making up this one reality, and I respect the fact that I cannot know all the things of reality in a way that is just going to spoon-feed me the answers, or dismiss God's purpose for faith.

 

[Moontallico]

Dude, the guy is responding to lots of posts, and he has put quite a lot of effort in.

I know, dude. I just said that because of the posts order. Some posted way after me, and got replied first.
But I totally understand that. And it could be distraction too. I take it all into account.
If I sounded rude, I didn't meant to.

Sorry, Moontallico.

No problem

There is a false assumption that Christianity is 'comfortable'. Just consider who is taking the brunt of "Can you believe this guy?" comments in this discussion, as one small example. I can assure you that it is not easy, nor comfortable. .

Then how about changing confortable with happy with the choice made?

I don't talk about God constantly as you may think, and most people wouldn't even know that I am all that different without a bit of investigating. And if you read much of my previous post you will see that I don't believe everything to simply be different suppositions that I pick and choose from. I have experienced the concrete proof from both the scientific side and from God's side, and they are not at odds with each other. I believe they work together, that they are making up this one reality, and I respect the fact that I cannot know all the things of reality in a way that is just going to spoon-feed me the answers, or dismiss God's purpose for faith.

You got me curious with that, concrete proof from God's side.
Can you eleborate, please?
Like, what kind of proof.
And tell me. If you have experienced proof from both sides, why just stick whith god's theory?

 

[dylansan]

...things that are also unknown and unobservable, governed only by God.

Lastly, I do know for a fact that both the spiritual realm and the physical realm coexist, because I have experience both in irrefutable ways...

These are conflicting statements. If the spiritual realm is unobservable, how can you have experience with it?

...a person of faith can in fact successfully resolve these two necessary sides of the discussion through the observation of how God has revealed himself through what science observes about the design of the universe.

One can believe that the observations made by science are examples of God revealing himself, but there isn't evidence of that. Science often requires us to come up with explanations for the observations it finds. The difference between scientific theories and the supernatural explanation is that scientific theories can be tested, and proved wrong if they turn out not to be valid. Using God or the supernatural as explanations is flawed because they cannot be proven wrong. There is no evidence that could prove that a God or the supernatural doesn't exist. Which means that even if you're wrong, nothing could ever convince you that you're wrong. As such it's not a valid scientific theory.

I understand that you recognize the value of scientific discoveries, but that's not what's incompatible with you're belief. I'm talking about having a philosophy (as I do) that requires evidence before believing something. If you think it's okay to sometimes accept things without evidence, then the question becomes when is it okay to accept things without evidence and when should evidence be required?

 

[Sach]

These are conflicting statements. If the spiritual realm is unobservable, how can you have experience with it?

This is where we are likely going to start seeing our differences even more clearly, spiritual matters. What I said did not create a conflict. Spiritual things cannot be discerned scientifically, they can only be discerned in a person's heart. That's exactly what I meant, and maybe I should have worded it that way the first time.

One can believe that the observations made by science are examples of God revealing himself, but there isn't evidence of that.

As I have said, I believe much of existence is evidence that points directly toward our creator and his intention for reality to function with order. You can say that there is no evidence of it simply because science does not address it, but you can't truly claim that as fact any more than you would say that I can. While I can't prove it to you scientifically, there most certainly are things in this world that science is limited in explaining, but that does not in any way prohibit their existence.


Even you yourself said that science is not an umbrella. Well, how do you really prove anything then if not by some sort of scientific method? You say you can't prove something so it is "flawed", but then you also say that science is not an umbrella. So which is it then?

The difference between scientific theories and the supernatural explanation is that scientific theories can be tested, and proved wrong if they turn out not to be valid.

I can assure you that there are spiritual rights and wrongs as well, and that I am also aware of how science works. I have used it often.

Using God or the supernatural as explanations is flawed because they cannot be proven wrong.

This is where I have a problem, when you say that it is flawed. If you can't disprove God, then you cannot also say for certain that having a belief and a relationship with God that is also manifested in part through the natural world is not the exact means to have the highest level of human understanding. Yet you have made this claim so assuredly, despite admitting shortly thereafter that you can't disprove the existence of God.

There is no evidence that could prove that a God or the supernatural doesn't exist. Which means that even if you're wrong, nothing could ever convince you that you're wrong. As such it's not a valid scientific theory.

Which is why I also made the distinction that there are spiritual matters and there are scientific matters, and that they are not inherently designed to work in the same way. I never claimed spirituality as a valid scientific theory. I did claim that reality involves both dimensions, and I stand confidently by that statement.

I understand that you recognize the value of scientific discoveries, but that's not what's incompatible with you're belief. I'm talking about having a philosophy (as I do) that requires evidence before believing something.

See, this is where things become difficult for a believer. You repeatedly say that I have no evidence. Yet I have told you several times now that I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have encountered irrefutable evidence for the presence of God on multiple occasions. I know this as assuredly as I know any scientific thing that I have seen proven with my own eyes, yet I can't hand you an artifact, relic, or whatever physical thing you would need as proof. I can however provide you with literally hundreds of witnesses and personal acquaintances who would stand by the validity of these claims, having witnessed them firsthand.


I have seen both scientific and spiritual truths with my own eyes. Jesus said, "You do not have because you do not ask." I am afraid this is very true, despite how arrogant you think it may be for me to say such a thing, considering your strong skepticism that he ever existed, etc., but if you knew him we would not be having this conversation. You don't, and so you believe it all to be hogwash or some delusion, an evolutionary mechanism perhaps.


The bible states clearly that many will not know him, that they will mock believers, and close their hearts to follow their own ways of thinking. People talk all the time as if Christianity is the 'easy' way to resolve things about the world. On the contrary, Jesus said that you must lose your life to follow him, and the bible contains many truths that are not easy at to come to terms with, but whose validity is only revealed when you live out that life over a period of time.


This is the thing that people really miss: Christianity is not a scientific blow-off that you think about occasionally to get yourself through the day. It is a constant communication with God, a wrestling with one's own spirit, and a lifelong series of revelations paired with the most difficult seasons of doubt. People change so easily! They are so quick to drop everything and move onto the next easy thing as soon as someone presents them with tough questions, embarrasses them, or great tragedy happens, etc. Yet some of the most intellectual people to have ever walked this planet have been Christians for over 50 years, some even longer. Why is that? The answer is because Christianity is more than a religion, it is a relationship with the only one, and true living God, who does not change, even when you do. And because Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and because the holy spirit is a very real thing, and because God is constantly minding the every breath of those who know (and don't know) him, people inescapably keep their faith. They may try to denounce it in favor of choosing their own way (which is the real easy way out), but an irrefutable experience with God is not something that you come face to face with and walk away from without any reservation, any less than a scientific law you see proven before your very eyes. They are one in the same concerning the truth.

If you think it's okay to sometimes accept things without evidence, then the question becomes when is it okay to accept things without evidence and when should evidence be required?

This is the last time that I am going to explain that I do in fact have evidence that is just as strong as any scientific or mathematical principle that has been devised. I have been over this several times now. I'm fine with you not agreeing with what I know to be true, based on our different methods of testing its validity, but I would respectfully request that we stop chasing tails with this one. I have evidence, whether you choose to cast it aside is an option that I'm completely fine with you choosing to exercise. I absolutely do not have all of the answers, but the truth is that I have asked very hard questions for many years, not always with pretty results, but I have found most certainly found answers, and they weren't always truths that were easy to live with. But the truth is the truth, and when you know it you also know that you can't walk away from it. That's basically what's going on here, different sides standing by what they know full-heartedly to be the truth.


"Knock, and the door will be opened for you."


I'm tired now.



cheers

 

[Bobalob]

Seems to me the athiests are doing pretty well bashing particles together prooving thier point but the Christians are still bashing words, after thousands of years.

 

[Encyclopedia]

This is where we are likely going to start seeing our differences even more clearly, spiritual matters. What I said did not create a conflict. Spiritual things cannot be discerned scientifically, they can only be discerned in a person's heart. That's exactly what I meant, and maybe I should have worded it that way the first time.




As I have said, I believe much of existence is evidence that points directly toward our creator and his intention for reality to function with order. You can say that there is no evidence of it simply because science does not address it, but you can't truly claim that as fact any more than you would say that I can. While I can't prove it to you scientifically, there most certainly are things in this world that science is limited in explaining, but that does not in any way prohibit their existence.


Even you yourself said that science is not an umbrella. Well, how do you really prove anything then if not by some sort of scientific method? You say you can't prove something so it is "flawed", but then you also say that science is not an umbrella. So which is it then?






I can assure you that there are spiritual rights and wrongs as well, and that I am also aware of how science works. I have used it often.




This is where I have a problem, when you say that it is flawed. If you can't disprove God, then you cannot also say for certain that having a belief and a relationship with God that is also manifested in part through the natural world is not the exact means to have the highest level of human understanding. Yet you have made this claim so assuredly, despite admitting shortly thereafter that you can't disprove the existence of God.





Which is why I also made the distinction that there are spiritual matters and there are scientific matters, and that they are not inherently designed to work in the same way. I never claimed spirituality as a valid scientific theory. I did claim that reality involves both dimensions, and I stand confidently by that statement.





See, this is where things become difficult for a believer. You repeatedly say that I have no evidence. Yet I have told you several times now that I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have encountered irrefutable evidence for the presence of God on multiple occasions. I know this as assuredly as I know any scientific thing that I have seen proven with my own eyes, yet I can't hand you an artifact, relic, or whatever physical thing you would need as proof. I can however provide you with literally hundreds of witnesses and personal acquaintances who would stand by the validity of these claims, having witnessed them firsthand.


I have seen both scientific and spiritual truths with my own eyes. Jesus said, "You do not have because you do not ask." I am afraid this is very true, despite how arrogant you think it may be for me to say such a thing, considering your strong skepticism that he ever existed, etc., but if you knew him we would not be having this conversation. You don't, and so you believe it all to be hogwash or some delusion, an evolutionary mechanism perhaps.


The bible states clearly that many will not know him, that they will mock believers, and close their hearts to follow their own ways of thinking. People talk all the time as if Christianity is the 'easy' way to resolve things about the world. On the contrary, Jesus said that you must lose your life to follow him, and the bible contains many truths that are not easy at to come to terms with, but whose validity is only revealed when you live out that life over a period of time.


This is the thing that people really miss: Christianity is not a scientific blow-off that you think about occasionally to get yourself through the day. It is a constant communication with God, a wrestling with one's own spirit, and a lifelong series of revelations paired with the most difficult seasons of doubt. People change so easily! They are so quick to drop everything and move onto the next easy thing as soon as someone presents them with tough questions, embarrasses them, or great tragedy happens, etc. Yet some of the most intellectual people to have ever walked this planet have been Christians for over 50 years, some even longer. Why is that? The answer is because Christianity is more than a religion, it is a relationship with the only one, and true living God, who does not change, even when you do. And because Jesus was exactly who he said he was, and because the holy spirit is a very real thing, and because God is constantly minding the every breath of those who know (and don't know) him, people inescapably keep their faith. They may try to denounce it in favor of choosing their own way (which is the real easy way out), but an irrefutable experience with God is not something that you come face to face with and walk away from without any reservation, any less than a scientific law you see proven before your very eyes. They are one in the same concerning the truth.







This is the last time that I am going to explain that I do in fact have evidence that is just as strong as any scientific or mathematical principle that has been devised. I have been over this several times now. I'm fine with you not agreeing with what I know to be true, based on our different methods of testing its validity, but I would respectfully request that we stop chasing tails with this one. I have evidence, whether you choose to cast it aside is an option that I'm completely fine with you choosing to exercise. I absolutely do not have all of the answers, but the truth is that I have asked very hard questions for many years, not always with pretty results, but I have found most certainly found answers, and they weren't always truths that were easy to live with. But the truth is the truth, and when you know it you also know that you can't walk away from it. That's basically what's going on here, different sides standing by what they know full-heartedly to be the truth.


"Knock, and the door will be opened for you."


I'm tired now.



cheers

Would you mind showing us your irrefutible evidence? You do realize you'll be one of the most famous people who have ever lived if you do so right? You will totally revolutionize the world.

Another thing, I must say your certainty troubles me. Being that certain of a thing (at lest how you word it) is usually a bad sign. I liked your first posts in this thread, but they seem to get increasingly "fanatical", the wording more and more definate. I'm an athiest with a pretty strong disbelief for god/gods, but I would never use wording that sure, regardless of how sure I felt about something.

It makes you come of as a close-minded fanatic. You do realize that, right?

 

[BobK]

I never said that anyone could absolutely prove Gods existence, but to me I found that video basically proof. I am here to support my beliefs, that's all.

May I ask how you found that video to be proof of anything? It has a number of logical fallacies and non sequiturs whicn rendered it useless as any sort of proof.

 

[Sach]

Would you mind showing us your irrefutible evidence? You do realize you'll be one of the most famous people who have ever lived if you do so right? You will totally revolutionize the world.

The first Christian church revolutionized the world, because what they were teaching and preaching were truths shared by every human being, and those who received their message were convicted in their hearts and returned to a relationship with God. The irrefutable evidence that I have experienced has been shared by millions of Christians. I am not special in this regard, and the fact that it is true for many on an individual basis has not changed the world in that particular way for thousands of years. I don't expect my personal experiences to do so either. The only thing that will change people is conviction and an acknowledgment of the truth in their own hearts. That doesn't happen the same way for everyone, and I don't pretend to be special. I am anything but.

Another thing, I must say your certainty troubles me. Being that certain of a thing (at lest how you word it) is usually a bad sign. I liked your first posts in this thread, but they seem to get increasingly "fanatical", the wording more and more definate. I'm an athiest with a pretty strong disbelief for god/gods, but I would never use wording that sure, regardless of how sure I felt about something.

Your troubledness is of no surprise. I saw these things coming, which is why I said that since the discussion started to shift more toward spiritual matters we would begin to see our differences more clearly. In one sense, "fanatical" is an inappropriate wording. Like I said, I do not evangelize, I don't even mention God most of the time. But in certain situations with other people I will also not deny the truth of my life, and in another sense I am zealously in awe of who God is, and what he has already done in my life.

It makes you come of as a close-minded fanatic. You do realize that, right?

To you, perhaps. It depends on who you are talking to. I find many of the responses here to be likewise fanatical, arrogant, and of cynical and semi-hostile nature, despite that they are being presumptuously professed by people possessing only half of the information. You will often observe these bold individuals poorly representing themselves and the great intellectual accomplishments of mankind through one-liner insults hurled at theists.

I think that many internet discussions such as these simply don't involve believers who actually have a background in biblical study, or a history of asking confrontational questions of themselves concerning their faith. I was very privileged to find myself within that kind of questioning-environment for several years, although I still certainly don't understand everything. Unfortunately believers will often say, "God is true, the bible is true...", and just leave everything at that. If those statements are true, then why would we not be diligently seeking to test and prove their validity as often as possible, to gain understanding and a stronger fellowship with the father God?

I will also admit to not doing so to the degree that I could. But when you call a person a close-minded fanatic because they believe in God, you have to consider that if what they are saying is true, and if they do have a relationship with the creator of the universe, if they do have an understanding of some of that creator's plan for our lives, and if they do in fact possess an undeniable renewing of their spiritual fellowship with that being, then you would also expect them to be as they are.






That's getting back to my original point in this whole thing... Dismissing the spiritual validity of God simply because it is something you can only attest to with a means outside of the proven and repeatable scientific realm, is a mistake. I am quite aware of how many religions, superstitions, and eccentric beliefs exist in this world, and also how obnoxious it seems to claim that you might have a connection to the one true God. I know all of that, and that is again what made Jesus different in claiming he was/is the son of the only God. It's also what was different about the twelve disciples who started the first church and went preaching this very thing to places where people worshiped a multitude of their own devised gods, where they worshiped the pleasures of the flesh, or their own wealth and power, etc. They did this exact thing, more evangelically than I ever have, and they changed the world forever despite the strength of man's desire to have his own way, because along with their preaching was/is the one spirit of truth that also exists, and which has convicted the hearts of millions of believers ever since the coming of Christ concerning the validity of their faith.

Again, Christianity is not an intellectual write off or easy way out. It is an active and participatory involvement with God's presence in a person's life. Jesus did not claim to be of a scientific nature, and nor has God ever done so. The way to test the validity of his existence is not through a scientific means. He did not discuss scientific matters, he discussed spiritual matters of the heart, the intentionality of man's desires, and seeking to understand the mysteries of God through one's spirit. The only way to do those things is to get past the wall of scientific observation you set up for yourself and leave room for God to be God. That is only logical, if you look objectively and scientifically at how a faith in God would work.

 

[Sach]

Hello again, friends. My wife is a social worker and came across this video. I believe that many of the things discussed here are true and relevant to the things that I have been discussing. I hope that you will find it an entertaining watch.


Seasons Greetings.



The Power of Vulnerability

 

[niky]

You are assuming that your perspective on this whole thing which basically looks at religions in a pseudo-psychological/evolutionary way is the correct one. For example, to say that Christianity and Islam exist because Judaeism existed first? Ok.

So, without Judaeism, we would still have Jewish prophets proclaiming the birth of the Messiah and people proclaiming Jesus as King of the Jews, and Jesus scolding the riffraff at the temple for defiling his Father's house? Do you pray to Brahma, Zeus or Ahura Mazda at night? or do you pray to Yahweh?

This is a perfect example, and a tacky response in a so-called 'intellectual' discussion.

It's a demonstration that the Bible as a source of historical information is not infallible. It's as relevant to this discussion now as it was when I first mentioned it.

If by "cultural millieu" you mean the current global state of the historical impact of Christianity compared to the others you mentioned, then I am not confused.

And yet you write in an alphabet introduced by pagan Romans, count in a numbering system pioneered by Arabs and owe your way of life to the conquest of the world enabled by Chinese gunpowder.

To hear the Chinese say it, though, there would be no civilization without China.

Except that if the observable evidence was anything other than your own eyesight you still wouldn't believe it.


The fact is, there exists plenty of evidence supporting the validity of Christianity. Where your arrogance occurs is in the fact that much of it doesn't fit the mold that you personally are asking it to in order for you to be truly convinced of its authenticity. That in itself is fine. However, you are also contradictory in that you claim to be taking an open-minded and intellectual approach to a matter concerning the divine, transcendent, and infinite, yet still limit those things to your personal mold of scientific observation. Not only does that not make a lot of sense when concerning the transcendent, it's also arrogant to assume for the rest of existence that your approach is conclusive.

I have already stated my personal beliefs, which are that there may be something beyond the current physical reality. But since the quality of evidence for your assumption of what that is is not any different than any other major religion, I assign it the same weight of probability.

I've already stated that millions also claim to have been touched by God in their respective religions, and that in their religions, they see a higher truth. You keep stating that there is evidence that yours is qualitatively better. Since no physical evidence has been given, it's all down to theological and subjective preference.

I am not an arrogant person. I am content to let a Christian or a Muslim remain so, as long as they treat their fellows with basic decency and compassion. To each their own faith. But if I am questioned regarding my beliefs, I speak my mind.

If we treat religion as perfect and beyond question, then we can be manipulated by those who would use it to their own ends. Such as the scientologists. Such as the Koreshians. Such as the fanatics of Al Quaeda. Once you give up your right to question, you give up the one thing that separates humanity from the animals...

 

[Sach]

So, without Judaeism, we would still have Jewish prophets proclaiming the birth of the Messiah and people proclaiming Jesus as King of the Jews, and Jesus scolding the riffraff at the temple for defiling his Father's house? Do you pray to Brahma, Zeus or Ahura Mazda at night? or do you pray to Yahweh?

The Jews were originally God's chosen people, yes. But I would only agree to the fact that your statement addresses God's plan, as laid out in the bible, for Jesus to destroy the temple, and all false gods.

It's a demonstration that the Bible as a source of historical information is not infallible. It's as relevant to this discussion now as it was when I first mentioned it.

No, it's intention wasn't, hence your use of the emoticon. It was a one-line response made in a snide tone to suggest the only reason that it was found in Christian teachings was because it was 'borrowed' from stories in other religions.

And yet you write in an alphabet introduced by pagan Romans, count in a numbering system pioneered by Arabs and owe your way of life to the conquest of the world enabled by Chinese gunpowder.

To hear the Chinese say it, though, there would be no civilization without China.

Those are nice facts to pick and choose from, yet they don't actually suggest or prove anything about the spiritual validity of Christianity. Despite the historical atrocities committed in the name of Christ, people have been free to choose to leave Christianity if the do not find it valid for thousands of years, and it is still as prominent as we find it today. (Awaits your comments regarding the psychological/sociological theories behind this.)

I've already stated that millions also claim to have been touched by God in their respective religions, and that in their religions, they see a higher truth. You keep stating that there is evidence that yours is qualitatively better. Since no physical evidence has been given, it's all down to theological and subjective preference.

I honestly don't believe that you really consider physical evidence of a living God to be something that can exist. And the problem lies in the fact that I could tell you several things that have the result of physical evidence, yet the spiritual source again cannot be confirmed by the same means, so you'll just write it off because that's what you are looking to do.

I am not an arrogant person. I am content to let a Christian or a Muslim remain so, as long as they treat their fellows with basic decency and compassion. To each their own faith. But if I am questioned regarding my beliefs, I speak my mind.

We are all free to do so. How you exercise that freedom counts for a lot.

If we treat religion as perfect and beyond question, then we can be manipulated by those who would use it to their own ends.

I feel like you are accusing me of such a thing, when in fact I have questioned my beliefs to the very core of everything that I am, through the lenses of science, sociology, psychology - name it. God in fact encourages questioning. Challenging God has only ever brought me to a greater understanding of his character.

 

[niky]

The Jews were originally God's chosen people, yes. But I would only agree to the fact that your statement addresses God's plan, as laid out in the bible, for Jesus to destroy the temple, and all false gods.

Without Judaeism, Christianity would not exist. Or, if it did, it would not be called so, and God would not be thus named and its conventions would be drastically different.

No, it's intention wasn't, hence the use of the emoticon. It was a one-line response made in a snide tone to suggest the only reason that it was found in Christian teachings was because it was 'borrowed' from stories in other religions.

It's a Jewish myth, borrowed from other traditions. The question here is whether the Bible is a monolithic and infallible source of history.

Those are nice facts to pick and choose from, yet they don't actually suggest or prove anything about the spiritual validity of Christianity. Despite the historical atrocities committed in the name of Christ, people have been free to choose to leave Christianity if the do not find it valid for thousands of years, and it is still as prominent as we find it today. (Awaits your comments regarding the psychological/sociological theories behind this.)

Free to leave on pain of eternal damnation? Our Cathplic priests love to tell us how all Protestants are going to hell. But, on a serious, non-sarcastic note, many of those atrocities point to the systematic coercion and persecution of Jews, Muslims and other non-believers.

This is not to say that there are no compelling reasons to chose Christianity over the alternatives. The basic tenets of brotherhood, forgiveness and salvation make Christianity and its various sects popular for formerly non-religious or animistic populations. Again, though, I don't know what this proves since many also convert to Islam or Buddhism.

I honestly don't believe that you really consider physical evidence of a living God to be something that can exist. And the problem lies in the fact that I could tell you several things that have the result of physical evidence, yet the spiritual source again cannot be confirmed by the same means, so you'll just write it off because that's what you are looking to do.

Would I be happy with evidence like an Angel appearing in the sky wearing a silvery cloak and carrying a flaming sword? Yes, I would.

Like you say, I consider that physical evidence for God cannot exist, not for reasons of there not being a God, but simply because what lies beyond the physical reality is unknowable. But if you claim at physical evidence exists, you must prove it.

We are all free to do so. How you exercise that freedom counts for a lot.

I feel like you are accusing me of such a thing, when in fact I have questioned my beliefs to the very core of everything that I am, through the lenses of science, sociology, psychology - name it. God in fact encourages questioning. Challenging God has only ever brought me to a greater understanding of his character.

If we both challenge and arrive at different interpretations, then so be it. I do not make accusations against you, personally, but I have seen how religion can be perverted to evil ends. Hell, the entire history of humanity is testament to that. Part of the spread of Christianity is due to its use as a tool of Imperial Colonialism. Conquest by the Cross and Sword, as they would say in our country. (And this is coming from a half-American)

I don't see religion as inherently evil, but I do recognize that our source of religion is man. men who may say they were inspired by God, or men who say they were followers of a living God, but still men.

And men are fallible and imperfect. To view what we believe to be perfection through the imperfect glass of others would be to merely distort our own views.

Thus I can accept the message of brotherhood and love, because that is just and right. But I cannot accept the idea that my fellow men are any less my fellows because of which God they pray to, or that those who are most Christlike in their ways are damned to eternal damnation simply because of the same. And the supremacy of belief over the merit of good works is a central tenet of Christian doctrine.

 

[El]

When people burnt young women in the 1500s it was because they thought they were witches waiting to kill their children. When people were tortured for adultery it was because people thought this was the only way to save their families from eternal damnation. And when crusaders massacred muslim children it was becuase they thought it was the only thing that could save the human race.

These were evil actions, though not out of evil motivs and motivations. They really believed these things and for them it seemed rational and the best thing to do, not only for themselves but for everyone. These acts were not driven by evil, but good and in this making them the problem of good, not evil.

That is the most frightening thing about religion; It blurs the line between good and evil and make irrational actions seem rational, quite simply because its not based on anything real. Religion is a tool that lost its purpose a long time ago, long before christianity and Islam, and people seem to finally start to let it go away.

 

[Sach]

These were evil actions, though not out of evil motivs and motivations.They really believed these things and for them it seemed rational and the best thing to do, not only for themselves but for everyone. These acts were not driven by evil, but good and in this making them the problem of good, not evil.

I disagree. There is nothing in biblical text suggesting that such a thing is right or encouraged.

That is the most frightening thing about religion; It blurs the line between good and evil and make irrational actions seem rational, quite simply because its not based on anything real. Religion is a tool that lost its purpose a long time ago, long before christianity and Islam, and people seem to finally start to let it go away.

This does occur with religion. But it's no different than saying, "This is the most frightening thing about human beings, they blur the line between good and evil, and commit heinous acts, etc., we should do away with ALL of them". Just because some atrocious acts are carried out in the name of religion does not mean that the pursuit of religious beliefs is inherently of that same nature.

 

[Encyclopedia]

First, I'd like to thank you for taking time writing such a big reply.

The first Christian church revolutionized the world, because what they were teaching and preaching were truths shared by every human being, and those who received their message were convicted in their hearts and returned to a relationship with God. The irrefutable evidence that I have experienced has been shared by millions of Christians. I am not special in this regard, and the fact that it is true for many on an individual basis has not changed the world in that particular way for thousands of years. I don't expect my personal experiences to do so either. The only thing that will change people is conviction and an acknowledgment of the truth in their own hearts. That doesn't happen the same way for everyone, and I don't pretend to be special. I am anything but.

For evidence to be irrefutible, you have to be able to prove it to another person. Personal experiences can never be proven to anyone else.

If I see something, regardless of how sure I am that I saw it, does not make it irrefutible, I have to be able to prove it to others. You can't do that with personal experiences. A personal experience can only be evidence for the person who experiences it. And it doesn't matter if the are millions of people having it. Unless they can prove it to someone else, which is impossible with a personal experience, it's not irrefutible evidence.

Your troubledness is of no surprise. I saw these things coming, which is why I said that since the discussion started to shift more toward spiritual matters we would begin to see our differences more clearly. In one sense, "fanatical" is an inappropriate wording. Like I said, I do not evangelize, I don't even mention God most of the time. But in certain situations with other people I will also not deny the truth of my life, and in another sense I am zealously in awe of who God is, and what he has already done in my life.

Fanatical might have been a bit strong, so I apologize. But I stand by my belief that being too sure is a bad sign. One must always be open to being wrong, regardless of how convinced one is. Your wording makes it seem like you've closed the door on the possibility of being wrong.

To you, perhaps. It depends on who you are talking to. I find many of the responses here to be likewise fanatical, arrogant, and of cynical and semi-hostile nature, despite that they are being presumptuously professed by people possessing only half of the information. You will often observe these bold individuals poorly representing themselves and the great intellectual accomplishments of mankind through one-liner insults hurled at theists.

It was never my intent to be insulting, I only meant that the way you worded things made it seem like you were being closeminded and fanatic. Not that you actualy were.

Arrogant responses are never good, regardless of where they come from. Although when you say "by people possessing only half the information" you're the one who come of as arrogant. Believing you possess "the truth" is arrogant.

I think that many internet discussions such as these simply don't involve believers who actually have a background in biblical study, or a history of asking confrontational questions of themselves concerning their faith. I was very privileged to find myself within that kind of questioning-environment for several years, although I still certainly don't understand everything. Unfortunately believers will often say, "God is true, the bible is true...", and just leave everything at that. If those statements are true, then why would we not be diligently seeking to test and prove their validity as often as possible, to gain understanding and a stronger fellowship with the father God?

You are probably right about that, and unfortunately it seems like they are the majority both on the internet and in the real world. I also think it's them that people are bothered by. Not people like you who take their time to explain your belief.

I will also admit to not doing so to the degree that I could. But when you call a person a close-minded fanatic because they believe in God, you have to consider that if what they are saying is true, and if they do have a relationship with the creator of the universe, if they do have an understanding of some of that creator's plan for our lives, and if they do in fact possess an undeniable renewing of their spiritual fellowship with that being, then you would also expect them to be as they are.

Like I said it was only what you seemed like by your wording. In fact I retract that statement. But I think you should've worded it better, like I should've done with my closeminded fanatic comment.

As for the second part, the emphasis is on the if. But the same goes for all religions. It still is not a case for. Being sure about something is not the same thing as being right. So I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

That's getting back to my original point in this whole thing... Dismissing the spiritual validity of God simply because it is something you can only attest to with a means outside of the proven and repeatable scientific realm, is a mistake. I am quite aware of how many religions, superstitions, and eccentric beliefs exist in this world, and also how obnoxious it seems to claim that you might have a connection to the one true God. I know all of that, and that is again what made Jesus different in claiming he was/is the son of the only God. It's also what was different about the twelve disciples who started the first church and went preaching this very thing to places where people worshiped a multitude of their own devised gods, where they worshiped the pleasures of the flesh, or their own wealth and power, etc. They did this exact thing, more evangelically than I ever have, and they changed the world forever despite the strength of man's desire to have his own way, because along with their preaching was/is the one spirit of truth that also exists, and which has convicted the hearts of millions of believers ever since the coming of Christ concerning the validity of their faith.

I dissagree on this. I believe it's a mistake to use that as an argument for the existance of a god. Which you seem to be doing. Emotions and personal experiences can be incredibly unreliable, hence why there's no room for them in science. The way I see it, science is the only way we can get closest to the truth of things. Note that I wrote closest, because I believe it may be impossible to reach the absolute truth, or there might very well not be an absolute truth.

Also, I'm not denying that christian faith has changed thw world (a long with many other things. Christianity is by no mean unique here), but that still doesn't prove that god exists, outside of being a concept of the human mind.

Again, Christianity is not an intellectual write off or easy way out. It is an active and participatory involvement with God's presence in a person's life. Jesus did not claim to be of a scientific nature, and nor has God ever done so. The way to test the validity of his existence is not through a scientific means. He did not discuss scientific matters, he discussed spiritual matters of the heart, the intentionality of man's desires, and seeking to understand the mysteries of God through one's spirit. The only way to do those things is to get past the wall of scientific observation you set up for yourself and leave room for God to be God. That is only logical, if you look objectively and scientifically at how a faith in God would work.

But unfortuantely, that's the way it is often is used. Because it can very easily be used in that way.

And that Jesus didn't claim to be of a scientific nature means nothing. What does that even mean by the way? You seem to have an odd understanding of what science is.

Spirituality can be explained through natural mean anyway, and is only called supernatural through lack of understanding.

I hope I've expressed myself in an understandable way, and understood your post. English is not my first language so it's not strange if there's missunderstandings.
Merry christmas by the way.

 

[BobK]

Those are nice facts to pick and choose from, yet they don't actually suggest or prove anything about the spiritual validity of Christianity. Despite the historical atrocities committed in the name of Christ, people have been free to choose to leave Christianity if the do not find it valid for thousands of years, and it is still as prominent as we find it today.

Free to leave in the past 150 years or so, yes. Prior to that leaving the church meant at the very least becoming a social outcast, sometimes the forfeiture of all property, and even torture and death.

You're not free to leave a religion that practices conversion by the sword.

 

[Sach]

Without Judaeism, Christianity would not exist. Or, if it did, it would not be called so, and God would not be thus named and its conventions would be drastically different.

We have a different viewpoint on this, that is all that can be said. You view Judaeism as man's creation, and then Christianity a logical response by man concerning Jesus, etc. I view Judaeism as what was created by God's chosen people who went their own way. It's not that I can't see your perspective, I just don't believe that it is the correct one, much as you would say to me.

Free to leave on pain of eternal damnation? Our Cathplic priests love to tell us how all Protestants are going to hell. But, on a serious, non-sarcastic note, many of those atrocities point to the systematic coercion and persecution of Jews, Muslims and other non-believers.

While it is true that some Christian groups use scare tactics, I have never personally had anyone attempt to scare me into believing. I came to belief based on the laws that I believed were already written on my heart, ones that I had already felt conviction about, and I compared them to Jesus's teachings, finding those teachings to be trustworthy. That was my start, one very small part of it. And I will never be surprised to hear people talk of the many atrocities committed in the name of Christ because he said they would occur, and to be weary of following every person that might come along claiming to do things in his name.


You may be surprised to know that I am highly skeptical of churches, preachers, and religious groups, etc. I am not interested in people who are looking to follow their own purposes rather than the purposes of God, and I often have a hard time finding groups of believers that I feel are being truly convicted of their ways and who are attempting to live out Christ's teachings.

Would I be happy with evidence like an Angel appearing in the sky wearing a silvery cloak and carrying a flaming sword? Yes, I would.

"Yes, you would..." if you saw those things with your own eyes?

But what if I told you that I had an experience with something, felt the presence of something, saw it (though it appeared to be almost transparent), when I was not even remotely looking for such a thing, and that my wife was standing right beside me and I asked her if she saw this thing, and she confirmed it, and when the thing descended upon us I could only say to her that I felt like God was in the room with us, her confirming that exact feeling, and I suddenly felt a very warm sensation all through my body as very warm tears also streamed down my face, though I was not sad in the slightest or 'emotionally crying', and that when I looked over at my wife's face she was doing the same thing, with an expression of joy that I have never seen on anyone's face before? Would that count for anything? What if I also said that even in my darkest periods of doubt that I have tried to deny the experience and my wife refuses to?

But if you claim at physical evidence exists, you must prove it.

There was a couple in our church who were unable to conceive. They eventually gave up on trying and were in their mid-50's when the husband heard God's voice in his dreams telling him to try again to conceive, because He had three children planned for them. What if I told you that this was actually very upsetting for the couple since it was very difficult for them to go through so many years having given up, but that when they tried again the wife was able to conceive three years in a row, and they now have these three kids as physical evidence and validity? But see, you will write it off, because now it comes down to this person's word, not scientific evidence, although you could consult their doctors concerning this matter.

 

[TankAss95]

@ Sach_F1:
Here is a video I have posted multiple times in this thread already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Assuming you have yet to watch it, I find you would enjoy it. God bless you. 👍

 

[Exorcet]

I'm a bit late replying to this, and I've not read the latest posts

The first Christian church revolutionized the world, because what they were teaching and preaching were truths shared by every human being, and those who received their message were convicted in their hearts and returned to a relationship with God...

Firstly, your conviction over spiritual matters is strange seeing that you're so convinced of something that operates outside of logic. Spiritual things, or whatever you want to call them are most likely man made. The "evidence" is probably man made as well. Though you come off as being very convinced so I'm not sure if I want to go deeper into that argument right now.

What I really want to say is that you give Christianity way too much credit. If we were to make a list of the "big things" in human history, I'd say that nothing compares to going from hunter-gatherers to settler and the enlightenment/industrial revolution. Nothing comes close to those things in terms of importance, including every religious event I can think of.

Christianity was no doubt influential. Hugely influential. Not because it contained any truth, but because it caused so many people to do so many things. Just like paganism, mercantilism, imperialism, the Cold War, etc. It was/is a movement or a widespread state of mind. It caused many things, not all of them good, not all of them bad. But ultimately it's something that could just be forgotten.

This is not true of neolithic revolution or industrial revolution. In fact without the former, we would not have the books that holy writings are found in. It was the source of human progress. Without the latter progress would be going 1 tenth as fast as it is now.

Just because a lot of people believe something and are convinced of it does not make it true. Modern Christians are no different from ancient members of other religions. They did not just believe, they "knew". The same way people knew that the Earth was flat or at the center of the universe. You can't just brush it off as something that operates outside of logic/reason/science, because even if that were the case, it was just leave humans completely unable to access it at all.

I think someone in this thread or the CvE thread said that people are three part beings like God is three parts in the trinity. He/She said people are mind, body, and spirit. Yet there is no evidence that spirit exists, and the mind and body are a single entity that cannot be separated. It's just a cliche expression that has been passed down for years. Unfortunately people cling to things like this.

 

[nitrorocks]

So I'm guessing you guys don't believe that Christmas Is the birth of Christ?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well written, Exorcet.

So I'm guessing you guys don't believe that Christmas Is the birth of Christ?

It might be the birthday of Jesus. I don't know. What's clear though is that christmas isn't strictly christian. Nowdays it's more about presents, and before christianity people used to celebrate the winter soltice. So you could say that christianity "hi-jacked" the holiday.

Also santa hasn't really got anything to do with christ. Sure he's Saint Nickolaus, but his appearance has got it's root in folklore. So christmas is a mix of a lot of things.

 

[homeforsummer]

Not to mention the pagan roots of the festival we all celebrate at this time of year. Always wondered why Christmas is on the 25th every year, but Easter is an arbitrary Sunday some time in Spring. If Jesus was born on a set date, like the 25th, why is his death not celebrated on a set date too? Alternatively, if the Friday/Sunday/Monday of Easter is an important aspect, why no set day of the week some time in Winter for Christmas?

 

[Owen.C93]

I think the bible said Jesus was born in September ish. Or rather implied that.

 

[Sach]

@ Sach_F1:
Here is a video I have posted multiple times in this thread already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Assuming you have yet to watch it, I find you would enjoy it. God bless you. 👍

Indeed. Thanks, Tank. Amazing how many things I've said that they refer to there.

 

[TankAss95]

So I'm guessing you guys don't believe that Christmas Is the birth of Christ?

I think the bible said Jesus was born in September ish. Or rather implied that.

Yeah I don't think Jesus was actually born on the 25th of December.