Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

This is a common and unjustified criticism leveled at science all the time, but the folks who use this concept to attack the value of science rarely turn the same concept upon their own religious beliefs. So let me ask you this - if man is so fallible, what makes any man's understanding of 'God's word' so perfect? If you accept that man is fallible, prone to error, and doomed to never understand certain things, then you should also accept that man cannot fully understand religious texts either, and therefore no religious text could ever be considered 'gospel truth', since the veracity of that truth is tainted by man's own fallibility in understanding it.

Good question. In my experience, his word is powerful enough to overcome the entrenched operatives of the carnal intellect and its fallibilities. In other words it will blow your mind to consider the realities of these things.

Whereas scientific realities are independently true regardless of how well they are understood by anyone, religious texts are regarded by believers to be absolutely true, even when they are inconsistent with other texts (hence different religions) or even inconsistent with themselves (hence different sects within religions). Man may indeed be fallible, but as such, no man can claim to perfectly understand the word of God. On the other hand, the scientific method provides an independent tool, based on the principles of logic and testing, that allows fallible men to stand corrected...

True. In my experience the word of GOD goes even further and deeper, particularly in reguard to correction.

I didn't get into this earlier, but as Famine and Duke pointed out, even with the fallibilities, it doesn't mean man is totally incapable of arriving at a truthful conclusion. The point being, even in light of the fallibilities they still consider the Scientific approach worthy of credibility as do I. My problem is when you reverse the concept and apply it to religion it is immediately discounted as unworthy, impossible, not "data' and total conjecture. To me a living, walking repeatable example, is as noteworthy an experiment, as any other.

 

[Danoff]

My problem is when you reverse the concept and apply it to religion it is immediately discounted as unworthy, impossible, not "data' and total conjecture.

You're not understanding what constitutes scientific data.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's not helpful to me. I interpret this as a continued attempt to extract information from emotion.

Thats because the carnal intellect has no capacity to understand it. For the same reason, it was years before I could understand it as well. It can only place it under emotion, fairy tale, or a false projection.The reason is we are trained and operate(most men)for years in the reliance of intellect and focus accordingly. When you are presented with this concept it is all you have to evaluate with. Hence there is no explainable reference to apply to these things. Skepticism and/or cynicism ensue as evidenced on this very thread. Even after that subsided with me, I still approached it from a reference of intellectual capacity. Eventually I came to understand that the intellect is secondary due to its limited abilities. The main capacity is by and through the Holy Spirit dimension, which in turn enlightens and retrains the intellectual dimension. I know this all sounds out there, but I said it will blow your mind. I don't know a better way to explain it.

 

[Danoff]

Thats because the carnal intellect has no capacity to understand it.

There is no other intellect - just say intellect has no capacity to understand it. And you're correct, you cannot use intellect to evaluate something inherently irrational.

Eventually I came to understand that the intellect is secondary due to its limited abilities. The main capacity is by and through the Holy Spirit dimension, which in turn enlightens and retrains the intellectual dimension.

So you're telling me that your connection with God operates on a sort of 6th sense that I have no context of - so you're trying to explain to a person who has been blind all his life what it is like to see. A spiritual sense, of sorts.

Can you give me ANY frame of reference in which I might have experienced this 6th sense?

 

[orimarc]

it will blow your mind.

That's before or after you "understand" it? Because I find very hard to understand something without, you know, a head...

 

[Skynyrd1977]

It's interesting that you say this, but then prove Duke's point absolutely correct:

...so my words are proof?

Then why are there so many different flavors of Christianity, many of which are mutually exclusive, and some of which harbor bitter animosity against each other?

Different flavors are not a bad thing, if the central core beliefs I mentioned are held. They differ in the not-so-important gray areas, but all agree on the black-and-white matter of who Jesus is, and what He did for us. Everyone is different in styles and preferences.

If Christianity can't be improved upon, why did English Christians fight a bloody civil war over religion? Why did they burn each other at the stake? More recently, why did Irish Catholics and Protestants - both Christian sects - spend much of the 20th century shooting and blowing each other up?

Looks like there's room for improvement there. And that's just within Christianity.

You are confusing the "practice" of Christianity, or lack of, a human factor. Yes, this will always need improvement, but in all people, believer or non-believer.

But I read the Bible and tested God to see if he would appear and he did not. The results were not independently repeatable.

There is only one area where God says you can test him (being the Creator of all things, He makes the rules): Malachi 3:10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

I can testify on this one. Could this not be considered proof?

I invited him to infuse my spirit and demonstrate his existence. The proverbial "give me a sign, O Lord". I prayed that He would guide me and help me through a time of personal trouble. Nothing happened and the situation continued to deteriorate until I realized that I needed to make any required changes for myself if I expected anything to be different.

I suppose you can always say "you were doing it wrong" but it sure seemed like I followed the published procedure, and I was not able to repeat the results.

Even as a beliver, I have prayed many times to no avail. Sometimes His answer is just no. Sometimes the situations we pray to have removed are meant specifically to build us up with a stronger character. And sometimes they are answered.

I think God will NEVER ALLOW Himself to be scientifically proved. Why should He? Consider for a very brief moment that if He is the Creator of the earth, the stars, you, me, all life, the universe, science, everything you can think of, all powerful, all knowing, why should He be required to appear as if a Jeanie being summoned from a bottle by us, especially if we are hard hearted, non-believing, selfish humans, that He created? AND, He proves Himself anyway and we STILL continue to not believe.

Consider these questions raised by Matt Slick:

1.I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.
A.That does not mean there is no God.

i.Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

a.Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

a.If it is possible, then faith has its place.
b.If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
​

B.It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

i.But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.

a.Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
​

C.Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?

i.If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God.
ii.If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
​

D.Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

i.Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example:

a.Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?

a.Even if that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?
​

b.How would you know?
​

ii.Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?

a.Do you want Him to make square circles or some other self-contradictory phenomena, or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?
b.If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because He would violate His own nature -- which He cannot do.
​

E.Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?

i.Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
ii.But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?

a.If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.

a.Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.

a.If so, then God becomes unknowable to you, and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.
​

b.Do you define the miraculous out of existence?

a.If so, on what basis do you do this?
​

iii.If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.

a.If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.
​

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There is no other intellect - just say intellect has no capacity to understand it. And you're correct, you cannot use intellect to evaluate something inherently irrational.

To a point you can, but eventually you have to be willing to make a concession and submit the limited capacity of your intellect under his.
Thats not to say you are to abandon all understanding, and go hog wild into total foolishness either. Some people do that under the initial intoxicating influence of the spirit before being well grounded in it and end up in trouble.

So you're telling me that your connection with God operates on a sort of 6th sense that I have no context of - so you're trying to explain to a person who has been blind all his life what it is like to see. A spiritual sense, of sorts.

Thats exactly what I'm telling you.
It is a real actual additional dimension that is added to the ones you already have.

Can you give me ANY frame of reference in which I might have experienced this 6th sense?

Nope. Unless you have been born again.
That is only one way to get it that I know of. And its independently repeatable. However the experience as we have previously discussed, is not initially exactly the same for everyone, with reguard to intensity, deliverance, capacity, understanding, insight, direction, etc. It can vary from person to person.

 

[Danoff]

Nope. Unless you have been born again.
That is only one way to get it that I know of.

So I have to subvert my intellect and believe something which I have no basis for believing - and then I will gain the insight necessary to justify my belief.

Yea, that sounds like every description of faith I've ever heard. If you could prove to me that the "spiritual realm" exists, or even just provide some significant evidence, maybe I could manage it.

The fact that you can't give me any other way to experience this entire dimension of existence that you speak of doesn't really help. It seems like it exists solely for the purpose of communicating with God (and presumably the devil) - which doesn't make much sense to me.

Edit: I still expect that you're interpreting an emotional response as the "spiritual realm".

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Seems some are still just set they are NOT going to believe in God no matter what. After reading Skynards post it sounds like some in this thread,no matter what evidence was before you it would be rejected. So you have made your decision...Enjoy, remember it was YOUR choice not Gods.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Seems some are still just set they are NOT going to believe in God no matter what.

Correct. Something would have to happen that can not possibly be explained without there being a god/God/gods.

 

[Famine]

After reading Skynards post it sounds like some in this thread,no matter what evidence was before you it would be rejected.

That's because Skynyrd's post is full of logic fallacies and misunderstandings.

For a laugh, substitute the word "God" in his italicised list with the word "Allah". Or "Zeus". Or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn". Congratulations - you've just used a checklist to demonstrate you must believe in all putative deities.

 

[Touring Mars]

Consider these questions raised by Matt Slick:

1.I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.

A.That does not mean there is no God.

i.Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

a.Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

a.If it is possible, then faith has its place.
b.If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
​

B.It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

i.But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.

a.Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. ​

This logic is exactly the opposite of how science works - he is coming from the angle of "just because there is no evidence, it doesn't mean that there never will be", while conveniently neglecting to mention "but of all the evidence we do have, not one bit points to an intelligent creator". Science works the opposite way to this logic - it looks at the evidence we do have, and constructs a "theory" based upon that evidence. Theories are 'best explanations based on current evidence' and are continually being refined to accommodate new evidence as and when it is discovered. Rewording the bolded sentence with this approach in mind, it would read "There is currently no evidence that God exists. Science does not preclude the possibility that evidence may be found at a later date, but at the present time, atheism is entirely consistent with all known scientific evidence and theory."

 

[DaddyVDUB]

And that was exactly my point. No matter what is said the response is always the same,there is no point in the discussion. Good Day.

 

[Famine]

Not at all. I'll happily say that God exists. Or ghosts exist. Or that people have psychic powers.

Just give me some scientifically valid evidence and I'll be at the front of the queue. Possibly behind James Randi with his chequebook in the lattermost case.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So I have to subvert my intellect and believe something which I have no basis for believing - and then I will gain the insight necessary to justify my belief.

I didn't say subvert, I said submit. Once you submit, he will show you what areas may need to be subverted.
If you have no basis for believing as of yet, then possibly you should do more research into the subject. In my case I had to continue the examination until my intellect could believe there was a real or factual truth to it.
In earlier posts, I liken this whole process to that of marriage. It involves all aspects of your being and the decisionary struggle between them. This choice is ultimately made in the same way.

So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself).
Romans 10:16-18 (in Context)

Yea, that sounds like every description of faith I've ever heard. If you could prove to me that the "spiritual realm" exists, or even just provide some significant evidence, maybe I could manage it.

I'm giving you all the proof I have, which is the personal reality of it. Countless others will tell you the same thing. Since it is relational, as with any other relationship, it can only be relayed personally.

The fact that you can't give me any other way to experience this entire dimension of existence that you speak of doesn't really help. It seems like it exists solely for the purpose of communicating with God (and presumably the devil) - which doesn't make much sense to me.

It exsists solely for the purpose of restoring us back into a relationship with GOD and yes, the Holy Spirit is the enabling communication device.
Its what he(GOD) wants. Its why we were created and it is to our benefit as well. However just as marriage, its up to you to choose him as well, and like marriage it won't work any other way.

The devil can communicate with us already just fine.

Edit: I still expect that you're interpreting an emotional response as the "spiritual realm".

Like I said, how else are you going to categorize it, other than its real.
I think I said this earlier, that some people approach and embrace it more on a emotional basis, however once its embraced the reality is the same.

In some ways I don't understand this total block to the possibilities of this subject. In all actuality, the reality of our lives is one of faith on a constant basis. The mind has to be overidden by shear belief almost all the time to function in any normal or productive capacity. At a minimum it is conditioned by belief to cooperate on a favorable odds basis. How do you reconcile this operative reality with the stringent requirement of physical proof to believe or do anything? Besides that, what have you got to lose. In reality its a everything to gain(if what he says is true and it is)and really nothing to lose situation.
Even if it wasn't true, I don't know if you would be any worse off.

 

[Duke]

Pako, you're one of my more favorite religious people to talk to about religion. You do it with an unusual clarity, and I appreciate that.

^^^^ What he said 👍

Sorry to hear that. I won't begin to guess the situation or where you were at spiritually.

It was really just a sort of "perfect storm" in my personal life - lots of bad things lining up right at the same time. Nothing others have not also been through.

I know for myself, I have been in situations of dire desperation....asking God to "fix" what ever situation I was in. Although things didn't go the way I thought they should be fixed, I have hindsight now that I can clearly see I am much better off the way things are now than if they went the way I wanted them to.

I can understand the fallacy of asking for a specific "fix" as well, and I wasn't even looking for that. I was looking for the emotional support and encouragement that is commonly ascribed to giving yourself over to faith. It didn't appear until I decided that if it was going to get better I had to fix what I could myself and come to terms with what I couldn't.

Of course I cannot prove that this decision was not just another of God's "mysterious ways", but of course I can't prove it wasn't the touch of His Noodly Appendage either. But I have no reason to suspect it was anything other than my own intellect getting back on top of my emotions where it belongs.

If I backup a few posts to when I asked if the study of human behavior was a science, I asked this because human behavior can be very unpredictable.

I would consider the study of human behaviour as a "soft" science - you can approach it with scientific principles, but as you say it is not always measurable with instruments.

Well there you have it. You didn't follow his directions on how to conduct the experiment, no wonder you didn't get the repeatable result. He didn't say anything about appearing to you. He said I will send you a comforter, helper, and teacher, who will guide you into all truth. That is the independently repeatable result of which I speak.

Yet He didn't send me anything. I did not expect God to appear in a blaze of His glory and solve my sordid little problems, nor did I say that I did. I asked for a sign that he was listening and some small gesture of support and direction. None appeared - no comfort, help, or teaching. Working my way out of the situation was the result of my own thinking, initiative, and effort. That is flawed indeed, but I can take credit for all of it.

That is precisely, what we are claiming as living walking proof, along with countless millions of others from around the Globe.

"Claiming" being the operative word here.

Good question. In my experience, his word is powerful enough to overcome the entrenched operatives of the carnal intellect and its fallibilities. In other words it will blow your mind to consider the realities of these things.

...but only after you consider them to be realities.

My problem is when you reverse the concept and apply it to religion it is immediately discounted as unworthy, impossible, not "data' and total conjecture. To me a living, walking repeatable example, is as noteworthy an experiment, as any other.

But it's not repeatable and verifiable. Large numbers of people have convinced themselves of some remarkable things over the course of history. That doesn't make those things universally true.

The thing about evangelists is that it's always the humans that let God down, never vice versa. It's like people who say "communism is the perfect system if only everyone participates the right way". They don't consider that it is a very wrong system and it's not the people who lack faith who are failing.

I can testify on this one. Could this not be considered proof?

No, because it is simply a claim. Anyone can claim anything, but as stated above, correlation is not causation. It's really, no matter how fundamentally you feel it, nothing more than your horoscope happening to be correct. Did the planets align just so and cast good fortune on me? Or did God? How can you show either is true?

Even as a beliver, I have prayed many times to no avail. Sometimes His answer is just no. Sometimes the situations we pray to have removed are meant specifically to build us up with a stronger character. And sometimes they are answered.

So even faith doesn't offer predictability and repeatability. You pray every time and sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you just get what you can accept, and sometimes you get nuthin'. With no offense intended, that sounds a lot like the people who fervently believed that you could get the prize car you wanted in GT3 by pressing the X button as the prize wheel was spinning. When they got the car they wanted it was incontrovertible proof that the system worked, and when it didn't, it only meant they didn't get the timing right.

They just never seemed to consider that there was no system.

I think God will NEVER ALLOW Himself to be scientifically proved. Why should He? Consider for a very brief moment that if He is the Creator of the earth, the stars, you, me, all life, the universe, science, everything you can think of, all powerful, all knowing, why should He be required to appear as if a Jeanie being summoned from a bottle by us, especially if we are hard hearted, non-believing, selfish humans, that He created?

Because he's the one who expects/wants to be believed in. If he wants to claim he exists, the burden of proof is on him as the claimant, not us as the claimees.

Imagine if you were automatically accused of every crime and had to prove that you didn't do it... it just doesn't work that way. If someone makes an assertion (and I don't care who is asserting it) it is up to that person to prove the claim, not everyone who hears it.

AND, He proves Himself anyway and we STILL continue to not believe.

How? What single thing in the history of the universe can absolutely and unequivocably be shown to demonstrate the existence of God?

Consider these questions raised by Matt Slick:

1.I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.
A.That does not mean there is no God.

i.Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

a.Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

a.If it is possible, then faith has its place.
b.If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.) ​

We've been through this entire thing many times. We've stipulated that it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist. We've also shown that it is also impossible to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Cthulu (among infinite other mythical beings) don't exist.

None of that is a compelling reason to believe they DO exist. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Technically it is true I am an agnostic in the strictest sense of the word, but in popular usage that implies that I believe it is likely a god exists, just that I am unsure of in what form. Since I think it extremely unlikely that a god exists in any form (while logically it is still possible that he/she/it does), I call myself an atheist.

I didn't say subvert, I said submit. Once you submit, he will show you what areas may need to be subverted.
If you have no basis for believing as of yet, then possibly you should do more research into the subject. In my case I had to continue the examination until my intellect could believe there was a real or factual truth to it.

In order to do the kind of "research" you mean, I would need to subvert my intellect. I would have to tell it to ignore all the rules, theories, and observations that make logical sense, in order to pursue an unseen, unknown, and quite probably non-existent goal.

I'm giving you all the proof I have, which is the personal reality of it. Countless others will tell you the same thing. Since it is relational, as with any other relationship, it can only be relayed personally.

Which, unfortunately, means it is not proof no matter how earnestly you believe it.

It exsists solely for the purpose of restoring us back into a relationship with GOD and yes, the Holy Spirit is the enabling communication device. Its what he(GOD) wants. Its why we were created...

According to your interpretation of your book. I've got other books (and other interpretations of the same book) that disagree. Prove them wrong.

...and it is to our benefit as well.

Prove it. Prove that I will be damned if I don't believe.

In some ways I don't understand this total block to the possibilities of this subject.

Because it is an open door to the infinite, and not in a good way. Once you subvert the reasoning powers of your mind, it is then logically incapable of making valid analytical comparisons. No matter how much you wish to deny it, the issue comes down to feelings. You feel God is real to you, but every single point comes back to that being the only proof you have.

In all actuality, the reality of our lives is one of faith on a constant basis. The mind has to be overidden by shear belief almost all the time to function in any normal or productive capacity.

Predictability != faith.

At a minimum it is conditioned by belief to cooperate on a favorable odds basis. How do you reconcile this operative reality with the stringent requirement of physical proof to believe or do anything?

Because once something has been repeatably demonstrated to be true (tomorrow the sun will rise in the east, this road leads from my house to work, there's a desk at work with my name on it, if I go there every day for a week they will pay me) it no longer needs to be proven each and every time in order for me to act on the prediction that it will remain true until further notice.

Besides that, what have you got to lose. In reality its a everything to gain(if what he says is true and it is)and really nothing to lose situation.
Even if it wasn't true, I don't know if you would be any worse off.

I would be worse off because I would be living my life in thrall to an invisible and probably nonexistent Being, and in purposeful denial of real existence here on Earth, by sheer force of suppressing my own intellect - all in pursuit of a probably imaginary goal that someone else has set for me.

That's how I would be worse off. Frankly, and with no offense intended, that sounds like Hell to me.​

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I see you've been a busy man here.

It was really just a sort of "perfect storm" in my personal life - lots of bad things lining up right at the same time. Nothing others have not also been through.

Just curious how it turned out and also how you are so sure he didn't help you in some way.

Yet He didn't send me anything. I did not expect God to appear in a blaze of His glory and solve my sordid little problems, nor did I say that I did. I asked for a sign that he was listening and some small gesture of support and direction. None appeared - no comfort, help, or teaching. Working my way out of the situation was the result of my own thinking, initiative, and effort. That is flawed indeed, but I can take credit for all of it.

You know for being such a Scientific fellow you puzzle me as to how you expect to get the independently repeatable result when you don't follow the
instructions.

But it's not repeatable and verifiable. Large numbers of people have convinced themselves of some remarkable things over the course of history. That doesn't make those things universally true.

It is repeatable and verifiable but only on an individual basis.
I agree on the rest. Although it certainly doesn't indicate something is untrue.

The thing about evangelists is that it's always the humans that let God down, never vice versa. It's like people who say "communism is the perfect system if only everyone participates the right way". They don't consider that it is a very wrong system and it's not the people who lack faith who are failing..

As we discussed previously, we do have our fallibilities.

No, because it is simply a claim. Anyone can claim anything, but as stated above, correlation is not causation. It's really, no matter how fundamentally you feel it, nothing more than your horoscope happening to be correct. Did the planets align just so and cast good fortune on me? Or did God? How can you show either is true?

You left out the living walking proof part.

So even faith doesn't offer predictability and repeatability. You pray every time and sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you just get what you can accept, and sometimes you get nuthin'. With no offense intended, that sounds a lot like the people who fervently believed that you could get the prize car you wanted in GT3 by pressing the X button as the prize wheel was spinning. When they got the car they wanted it was incontrovertible proof that the system worked, and when it didn't, it only meant they didn't get the timing right.

Maybe the faith wasn't so good sometimes or you asked amiss.

How? What single thing in the history of the universe can absolutely and unequivocably be shown to demonstrate the existence of God?

Christians?

In order to do the kind of "research" you mean, I would need to subvert my intellect. I would have to tell it to ignore all the rules, theories, and observations that make logical sense, in order to pursue an unseen, unknown, and quite probably non-existent goal.

No you don't, you just have to be objective.

Which, unfortunately, means it is not proof no matter how earnestly you believe it.

No, it just means you don't consider it proof.

According to your interpretation of your book. I've got other books (and other interpretations of the same book) that disagree. Prove them wrong.

I don't need to, but maybe you do?

Prove it. Prove that I will be damned if I don't believe.

I don't need to prove that either, because I didn't say it. You could be in trouble, though, since the one who did, also said, he can not lie and he is always faithful.

All in due time.

Because it is an open door to the infinite, and not in a good way. Once you subvert the reasoning powers of your mind, it is then logically incapable of making valid analytical comparisons. No matter how much you wish to deny it, the issue comes down to feelings. You feel God is real to you, but every single point comes back to that being the only proof you have.

I'll say it again, you don't subvert your reasoning and it is not feelings but if that is what you choose to believe, then by all means do so. However nothing could be further from the Truth.

Predictability != faith.

Because once something has been repeatably demonstrated to be true (tomorrow the sun will rise in the east, this road leads from my house to work, there's a desk at work with my name on it, if I go there every day for a week they will pay me) it no longer needs to be proven each and every time in order for me to act on the prediction that it will remain true until further notice.

Contrar! Contrar! There is no proof of repeatability in any of those things. Well except one, God has said day and night and seasons will remain until the end, so that one won't remain forever but until then its assured.
As for the others, you could have an accident and be maimed, killed, disabled, or end up comatose. You could get to work and the door is padlocked, or you may not get paid, or get fired. You could get robbed, shot, run over, incur a terminal disease, keel over with a massive coronary, who knows what could happen. Aliens may abduct you. With the exception of one, these things happen to people everyday.
While predictability may help bolster your confidence, its not proof. The truth is you choose to believe and continue on in spite of the fact there is absolutely no proof(confirmation) of the outcome today or tommorrow.
While you tried to maneuver around it, you likewise did the same thing when you got married. Your chances were even less on that one, 50/50. Proof Hah! Thats not even decent predictability yet you chose to believe anyway. I bet you have a mortgage too. Your odds were a little better on that one but where was the PROOF you would be able to pay it back.
Your life in reality, like everyone elses is lived out by shear faith, void of proof, less death and taxes. Furthermore your faith is based in what? Pride and predictability. Theres no proof of anything in that.

"there's a desk at work with my name on it"
Oh this one is really rock solid. Your job can be sent to China, India or Mexico tommorrow like millions of others, not to mention another dozen termination possibilities.

"will remain true until further notice"
Where's the proof in that statement?

Ultimately your life is based in faith with no proof of anything.
But yet your going to demand that GOD show you proof, He exsists?

I would be worse off because I would be living my life in thrall to an invisible and probably nonexistent Being, and in purposeful denial of real existence here on Earth, by sheer force of suppressing my own intellect - all in pursuit of a probably imaginary goal that someone else has set for me.
That's how I would be worse off. Frankly, and with no offense intended, that sounds like Hell to me.

How you arrive at that assessment is beyond me, nevertheless........hell is alot worse.

 

[Duke]

I give up. This is pointless.

 

[orimarc]

I give up. This is pointless.

Wrong, I can see the point, points to be exact:

I give up. This is pointless.

 

[Touring Mars]

Your life in reality, like everyone elses is lived out by shear faith, void of proof, less death and taxes.

Faith is not the right word here. You may chose to believe that God determines what lies in store for you tomorrow, I chose not to. The outcome is the same regardless, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Your argument - that you cannot have certainty about anything in the future, therefore you can only have "faith" (and not "proof") about how anything will turn out - is no justification for believing in the supernatural.

I live my life today based on my experiences yesterday and before - I may have no guarantee that tomorrow will bear much resemblance to today, but based on my experiences, I know there is a very good chance. But I also know that there is a chance that it could be very different, for a myriad of real reasons (an asteroid might strike, a megatsunami ensues etc. - although if it happened on a Saturday night in Glasgow, it's debatable if anyone would notice). The key point is that there is no evidence that one's own personal faith in God can or will alter those potential outcomes one bit, or that whatever happens tomorrow will not have a rational explanation.

What you seem to be suggesting is that non-religious people still use faith every day, because they cannot prove that their assumptions will turn out to be correct. But you are confusing "faith" and "reason". If something happens tomorrow, I expect that there will be a rational explanation behind it, not because I have "faith" that this is the case, but because I have good reason to expect this. It has always been the case, not just for me but for everyone else - it requires no "faith" at all. But given that your "proof" of God and his actions is entirely in your own head, I don't see how having "faith" in rationality and reason would be any less credible than that anyway.

what have you got to lose. In reality its a everything to gain(if what he says is true and it is)and really nothing to lose situation. Even if it wasn't true, I don't know if you would be any worse off.

Religious belief is like everything else - OK in moderation, but can be negative when taken to extremes. And complete abstinence won't do you any harm in any case. It is certainly not a "nothing to lose" or an "everything to gain" situation for alot of people.

 

[Lucas]

I give up. This is pointless.

That's the second time I have posted this pic on the forum. And I wanted to post it here. I believe I couldn't have found a better time to do it.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

I have something to say to the LORD: Jeanne Calment (21 February 1875 - 4 August 1997). Age: 122 years, 164 days.


One of the few interesting things I found while reading the Bible a long time ago.

 

[Duke]

"He left them and went out into the city of Bethany, and spent the night there."

I don't get it.

 

[Lucas]

Reverend Lovejoy: Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26. "The foolish man who built his house upon the sand."
Homer: [pointing a finger] And you remember
[thinks]
Homer: Matthew... 21:17.
Reverend Lovejoy: [confused] "And he left them and went out of the city, into Bethany, and he lodged there?"
Homer: Yeah. Think about it.

 

[Duke]

I'm still not getting it, unless it's a pun on the female name "Bethany", I guess.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Tis a pun on the "into Bethany and he lodged there" bit.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Faith is not the right word here. You may chose to believe that God determines what lies in store for you tomorrow, I chose not to. The outcome is the same regardless, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Your argument - that you cannot have certainty about anything in the future, therefore you can only have "faith" (and not "proof") about how anything will turn out - is no justification for believing in the supernatural.

I disagree, the outcome is not necessarily the same. Although for you I understand why you say that.
My point is since in reality one ultimately operates from a position of choice to believe or faith, this being the unavoidable pivot point in life, reguardless of how its wieghed, since there is no proof of outcome, there is no justification for not believing either. Thats the Catch 22. Since we are obviously chosing every day to believe in spite of the fact there is no real proof, is your choice not to believe in GOD a legitimately justifiable one.

I live my life today based on my experiences yesterday and before - I may have no guarantee that tomorrow will bear much resemblance to today, but based on my experiences, I know there is a very good chance. But I also know that there is a chance that it could be very different, for a myriad of real reasons (an asteroid might strike, a megatsunami ensues etc. - although if it happened on a Saturday night in Glasgow, it's debatable if anyone would notice). The key point is that there is no evidence that one's own personal faith in God can or will alter those potential outcomes one bit, or that whatever happens tomorrow will not have a rational explanation.

Again, I disagree. In my examination, I could not deny the amount of evidence to the contrary.

What you seem to be suggesting is that non-religious people still use faith every day, because they cannot prove that their assumptions will turn out to be correct. But you are confusing "faith" and "reason". If something happens tomorrow, I expect that there will be a rational explanation behind it, not because I have "faith" that this is the case, but because I have good reason to expect this. It has always been the case, not just for me but for everyone else - it requires no "faith" at all. But given that your "proof" of God and his actions is entirely in your own head, I don't see how having "faith" in rationality and reason would be any less credible than that anyway.

I think you are the one confusing the two. You are most assuredly operating from faith. It may be miniscule in scope as a result of reinforced repeatable consistency and from mundane routine, it may not be realized as such, but it is nonetheless.
Any expectation can only reside in the realm of belief, since it is yet to be established, even if it is influenced by reasonable reinforcement.
As to your last statement, I don't think it is less credible. But I don't think its a viable excuse either.

Religious belief is like everything else - OK in moderation, but can be negative when taken to extremes.

While it is somewhat difficult to keep this seperate from what I am actually bearing witness to, Religious belief and what I am describing are two different things. For a variety of reasons, many people claim and/or participate in, a Christian Relgious belief system. However the range of actual belief and interperative reasonings for belief can vary greatly, particularly where the Holy Spirit aspect is not emphasized or entreated to a great degree. This is what I have found over the years. In my opinion while belief is still involved, there should be a focus and point of developement in relationship, not religion. This is the key thing that I don't see in other Religions or in much of Christianity for that matter. I now participate in that reality. BTW it does not originate in my mind or emotions. Both can recognize it, because it is connected to them. But just as the mind and emotions are seperate entities, likewise so is the spirit dimension.

And complete abstinence won't do you any harm in any case. It is certainly not a "nothing to lose" or an "everything to gain" situation for alot of people.

Only if the belief in your reasoning turns out to be 100% correct with reguard to the subject. If you are comfortable with temporally and eternally "betting the farm" so to speak on your reasoning, then maybe it isn't. However thats a pretty unnerving bet on something you already know is not foolproof and could be completely false.

 

[Sureboss]

When well people accept that the "Holy Spirit" is just your brain saying, "Ooh, I'm quite content with life now"?

 

[Duke]

If you are comfortable with temporally and eternally "betting the farm" so to speak on your reasoning, then maybe it isn't. However thats a pretty unnerving bet on something you already know is not foolproof and could be completely false.

I'll go with the system that is far less likely to be completely false, and that doesn't require me to throw away my strongest survival tool.

Thanks for the warning, though.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'll go with the systtem that is far less likely to be completely false, and that doesn't require me to throw away my strongest survival tool.

Thanks for the warning, though.

You're welcome.

When well people accept that the "Holy Spirit" is just your brain saying, "Ooh, I'm quite content with life now"?

You actually touch upon a very valid point here.


Trust me, this is worth it even if you didn't get anything else:

2 Timothy 1:
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm still not getting it, unless it's a pun on the female name "Bethany", I guess.

I think the point of it is that it's just a random passage. It has no meaning out of the context of it's surrounding passages - it's not a classic bible soundbite.