Do you believe in God?

[Sureboss]

You're welcome.



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.

All religion is based on fear. So he's got that an ickle bit wrong.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

All religion is based on fear. So he's got that an ickle bit wrong.

That is one reason I attempt to keep a seperation between Religion and actual Christianity.

If your statement is true then how do you reconcile it with the one I just made and this one:

THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, who live [and] walk not after the dictates of the flesh, but after the dictates of the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-3

Then again without the element of the law, what would be the motive for reconciliation.

 

[Touring Mars]

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.

I disagree, the outcome is not necessarily the same.

Without any tangible evidence that can be demonstrated to a skeptical third party or even a single example of a proven incidence of divine intervention to speak of, forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

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.

Can you give a specific example? The idea that the desires/wishes/prayers of a single person (or even a group of people) can be proven to be actually influencing events is highly spurious, if not entirely false. I don’t deny that people may well believe that they are influencing events (that are otherwise beyond their physical control) through the power of their own prayer, but that is a far cry from establishing that they actually are influencing things. What happens when two people pray for two opposite outcomes? The one whose prayer is “answered” will no doubt report a success, but what of the one that wasn’t? In other words, I’m sure prayers are “answered” all the time, but so too are they denied and/or ignored. I suggest that the odds of success for a given individual having their prayers answered favourably are exactly the same as the odds of something happening in their favour anyway, prayer or no prayer. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. The effectiveness (or otherwise) of prayer can be easily tested, but the veracity of the results can only be ensured if the failures/negatives are counted as well.

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.

I’m not sure I entirely follow you here, but here goes anyway. The terms “faith” and “belief” imply a conscious effort – a knowing adherence to a “belief system”. Although I don’t deny that human beings necessarily live by belief systems in many ways, there is also a limit to how far you can fairly apply these terms without distorting their meaning. I do not “believe” that my heart will still be beating in 10 minutes time – for all I know, it may not. Sure, I have “faith” that it will – I made plans for this evening! But this “faith” is based on reasoning, not simply a blind hope (although I do also have this!). But what you seem to be implying is that these behaviours (faith, belief, hope) somehow carry an implicit acceptance of the supernatural, which simply isn’t true. So when you say that I am “most assuredly operating from faith”, I can only accept this as being remotely correct if you define “faith” as “a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome”. Even so, that “faith” is forever constrained by the sure and safe knowledge that one day, my heart will stop beating, however much I hope (or pray) that it won’t. Currently, aged 34 and with no history of heart problems in my family, and despite a slightly unhealthy lifestyle, I have good reason to expect that the probability of my heart still beating in 10 minutes time is extremely high. I also know that the older I get, the more pies I eat, the more beer I drink etc., the chances of this “faith position” (as you may wish to call it) being correct will inevitably diminish.

I don't believe that appealing to a putative supernatural being will change my odds of survival - and I know (i.e. no belief necessary) that unless medical science advances to permit immortality, then one day I will die, and no amount of prayer, hope or faith will change that. There are many inescapable truths in life that no amount of belief can change. Death is one them (and taxes are another, as you rightly point out!)... but I do not believe that one can influence the timing of one's own death any more than one can influence the fact that it will happen eventually.

something you already know is not foolproof and could be completely false.

...which is how I regard the supernatural.

 

[Famine]

What happens when two people pray for two opposite outcomes? The one whose prayer is “answered” will no doubt report a success, but what of the one that wasn’t? In other words, I’m sure prayers are “answered” all the time, but so too are they denied and/or ignored.

One only has to watch footballers running out onto the pitch crossing themselves.

 

[Sureboss]

In Italy they only pray that their manager paid the ref the most.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Without any tangible evidence that can be demonstrated to a skeptical third
party or even a single example of a proven incidence of divine intervention to speak of, forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

As pointed out, we all operate from belief, and this is determined by individual choice. That is why I emphasise researching and examining these things for yourself. I can only relay the results of my efforts in that endeavor in which I found it to be of real power and influence. For you or anyone else to be convinced will require your own investigation. In doing so I think skepticism and objectivity are in order, however if you approach from a position of cynicism then you are somewhat already seeking with a pre-motive of discrediting anything you may encounter even if it is real. Although some have encountered its reality, while examining under this very motive.
Either way there almost has to be some motive, to undertake the investigation since we all also, as evidenced, have the tendency to stick to our guns in the choice of beliefs.

Can you give a specific example? The idea that the desires/wishes/prayers of a single person (or even a group of people) can be proven to be actually influencing events is highly spurious,
if not entirely false. I don’t deny that people may well believe that they are influencing events (that are otherwise beyond their physical control) through the power of their own prayer, but that is a far cry from establishing that they actually are influencing things. What happens when two people pray for two opposite outcomes? The one whose prayer is “answered” will no doubt report a success, but what of the one that wasn’t? In other words, I’m sure prayers are “answered” all the time, but so too are they denied and/or ignored. I suggest that the odds of success for a given individual having their prayers answered favourably are exactly the same as the odds of something happening in their favour anyway, prayer or no prayer. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. The effectiveness (or otherwise) of prayer can be easily tested, but the veracity of the results can only be ensured if the failures/negatives are counted as well.

I think it is obvious this area is a complex and difficult thing to analylize. Since prayer is communicated through the spirit and influenced in the same, it is difficult to distinguish and determine the extent of the effects. I have found it to be like the rest, very personally relational. I have had many prayers answered, but they don't always fit my motive, perception or expectation and some I'm still waiting on. I do know since we are in many instances appealing to him for intervention, he is going to do it his way in time and result, which yeilding to his wisdom, I believe is only reasonable. I have found he is also not above asking or challenging you to do something as well. As to a specific example this one comes to mind:
When my wife and I began attending the Church we are currently members of, unbeknown to me, she had a complete cynicism of the reality of the power of the "Holy Spirit". She truly believed it was a phony act, or a result of nervous stimulation. (In some instances I think that is true) During one service, anyone that needed prayer was asked to come down front where several others were going to lay hands on them and pray with them. Having a toothache she went down front and a small older lady reached out and just as her hands touched her face, my wife hit the floor like a sack of potatoes. Afterwards she was so astounded, she could not stop talking about it and how shocked she was to find out it was real. She hardly mentioned her toothache was gone.
Also since we can not truly no the heart of a person as to actual faith and motive it is very difficult, if not impossible to judge the outcomes and I'm not sure in some instances, that we should even try. Again I think primarily it is something that ultimately you have to personally experience to gain an actual reality standpoint, just as my wife did.

I’m not sure I entirely follow you here, but here goes anyway. The terms “faith” and “belief” imply a conscious effort – a knowing adherence to a “belief system”. Although I don’t deny that human beings necessarily live by belief systems in many ways, there is also a limit to how far you can fairly apply these terms without distorting their meaning. I do not “believe” that my heart will still be beating in 10 minutes time – for all I know, it may not. Sure, I have “faith” that it will – I made plans for this
evening! But this “faith” is based on reasoning, not simply a blind hope (although I do also have this!).

Faith is obviously influenceable, or the result of some influence. My point is, its still a choice, including what you choose to influence it. That being the case can you truly in an objective sense, inadvertently, or without a thorough personal investigation, choose not to believe in GOD. Is that a legitimately justifiable position.

But what you seem to be implying is that these behaviours (faith, belief, hope) somehow carry an implicit acceptance of the supernatural, which simply isn’t true.

I agree, it isn't true. The supernatural is certainly a foreign concept to the carnal mind. Hence again, a thorough investigation is called for.

So when you say that I am “most assuredly operating from faith”, I can only accept this as being remotely correct if you define “faith” as “a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome”. Even so, that “faith” is forever constrained by the sure and safe knowledge that one day, my heart will stop beating, however much I hope (or pray) that it won’t. Currently, aged 34 and with no history of heart problems in my family, and despite a slightly unhealthy lifestyle, I have good reason to expect that the probability of my heart still beating in 10 minutes time is extremely high. I also know that the older I get, the more pies I eat, the more beer I drink etc., the chances of this “faith position” (as you may wish to call it) being correct will inevitably diminish.

I don't believe that appealing to a putative supernatural being will change my odds of survival - and I know (i.e. no belief necessary) that unless medical science advances to permit immortality, then one day I will die, and no amount of prayer, hope or faith will change that. There are many inescapable truths in life that no amount of belief can change. Death is one them (and taxes are another, as you rightly point out!)... but I do not believe that one can influence the timing of one's own death any more than one can influence the fact that it will happen eventually.

...which is how I regard the supernatural.

We come from two different points of view on this, I believe the timing and quality is influenceable. However the inevetibility of phyisycal death is assured.

If as he says with the advent of physical life, you have become a "living soul" then when the coat of the physical body is cast off, you will live on somewhere. While it may not be considered credible by some, there are an estimated million people who have testified to this during clinical death and then being afterward resuscitated back to life. Otherwise known as "near death experiences".

Supposedly, there is a clinical trial going on in many UK hospitals right now, in an effort to substantiate this phenomenon, since it has become more common since the mid nineteen seventies.

 

[cpp214]

While it may not be considered credible by some, there are an estimated million people who have testified to this during clinical death and then being afterward resuscitated back to life. Otherwise known as "near death experiences".

Yes, and all of these "near death" experiences (at least the ones I have read of and seen on television) appear to be remarkably similar (bright light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, viewing themselves and others from outside their body, etc.) which indicates--to me at least--the explanation for this phenomena is biological/neurological rather than supernatural.

 

[Duke]

My point is, its still a choice, including what you choose to influence it. That being the case can you truly in an objective sense, inadvertently, or without a thorough personal investigation, choose not to believe in GOD. Is that a legitimately justifiable position.

Many many people choose to believe in God without a thorough personal investigation. Is that a legitimately justifiable position?

Supposedly, there is a clinical trial going on in many UK hospitals right now, in an effort to substantiate this [near death experience] phenomenon, since it has become more common since the mid nineteen seventies.

Coincidentally, there has also been more widespread reporting of these incidents since the mid-'70s, so more people know what to look for...

 

[Danoff]

As pointed out, we all operate from belief, and this is determined by individual choice.

Nope. Wrong. And it's been explained to you several times. You can't just assert this as correct when it has been carefully explained to you (and others in this thread) why this is wrong. Try an actual rebuttal, or maybe ask some questions about what parts of it you clearly do not understand.

That is why I emphasise researching and examining these things for yourself. I can only relay the results of my efforts in that endeavor in which I found it to be of real power and influence. For you or anyone else to be convinced will require your own investigation.

Not according to you. According to you it requires the unsupported CONCLUSION that god is real. It requires BELIEF, not an investigation.

As to a specific example this one comes to mind:
When my wife and I began attending the Church we are currently members of, unbeknown to me, she had a complete cynicism of the reality of the power of the "Holy Spirit". She truly believed it was a phony act, or a result of nervous stimulation. (In some instances I think that is true) During one service, anyone that needed prayer was asked to come down front where several others were going to lay hands on them and pray with them. Having a toothache she went down front and a small older lady reached out and just as her hands touched her face, my wife hit the floor like a sack of potatoes. Afterwards she was so astounded, she could not stop talking about it and how shocked she was to find out it was real. She hardly mentioned her toothache was gone.

Ok, let's pretend for a moment that this event happened exactly in the way that you claim. We'll pretend that even though your wife was going to church, she believed she was wasting her time and that the whole thing was an act. We'll also pretend that she went to the front of the church to have people touch her out of sheer morbid curiosity and not because she was at all prepared to have a religious experience. In short, let's pretend that a complete skeptic was acting exactly the way a skeptic should not act. Let's also pretend that she did indeed have a real toothache (ie: caused by some sort of medical issue) and not something that was temporary, temperature related, or *gasp* mental. Let's also pretend that your wife was responding to the touch in a way that was completely out of her control. She wasn't mimicking (conciously or otherwise) the other people that she'd seen drop to the floor after being touched. She wasn't influenced by anything that came before - her actions were entirely involuntary AND the direct result of the lady that touched her. Let's also assume that the force was entirely supernatural in... um... nature. So it was not the result of a concealed electric shock or any other sort of hoax. We'll assume that this event took place exactly as it appeared to have.

Let's assume all of that is true for a moment - it's a stretch, I know, but it's necessary for me to make my point. So your wife was stricken by a powerful healing force that cured her of her toothache and convinced her forever of the exitence of the supernatural.

When you two see this event you think it is your God that is responsible for it. But if Muslims saw this event they'd think it was Allah. If a scientologist saw this they'd claim that it was lord Xenu. If a Pueblo Indian saw this they'd probably claim that she was visited by her spirit animal. If the Christians of Salem Massachusetts saw this around 1700 they'd have hanged the lady who touched your wife for being a witch. If some people today saw that event they'd claim that it was the crystal in the neckalce of the person doing the "healing" that gave her the power - since we all know that crystals emit a healing energy that can correct impurities in your aura.

So tell me, assuming your story is entirely true and that it is the result of supernatural activity, how do you know it was your God, or any God at all, that was responsible?

That being the case can you truly in an objective sense, inadvertently, or without a thorough personal investigation, choose not to believe in GOD. Is that a legitimately justifiable position.

The lack of belief in the face of a lack of evidence is an irrefutably justifiable position.

I agree, it isn't true. The supernatural is certainly a foreign concept to the carnal mind. Hence again, a thorough investigation is called for.

It is impossible to investigate a lack of evidence. You're calling for an end to the investigation. You're calling for replacing the investigation with a conclusion - that God is real, that belief is justified. And only then do you claim that the investigation can begin.

While it may not be considered credible by some, there are an estimated million people who have testified to this during clinical death and then being afterward resuscitated back to life. Otherwise known as "near death experiences".

Supposedly, there is a clinical trial going on in many UK hospitals right now, in an effort to substantiate this phenomenon, since it has become more common since the mid nineteen seventies.

This is apparently a common hallucination that occurs when the brain is deprived of blood. It isn't necessary to have been brought back to life or from the edge of death to experience this. Very similar experiences are reported by many people who black out from lack of blood pressure to the brain. Even in controlled settings under which there was never any possibility of death.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Without any tangible evidence that can be demonstrated to a skeptical third party or even a single example of a proven incidence of divine intervention to speak of, forgive me if I remain unconvinced.


Can you give a specific example?

What about documented evidence about a guy who was pronounced dead by medical emergency response personel, was dead for 90 minutes, and came back to life when someone arrived on the scene and asked if he could pray for the man?

http://www.90minutesinheaven.com/

I've read this book, and it is very good. Coincidentally, the 36 surgeries that he has gone through since are the same as the 24 surgeries my son has had involving the Ilizarov device.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

What about documented evidence about a guy who was pronounced dead by medical emergency response personel, was dead for 90 minutes, and came back to life when someone arrived on the scene and asked if he could pray for the man?

What about the times when people pray and the people still die?

 

[Skynyrd1977]

What about the times when people pray and the people still die?

It wasn't the prayer, it was what God intended. We all gotta go sometime.

 

[Danoff]

It wasn't the prayer, it was what God intended. We all gotta go sometime.

So if it happens one way, it's evidence. If it happens the other way, it's not. See a problem?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Many many people choose to believe in God without a thorough personal investigation. Is that a legitimately justifiable position?

In their opinion it probably is, since its been demonstrated that its the choice they made and is clearly theirs to make. But I doubt if many of them, in light of no investigation to proof it to themselves, could give you much of an explanation as to why they believe it.

Coincidentally, there has also been more widespread reporting of these incidents since the mid-'70s, so more people know what to look for...

If a million testimonies along the same lines is not evidence to you, what difference would it make, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

[Joey D]

If a million testamonies along the same lines is not evidence to you, what difference would it make, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

Anyone can say anything though. I can claim that I've seen God and that God has pulled me through tough times, saved my life, inspired me to do good, etc. Whether it's actually true or not is a different story. I'm not saying that the person wasn't, but what I am saying is that people tend to fabricate ideas and stretch the truth to make whatever it is they are talking about more interesting or to get more people to listen to them.

This is why we can't take testimonials as fact. There is no way to prove whether those people are lying or not.

 

[Duke]

And even if they're not lying, there's no way to document whether they saw a particular thing because they were prepared to or not.


Like aliens - everybody knows what aliens look like, right? Skinny little guys with big heads, big eyes, small noses, no hair, grey or greenish skin, and long fingers. They're usualy pretty short, but occasionally a little taller than us.

See what I mean? Everybody knows that's what aliens look like.





Except nobody's ever actually documented one. At all. In any way that's remotely credible. It's just a common meme that's built up over the years and we're all familiar with it. So if you have an "alien encounter", what's going to be the alien you describe?

Right. Despite the fact that there is no reason to suspect that actual aliens are even humanoid at all, let alone fall into such a closely-related picture as the one I just painted.

Just like the image of God as the big guy with the flowing white beard and the kaftan, and the pearly gates.

 

[TheCracker]

It wasn't the prayer, it was what God intended. We all gotta go sometime.

Then what was the point in praying in the first place. In fact, what's the point in praying at all if God already has our fates penciled in?

 

[Duke]

Then what was the point in praying in the first place. In fact, what's the point in praying at all if God already has our fates penciled in?

It's complicated.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

God likes to roll the dice once in a while.

 

[Famine]

I, at any rate, am convinced that [God] does not throw dice.

Edit: Apparently five capitals sends the shoutytext-detector into a spasmoid.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Nope. Wrong. And it's been explained to you several times. You can't just assert this as correct when it has been carefully explained to you (and others in this thread) why this is wrong. Try an actual rebuttal, or maybe ask some questions about what parts of it you clearly do not understand..

To the contrary, it has been clearly demonstrated and established.
If it is not, then who may I ask is choosing your beliefs for you.

Not according to you. According to you it requires the unsupported CONCLUSION that god is real. It requires BELIEF, not an investigation.

I report from the findings of my investigation. Each person should do their own.

Ok, let's pretend for a moment that this event happened exactly in the way that you claim. We'll pretend that even though your wife was going to church, she believed she was wasting her time and that the whole thing was an act. We'll also pretend that she went to the front of the church to have people touch her out of sheer morbid curiosity and not because she was at all prepared to have a religious experience. In short, let's pretend that a complete skeptic was acting exactly the way a skeptic should not act. Let's also pretend that she did indeed have a real toothache (ie: caused by some sort of medical issue) and not something that was temporary, temperature related, or *gasp* mental. Let's also pretend that your wife was responding to the touch in a way that was completely out of her control. She wasn't mimicking (conciously or otherwise) the other people that she'd seen drop to the floor after being touched. She wasn't influenced by anything that came before - her actions were entirely involuntary AND the direct result of the lady that touched her. Let's also assume that the force was entirely supernatural in... um... nature. So it was not the result of a concealed electric shock or any other sort of hoax. We'll assume that this event took place exactly as it appeared to have.

Let's assume all of that is true for a moment - it's a stretch, I know, but it's necessary for me to make my point. So your wife was stricken by a powerful healing force that cured her of her toothache and convinced her forever of the exitence of the supernatural.

When you two see this event you think it is your God that is responsible for it. But if Muslims saw this event they'd think it was Allah. If a scientologist saw this they'd claim that it was lord Xenu. If a Pueblo Indian saw this they'd probably claim that she was visited by her spirit animal. If the Christians of Salem Massachusetts saw this around 1700 they'd have hanged the lady who touched your wife for being a witch. If some people today saw that event they'd claim that it was the crystal in the neckalce of the person doing the "healing" that gave her the power - since we all know that crystals emit a healing energy that can correct impurities in your aura..

As with everything else each must draw their own conclusion.

So tell me, assuming your story is entirely true and that it is the result of supernatural activity, how do you know it was your God, or any God at all, that was responsible?

I've already answered that two or three times.

The lack of belief in the face of a lack of evidence is an irrefutably justifiable position..

As long as you can dismiss evidence to the contrary.
As pointed out the cynic will not recognize evidence, reguardless of merit.

It is impossible to investigate a lack of evidence. You're calling for an end to the investigation. You're calling for replacing the investigation with a conclusion - that God is real, that belief is justified. And only then do you claim that the investigation can begin.

I have concluded my investigation. Again each person should do their own.

This is apparently a common hallucination that occurs when the brain is deprived of blood. It isn't necessary to have been brought back to life or from the edge of death to experience this. Very similar experiences are reported by many people who black out from lack of blood pressure to the brain. Even in controlled settings under which there was never any possibility of death.

All that may sound possible, except one thing. Having fainted many times in her life, she could not be fooled by that and made a point to distinguish how the two experiences are not remotely the same in any way.

Anyone can say anything though. I can claim that I've seen God and that God has pulled me through tough times, saved my life, inspired me to do good, etc. Whether it's actually true or not is a different story. I'm not saying that the person wasn't, but what I am saying is that people tend to fabricate ideas and stretch the truth to make whatever it is they are talking about more interesting or to get more people to listen to them.

This is why we can't take testimonials as fact. There is no way to prove whether those people are lying or not.

So a million people tell essentially the same lie about the same experience?

Highly improbable. Go figure.

 

[Sureboss]

You can make yourself experience any experience. The human brain can be susceptible to it's own genius in creating experiences, which didn't actually happen. You only have to look at Schizophrenia and the like for this.

That reminds me of a story from a paramedic friend of mine. One of his work colleagues came back from a call and said:

"I hate having call outs to schizophrenics, you have to fill out two patient forms!"

Always makes me smile, anyway.

 

[TheCracker]

It's complicated.

I don't know about complicated, convoluted might be a better way to describe it.

 

[Joey D]

So a million people tell essentially the same lie about the same experience?

Highly improbable. Go figure.

As Duke pointed out, there is a large group of people who essentially share the same experience that they've been abducted by aliens. There are also people who swear they've seen Big Foot (with a video too!), the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns (Irish Midgets maybe?), trolls, goblins, etc. I'm pretty sure most of Iceland and many other Scandinavian people believe in elves

Are these people just as credible as those making claims about religious experiences?

I restate, anyone can claim to see or experience anything. Are you going to doubt the FSM touched me with his noodley appendage?

 

[Sureboss]

The Loch Ness Monster is real, it recently appeared on Britain's Got Talent.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm pretty sure most of Iceland and many other Scandinavian people believe in elves

Pun intended?

 

[Joey D]

Pun intended?

Ya that's worded a bit weird, but what I was going for was that it's a documented fact that a large majority of the Icelandic population believes in elves. I would assume it's likewise for other Scandinavian countries, I just can't find anything to back that up.

 

[TheCracker]

Ya that's worded a bit weird, but what I was going for was that it's a documented fact that a large majority of the Icelandic population believes in elves. I would assume it's likewise for other Scandinavian countries, I just can't find anything to back that up.

I think he was referring to the fact that most Scandinavians don't class Iceland as being part of Scandinavia, as the word refers to the land mass that Iceland obviously isn't part of

 

[Joey D]

I think he was referring to the fact that most Scandinavians don't class Iceland as being part of Scandinavia, as the word refers to the land mass that Iceland obviously isn't part of

Cultural Geography Fail. Somewhere I knew that in the back of my mind. Maybe I need to get a cup of coffee.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Well, I don't kow about Iceland, but since trolls are popular in Norway... Yeah, no elves here