Do you believe in God?

[kennylmao]

@SuperCobraJet hey man, I take it you're a Christian believer. Just curious, what do you think about Islam?

You can tell the truth, I'm not Muslim, I won't jihad you.

 

[zzz_pt]

Clouds...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No you can't. Facts require evidence.

Fortunately, under the auspices of opinion and belief, yes you can.
Certainly, evidence is helpful to support an opinion or belief, but it is not a requirement to have one.

Where am I doing this?

You are doing it, from your personal perspective of, reliance, trust, and confidence in the scientific standard.
The scientific standard is not posting here, of its dependabilities in every respect, you are.
The standard doesn't give a flip what anybody believes, or has evidence for.

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

Factually, what is evidence, is not all objective.
If it is objective, hey I get it, it's better for obvious reasons.
I'm not arguing against that.
But the fact is, there isn't objective evidence for everything.
Like many things in this life, it ain't that simple.
Other things can exist without objective evidence to prove it.

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

Thats not gross misunderstanding, changing, redefining, or anything elseing.
And it certainly isn't nonsense.
The scientific standard is indispensible in many areas.
I depend on it myself, most of the time.
It is just not comprehensive enough, to cover every aspect of everything.

 

[Famine]

Fortunately, under the auspices of opinion and belief, yes you can.
Certainly, evidence is helpful to support an opinion or belief, but it is not a requirement to have one.

Nonsense, as usual.

You are doing it, from your personal perspective of, reliance, trust, and confidence in the scientific standard.
The scientific standard is not posting here, of its dependabilities in every respect, you are.
The standard doesn't give a flip what anybody believes, or has evidence for.

Nonsense, as usual.

Factually, what is evidence, is not all objective.

Nonsense, as usual.

Thats not gross misunderstanding, changing, redefining, or anything elseing.
And it certainly isn't nonsense.
The scientific standard is indispensible in many areas.
I depend on it myself, most of the time.
It is just not comprehensive enough, to cover every aspect of everything.

Nonsense, as usual.


You've tried arguing all of this the last time you were here, clogging up the thread. You were shown to be wrong and could only make yourself right by changing the meaning of language, which you did at every turn.

The basis for everything you say is the equivalent of "blue is red, if you change the meaning of red to blue". Sure, if we change the meaning of everything to suit, anything is true. Including the meaning of true.

 

[Scaff]

Fortunately, under the auspices of opinion and belief, yes you can.
Certainly, evidence is helpful to support an opinion or belief, but it is not a requirement to have one.

Just to check, Famine said "No you can't. Facts require evidence.", at no point did he say opinions or belief!

So why exactly have you taken his quote and given an answer to a question that wasn't asked?

Have you got to the point in which changing everything to ensure you can twist it to you own purposes has become so normal for you that you have taken it to this extreme?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What would I have done?

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

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

You are overlooking something, very important here.
Since you do not have the powers of God, you do not realize, he already knew what the result of that would be.
And it was the same as the eventual outcome.
Only one guy would listen, and his name was Noah.
As to the small children, they had no chance at anything else, except the status quo.

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

Certainly, on the surface, this comparison appears reasonable to make.
But in view of the fate of all mankind, having the opportunity to be reconciled to God through the promise,
weighing these decisions takes on a different balance as to necessitation.
Not to mention, had Noah not been flexible on the issue, none of us would be here.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=save+that+which+was+lost&qs_version=AMP

 

[zzz_pt]

I'll leave a quote from David Hume regarding facts and beliefs:

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

 

[Scaff]

Not to mention, had Noah not been flexible on the issue, none of us would be here.

Well actually we would, given that it didn't happen.

 

[Mark T]

You are overlooking something, very important here.
Since you do not have the powers of God, you do not realize, he already knew what the result of that would be.
And it was the same as the eventual outcome.
Only one guy would listen, and his name was Noah.
As to the small children, they had no chance at anything else, except the status quo.

Well, if God is all powerful he could have killed every living adult who was "corrupt", spared the innocent children and then created more humans to look after the children left behind. Does that sound like a better plan than flooding the planet? He would have had the power to do it.

Flooding the whole planet sounds like something a bronze age, tribal, sadistic, uneducated human would recommend....

 

[dylansan]

Anything other than the scientific method is an invalid way to aquire evidence, because "methods" based on spirituality allow different people to aquire different evidence. As shown by the millions of people who follow comletely different religions because they sought "truth" and got different answers.

It's not evidence if the answer depends so much on where you live and who your family is.

@SuperCobraJet

Who's to say that if I were to look deep into the spiritual realm, I won't suddenly discover evidence of Vishnu, as plenty of people apparently do? Should I ignore this evidence? Clearly I'm mistaken, since only the Christian God exists, right? How do I decide which "spiritual evidence" to accept and which to ignore?

 

[DQuaN]

You are overlooking something, very important here.
Since you do not have the powers of God, you do not realize, he already knew what the result of that would be.

If he could see that, why couldn't he see that the world would turn out evil in the first place?

 

[dddsprayshop]

Well, if God is all powerful he could have killed every living adult who was "corrupt", spared the innocent children and then created more humans to look after the children left behind. Does that sound like a better plan than flooding the planet? He would have had the power to do it.

Flooding the whole planet sounds like something a bronze age, tribal, sadistic, uneducated human would recommend....

There will be an explaination like: "the children were allready corrupted" to justify "god's" actions.


According to that link that was provided by supercobrajet, i searched for "noah"
Noah was not flexible, god was, noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were allowed to enter the ark.
Noah Flexible??

Genesis 7:1
And the Lord said to Noah, Come with all your household into the ark, for I have seen you to be righteous (upright and in right standing) before Me in this generation.

If the story is true, only 8 humans survived this genocide.
If that is also true, we are all decendants from those 8 humans.
If that is also true, the men of flesh are again corrupted, and the flood missed it's point.
8 humans??

Genesis 7:13
On the very same day Noah and Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, went into the ark,

source: Folowed link from cobrajet and searched noah and got this



As powerfull this "god" must be, he shoud know what the result would be ( as stated below, he knew, so he must have known the result of the flood)

Since you do not have the powers of God, you do not realize, he already knew what the result of that would be.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=save that which was lost&qs_version=AMP

@SuperCobraJet You do see, what is wrong here?
You said to @GBO Possum , that "god" is powerfull and knew the result.
He did not knew the result, look around, he left 8 humans alive, big mistake.
Too many contradictions, too many mistakes to be called "allmighty".
God created man in his image, god is how man is, corruptable and flawed.

Sorry, but that is what's the result of these so called quote's from the book written by human mortals.

 

[GBO Possum]

If he could see that, why couldn't he see that the world would turn out evil in the first place?

No doubt he did. And was probably relishing the anticipation of committing mass murder.

Just as he foresaw today where @SuperCobraJet would be driving us insane with gibberish nonsense.

Right now he's no doubt LHAO. Given that he can foresee all of his future gibberish nonsense, would he be laughing about today's rubbish, tomorrow's or rubbish from next week?

What an odd situation to be in. The guy knows the punch line of every joke which will ever be told. Must get a bit stale.

 

[dddsprayshop]

No doubt he did. And was probably relishing the anticipation of committing mass murder.

Just as he foresaw today where @SuperCobraJet would be driving us insane with gibberish nonsense.

Right now he's no doubt LHAO. Given that he can foresee all of his future gibberish nonsense, would he be laughing about today's rubbish, tomorrow's or rubbish from next week?

What an odd situation to be in. The guy knows the punch line of every joke which will ever be told. Must get a bit stale.

There is doubt. A lot of doubt.
No proof that god knows all, no proof that god doesn't know all.
And that is only if "god" is.

 

[Imari]

There is doubt. A lot of doubt.
No proof that god knows all, no proof that god doesn't know all.
And that is only if "god" is.

Except that the Christian God is defined as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. That's the God that has been being discussed, and that specific God does know all, if he exists.

It's a fairly strong argument against the existence of the Christian God. His actions are not consistent with a being that has the attributes that are assigned to him. Either he does not have the attributes assigned to him (and therefore does not meet the criteria to be considered the Christian God) or he does not exist.

 

[Dotini]

How do I decide which "spiritual evidence" to accept and which to ignore?

Very good question.

It turns out that the "religious experience" has great similarities across most religions, so in a sense it almost does not matter exactly which one you experience. The deep, inner, personal, feeling of "what it is like" to accept God X can only be known by doing it. It is the experience itself that matters, not the god. If that makes any sense.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet hey man, I take it you're a Christian believer. Just curious, what do you think about Islam?

You can tell the truth, I'm not Muslim, I won't jihad you.

You take it correctly.

Well this may come as a shock to some, but IMO it is a good example of the problem with religion.

Nonsense, as usual.Nonsense, as usual.Nonsense, as usual.
Nonsense, as usual.


You've tried arguing all of this the last time you were here, clogging up the thread. You were shown to be wrong and could only make yourself right by changing the meaning of language, which you did at every turn.

The basis for everything you say is the equivalent of "blue is red, if you change the meaning of red to blue". Sure, if we change the meaning of everything to suit, anything is true. Including the meaning of true.

Well from your perspective, I'm not the least bit surprised at your response.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think there is anyway or possibility, that what I am saying, could be true?

Just to check, Famine said "No you can't. Facts require evidence.", at no point did he say opinions or belief!

So why exactly have you taken his quote and given an answer to a question that wasn't asked?

Have you got to the point in which changing everything to ensure you can twist it to you own purposes has become so normal for you that you have taken it to this extreme?

Thats a two part statement, not a question.
"No you can't" is a direct response to my comment regaurding statements made under "opinion and belief".
Which as already pointed out, do not require facts, so in reality, "Yes you can".
"Facts require evidence." is the 2nd part of the statement, which for obvious reasons, is separate from the 1st part.
And with regaurd to the 2nd part, yes "Facts require evidence."
Thats the definitive aspects of the statement.
However, with regaurd to practicality, the statement has some ligitimacy.
Now, how you can percieve that as some changed, twisted manipulation is beyond me.

I'll leave a quote from David Hume regarding facts and beliefs:

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

I would only add: "to all the evidence"

Well actually we would, given that it didn't happen.

Well maybe it didn't.
But then again, maybe it did.

 

[Famine]

Do you think there is anyway or possibility, that what I am saying, could be true?

It's really hard to say.

You format, your posts, in
an incredibly difficult, way, to read and use
wholly, inappropriate melon words entirely out of articulation phalange restitution and,
That's before we, even, get, to, the, part, where you
reinvent language to suit, your points. Fenestration.


In essence, I'd say that given just how hard you try to mutilate language in order to create a pocket universe where your belief is proven right by facts, there is zero chance that what you are saying could be true, even if the ideas you're trying to convey have a less than zero chance.

 

[jimipitbull]

Very good question.

It turns out that the "religious experience" has great similarities across most religions, so in a sense it almost does not matter exactly which one you experience. The deep, inner, personal, feeling of "what it is like" to accept God X can only be known by doing it. It is the experience itself that matters, not the god. If that makes any sense.

If religious experience was an apple product, it would make more sense to more people.

 

[Ingram]

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

Thank you Dotini, for such a rational and insightful comment.

I'm not entirely sure Dotini's comment was meant to be a compliment.

 

[Scaff]

Thats a two part statement, not a question.
"No you can't" is a direct response to my comment regaurding statements made under "opinion and belief".
Which as already pointed out, do not require facts, so in reality, "Yes you can".
"Facts require evidence." is the 2nd part of the statement, which for obvious reasons, is separate from the 1st part.
And with regaurd to the 2nd part, yes "Facts require evidence."
Thats the definitive aspects of the statement.
However, with regaurd to practicality, the statement has some ligitimacy.
Now, how you can percieve that as some changed, twisted manipulation is beyond me.

If you follow the chain of that conversation back, Famine has been consistently talking about facts requiring evidence (as you claimed they were not needed for facts)......


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


....you even highlighted the fact part of it.

As such I can see that as a changed, twisted manipulation because that's exactly what it is, and not for the first time, however we do seem to be getting towards the 'end game' in your repeated pattern, in which you have shifted and changed things so much that you struggle to keep track of it. I suspect you will then 'retire' from the conversation until a point when you hope we have all had our memories removed.

Well maybe it didn't.
But then again, maybe it did.

The rather staggering lack of evidence for a global flood of the scale claimed kind of point in one of the those directions a lot stronger than the other.

As such, until some evidence emerges to change that, its more than reasonable to dismiss it as a myth based on local flooding events being exaggerated for religious purposes.

 

[zzz_pt]

I would only add: "to all the evidence"

You've missed the point.

"Evidence" implies "all the evidence". The question is precisely the amount, quality and reliability of the evidence.

Personal experience, personal revelation, etc doesn't count as both good and reliable evidence. And that's all people can give when they claim god exists. That's why it's called Faith and not Knowledge.

Faith is the card people give when we ask for facts to back up their claims.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Well, if God is all powerful he could have killed every living adult who was "corrupt", spared the innocent children and then created more humans to look after the children left behind. Does that sound like a better plan than flooding the planet? He would have had the power to do it.

Flooding the whole planet sounds like something a bronze age, tribal, sadistic, uneducated human would recommend....

The only problem here, is the question of could those children and their decendants be assimilated.
Apparently, not.
Even though, he could have done it, he cannot, and will not remove your autonomy.
This indicates, there are spiritual as well as physical genetics involved.
Why else would you have to start over, from a sole base of faith?
No doubt, flooding the planet, was an extreme measure.
However, again, it apparently was necessary for the survival of the promise.

Anything other than the scientific method is an invalid way to aquire evidence, because "methods" based on spirituality allow different people to aquire different evidence. As shown by the millions of people who follow comletely different religions because they sought "truth" and got different answers.

Excellent point.
There is only one problem with it though.
The scientic method is incapable of making a distinction in the spiritual arena.
It doesn't even know it exists.
Quite frankly, under those circumstances, I am unwilling to entrust such a man made institution, to determine existence, on my behalf, particularly, when my eternal well-being may depend upon it.
So, it is left up to the individual to judge.
Which is also fitting, since it is a relatonal arrangement.

It's not evidence if the answer depends so much on where you live and who your family is.

It's more to it than that, but I see your point.

@SuperCobraJetWho's to say that if I were to look deep into the spiritual realm, I won't suddenly discover evidence of Vishnu, as plenty of people apparently do? Should I ignore this evidence? Clearly I'm mistaken, since only the Christian God exists, right? How do I decide which "spiritual evidence" to accept and which to ignore?

Another excellent point.
Obviously, this is a quandary.
However, if , the God of the Bible does exist, as he has claimed he does, he also declares: "Seek and you will find",
"knock and the door will be open to you", "test and prove all things".
He says it is possible to discover him.

If he could see that, why couldn't he see that the world would turn out evil in the first place?

I see know way, he couldn't have known.

According to that link that was provided by supercobrajet, i searched for "noah"
Noah was not flexible, god was, noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were allowed to enter the ark.
Noah Flexible??

You need to read the whole story.
Noah believed God and began construction on the Arc.
Despite the fact it had never rained before.
I'd call that a pretty flexible fellow.

If the story is true, only 8 humans survived this genocide.
If that is also true, we are all decendants from those 8 humans.
If that is also true, the men of flesh are again corrupted, and the flood missed it's point.
8 humans?

Even though corruption, did again proliferate, it preserved a remnant of people, by which the promise could come.

 

[Famine]

Even though, he could have done it, he cannot

He could but he can't? How limiting.

The scientic method is incapable of making a distinction in the spiritual arena.
It doesn't even know it exists.

The scientific method doesn't know anything. It's the method for acquiring knowledge. In fact that's what the word "scientific" means - but we've been over this.

If it can be known, the scientific method is the way to determine it. If it can't be known, it doesn't exist so there's no problem.

There's lots of things we don't know yet and probably more than a few things we don't know that we don't know yet. The way we get to know them is by acquiring knowledge, and that's the scientific method - but we've been over this.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-real-noahs-ark-secret-history/4od

 

[Dotini]

I'm not entirely sure Dotini's comment was meant to be a compliment.

It was not a compliment, but a fact. Most of my posts are meant to be rational, yet cut two ways; to be both thought provoking and amusing.

I will add that @SuperCobraJet is, like the rest of us, a human being with strengths and weaknesses. He is a true Gran Turismo expert, a member of the global majority of believers, and is trying his best to contribute to a thread in which he so happens to be in a distinct minority. As such he deserves tolerance, politeness and respect. Yes, he occasionally mangles his spelling and sentence construction, and is not (yet) fully forthcoming on what his deepest religious feelings and experiences are like. Hopefully, we will all continue to grow and learn together.

If religious experience was an apple product, it would make more sense to more people.

This is actually a very interesting and likely very important insight.

It seems clear to me that the religious experience on Earth has evolved over thousands of years. New prophets arise, new dogmas and literature are created, knowledge increases, and people evolve in way of life, economy, technology and all the other ways. It would make sense for the religious experience to also evolve, albeit more slowly, right along with mankind. Islam, Mormon, and Scientology are all examples of religions newer and more evolved than some others (although Catholicism, to its credit, is struggling hard to catch up).

I will predict that the human need for (in one simple phrase) spiritual fulfillment will never be fully satisified by materialist and reductionist approaches. Accordingly, whatever the mechanism is that organizes the physics of the universe and the hearts and minds of humans, will continue to provide newer and more evolved religious experiences, both in form and content, in order to appeal to newer generations of people.

 

[dddsprayshop]

You need to read the whole story.
Noah believed God and began construction on the Arc.
Despite the fact it had never rained before.
I'd call that a pretty flexible fellow.

If i read the whole story that you have, i can tell you that my conclusion will differ from yours.
I know the story, it is a dramatic story about an attempt to fix a mistake.
For me it is a romantic, dramatic fiction.

 

[GBO Possum]

Even though, he could have done it, he cannot, and will not remove your autonomy.
This indicates, there are spiritual as well as physical genetics involved.
Why else would you have to start over, from a sole base of faith?
No doubt, flooding the planet, was an extreme measure.
However, again, it apparently was necessary for the survival of the promise.

Murdering all of humanity with the minor exception of eight survivors removed one heck of a lot of "autonomy"!

Look, I get it that English may not be your primary language, but try to help me out here. The final bolded words escape me entirely. I don't see anything as being "apparent". And what's the "survival of the promise"? What "promise" and why should it survive and not the vast majority of people?

 

[dylansan]

Even if God had a good reason to kill a majority of the planet (which is clearly not "apparent"), why choose flood?

Drowning is one of the most painful ways to die. He could have just killed everyone peacefully in their sleep, or simply deleted them from existence. Heck, if he wanted to start over why didn't he just "reload" a previous save and go from there? Surely an all powerful being could reverse time or rewrite history, or at least delete our universe and start fresh. Why painfully murder an entire planet?

Which also brings us back to the as yet unanswered question of why God couldn't predict that things would go downhill and try to prevent it, rather than deal with it after the fact. Are you telling me that the only way God could create a reasonably moral society with free will was to first create an immoral society, kill nearly everyone, then let the offspring form a new society that's still clearly flawed?

Doesn't sound very omnipotent. Or perhaps he just has poor foresight.

If God created life on our planet, there were literally an infinite number of ways to do it. I'm certain that at least one of those ways would have been better than what happened (or supposedly happened). Plus if you assume that murder can be justified if it leads to a better society in the future, morality just got a lot more complicated.

 

[GBO Possum]

It's really hard to say.

You format, your posts, in
an incredibly difficult, way, to read and use
wholly, inappropriate melon words entirely out of articulation phalange restitution and,
That's before we, even, get, to, the, part, where you
reinvent language to suit, your points. Fenestration.


In essence, I'd say that given just how hard you try to mutilate language in order to create a pocket universe where your belief is proven right by facts, there is zero chance that what you are saying could be true, even if the ideas you're trying to convey have a less than zero chance.

I keep reading this over and chuckling! A five star posting, @Famine!