Reasons to Believe
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology - and I'm an atheist. What I'm offering is an open forum (open to the degree that it follows the Hubpages rules). Show me your proof for god - any god. Show me why I should agree with you and convert to your religious beliefs - but be prepared to have your proof examined. Ready, set, go.
Sorry, not gonna happen just yet. Maybe never. Because you're too much on the offense, trying to put everyone else on the defense. You don't want answers yet.
Instead I'll ask you some questions. When you were a "missionary" in the church, supposedly, did you ever accept Christ as your personal Savior? Since you've read the whole Bible, as you say, did you just read it with your eyes or did you actually see what it says about Jesus's Love and sacrifice? Did you ever actually allow the knowledge of the word of God to get into your heart and mind? Did you ever actually feel the Spirit?
There are many other questions too. But indeed I've no patience right now, neither for your dare, nor to stick around for your answers. They are for you to think on.
I'm too sleepy and tired. Will be curious to see how, or even if, you respond. Later, that is.Okay, first of all, your entire response is sarcastic and almost intentionally demeaning. You're making snap judgements on someone who posted a forum thread looking for an active discussion - if I want to be insulted, I'd just go back to church. I have debates all the time on a semi-professional level, and I can hold my own. I have little time for sarcasm and insincerity, however, which is almost the entire crux on your response. How am I on the offensive? I'm asking a question and asking for evidence. I can counter a lot of it - and do every day. How is that rude, condescending or otherwise untoward? Asking for evidence is a dare to you? Doesn't the bible say that you should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have? (1 Peter 3:15).
Why do you put "missionary" in quotes - do you doubt the facts of my history? I understand that you don't know me from a stranger on the street, but are you trying to insinuate that I'm lying about my past intentionally? What could be gained from that? Yes, I accepted Christ as my savior. I was baptized. I fully believed in the bible and the doctrine of the church. Now I don't. I read the bible as a christian - and even went to theological bible college for several years. I took courses in Greek, Latin and Hebrew and continue to read the bible in the original languages. Now I examine it more critically, but I used to read it without question. So what? I've laid my hands on sick people. I've spoken in tongues. That doesn't mean a dang thing. What's your point?
I'm sorry you have no patience right now, but if that's the case, why "waste your time" replying at all? Just move along. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to respond. So why did you?To see if you really wanted honest answers.
My curiosity is satisfied now.more baseless assumptions. Good to know. Safe to say that I'm not really going to put much (if any) weight on anything you choose to say, since you wanted to come here and challenge me without any knowledge or grounds to do so.
I am more than willing to be open minded to any evidence that anyone presents. I won't dismiss it because I may not agree with it. that's being intellectually honest. But I give respect where respect is due - and when you come at me with sarcasm, insults and assumptions based on nothing - you're not due much. If you come to me respectfully, you'll get respect in return. If you don't...well, you got my first response. I'll respond in the manner in which I'm approached, without resorting to petty insults or name calling - because I AM above that kind of juvenile behavior. Unlike some.
JMc,
Once we are new born adults we will be able to speak to everyone in the language of their birth without ever having to study it because we have reincarnated in every known language on earth and remembered it. That's what speaking in tongues is supposed to be when we understand what happened on the day of Pentecost.again, you said you were done talking to me, and I (apparently erroneously) took you at your word.
I said that concerning that discussion's particulars but not all discussions, go back, read it and see isn't that the meaning of what I wrote. .
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9
May be this is not applicable to women.
Jesus sacrifice? I too have once slept for nearly 24 hrs, that was a sacrifice too? After all he slept only for 36 or 40 hrs.
And here is love:"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:29
This god is so ignorant to know that it is the brain that commands the action and eye has no will, no wonder he is waiting to "burn you in hell", so much for love.Your comment is only a demonstration of how ignorant you are.
If all people who want to divorce, they might think twice to do it if they will take seriously what Jesus had said about divorce. Since they cannot remarry, then they will try harder to save their relationship.
Why do you compare your sleeping habit with Christ's sacrifice? Did you also nailed your self on the cross and been beaten to death? How dare you compare yourself to Jesus while you are just a mere human.
Matthew 5:29 should not be taken literal. You should read the context instead of arriving at a stupid conclusion. Jesus is just showing how serious we should be when it comes to avoiding sin.
God is very patient with all of us. If He is not, then by the moment you sinned, you should be gone by now.
Please do not equate God's love with your short-sighted and limited mind.So what does this comment demonstrate, your arrogance?
That comment was addressed to a specific person who can understand that. What are you trying, showing off?
If I were a god what is a few nails on my body? Do you know that through out the world humans pierce their bodies? Why there were two "thieves" who were crucified on each side, weren't they suffering?
Jesus said three days and nights but friday evening to sunday does not constitute 3 days and nights. A sacrifice is when we give up something permanently, so what was that, that was given up permanently?
Peter was given the key of heaven. Are you given something like that, to decide which part is literal and which part metaphorical?
Please do not equate god with a hot-headed, ignorant and idiotic barbarian and please do not take up the role of god's spokesman. Let the servant remain a servant and not act the boss.Sorry to hurt your ego.
That is the problem with society. they do not read what the Bible REALLY says. they just rely on what the mainstream religions say. If you read the resurrection account carefully, you will discover that Jesus died on a wednesday and was resurrected on a Saturday.
It seems pointless to talk to you. Let us end this conversation. thank you for your time.which resurrection account? None of the gospels agree. The Synoptics have Jesus dying on Passover. John has him dying on the day of preparation. None of the gospels agree on the resurrection either. Why don't you do the Easter challenge by Dan Barker - it offers a thousand dollars to anyone who can chronologically list all of the events of the resurrection without any contradictions and without leaving anything out. Go for it.
The funny thing about those who quote the bible is, most of them cannot agree on different scriptures. The bible is faulty and so is religion without question. I agree that in certain terms, religion can actually be helpful and provide a roadmap for some to live a decent and quality life. On the other hand, religion is the source of much war, death and disfunction.
Who here follows the bible to every word? None of you I'm sure. niether do I and I am proud to say that, Between people telling me that I am taking it out of context, it keeps getting re-translated and the fact that it was apparently written by man, make me seriously question every page. Hey, if you want to take everything in the bible literally, have at it, I applaud you for having such strong beliefs. I for one think that burning people at the stake and putting them to death for adultry, not celebrating the sabbath amongs other so called sins that will cause your death is a little much.
This is a big part of the reason there is so many spin off religions. To be honest, who really knows what religion was first, reality is, we can only guess and hope to be right. Does it matter? Not at all.
Riddle666,
Jesus turned around and said (Matthew 19:29) to forsake everything of this world including families and spouses for the gospel's sake, is that a contradiction to what you said?
I say no for the following reason.
Once a man are born of the spirit they have been called out of the world's mentality and are becoming resurrected into angels (Matthew 22:30).
Sorry, but denying to show evidence to support a claim when the person is asking for evidence is usually what one does as opposed to making up excuses about who it is you're showing the evidence in order to not show it to them. It's called dishonesty.
Brenda,
Something most Christians and missionaries ignore is Jesus' dialog on the new birth which his words as he was about to ascend (Acts:18) makes us know we must have holy spirit power to be his witnesses. Then Romans 1:20 makes us to know the new birth must follow the natural birth\ or we are not born again. Therefore, so long as anyone has no testimony of a new conception, gestation, trivial, birth, childhood, adolescence and, [i]if there be any, adulthood[/b] anyone witnessing for the anointed Jesus has no power to be his witness.
I went through something similar to you, kinda. I was raised a "church goer" who must "follow the rules" but I won't say that I was raised a Christian. Eventually, I did find the "real thing" and decided to get saved. Honestly, I've always been a thinker and a doubter, but my theology was if I forced myself to believe, CHOSE to believe, it didn't matter if it was true or not, that's the lifestyle I was going to live. Well, my thoughts and doubts and beliefs eventually overran my choices and I fell out of it. Interesting challenge, can't wait to see what others post. And that person who posted above me seems to be in a rather rude and foul mood.
I believe that in order to remain intellectually honest, you have to keep studying and keep searching. That means that you have to be prepared to change your mind if the evidence presents itself. That being said, I enjoy the subject, and enjoy talking to others of similar (and vastly different) beliefs. I enjoy the debate and the discussion - and I love to learn, no matter what path that takes me on.
I agree to your comment on the above poster. It makes me wonder (since it was clearly such a burden) why they chose to respond at all?It is a rather interesting topic to discuss and I'm sad to see the debates and discussions ruined by those who seem to let their negative emotions drive their words and replies. Maybe they should have just waited to reply when they were less tired. Regardless, organized religion doesn't fit my personality nor my lifestyle, but I'm not ruling theology or beliefs out entirely. Honestly, if I were to analyze my life and figure out what I "worship" the most, I would have to say learning and knowledge. So maybe that's my "religion" lol
Learning and knowledge is certainly high on my list too, if not at the very top :-)
ShawneeMc,
I agree, it's an interesting topic and what you said about your life puts you on the edge of being a philosophy, lover of wisdom who is willing to pay any price for it. That's why I've lived as you see me in the photo for over 36 years, until October 2012 when I went into a VA provided Transition house so I can fulfill my destiny.
"I believe that in order to remain intellectually honest, you have to keep studying and keep searching. "
Why? That would only be true if a person is interested in knowing Truth with a capital T. What if they aren't interested in that, but only in their own happiness?
I know a lady, one whom I greatly admire, that has a faith in God that you couldn't shake with a baseball bat. Nevertheless she refuses to study any form of religion at all other than her bible. She's afraid it just might shake that faith and she's very happy with her perception of Truth. Doesn't want it changed.
Is there something intrinsically wrong with that? To value personal happiness and satisfaction higher than truth? As long as it is not presented as reality, with a demand that others agree, I can't see a problem.You do have a point, wilderness. I suppose I should have specifically related that to me - and not just in general terms. Ultimately, when it comes to faith, I think it boils down to a simple question: Do you care if your beliefs are true? Most Christians that I've encountered have adamantly declared that christianity is true to the exclusion of all else, and it's only christians that are teetering on the edge of faith that are frightened by the idea of having it challenged. For me personally, that seems to be weak faith. Those who are strong in their faith seem to be open to discussion, to examining the evidence, to adapting and evolving as knowledge becomes more readily available.
I do believe, however, that having a personal faith CAN cause harm. No one lives in a vacuum. When you believe in something and think that it's true, you make decisions based on that belief. Ultimately that can affect other people. For example, if you are a christian and you want to follow biblical (and church) teachings, you may think that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore you are likely to vote for others that share your beliefs - and that causes harm to people who do not share your beliefs, when laws are passed that line up with your theology. I wrote a hub on personal faith - I believe that it's potentially dangerous.Don't think I can totally agree, although the general concept is correct.
Those with firm faith will discuss, but are not generally open to actually changing their beliefs. They will modify those beliefs, but at the root the belief is unchanged. An example might be Noah's ark - they might accept that the story cannot have happened as written, but the new belief is that it was localized and that, coupled with animal collection and landing high up on Arrarat is just as impossible. So the next step is that the tale is allegory only, but the root belief remains unchanged in spite of being found to be fraudulent. The willingness to actually review their faith isn't there.
Beliefs don't actually cause harm; the cause of the harm is the willingness to impose very personal, subjective beliefs onto others. Take away that willingness (which could be argued to be a belief in itself) and the belief will not harm others. The lady I mentioned lives her life very strictly, according to biblical teachings as she understands them, but would not impose those beliefs on others - she has been a beacon in my life, teaching tolerance by example.
Rare, perhaps, but I see other believers on HP with the same kind of tolerance and unwillingness to impose beliefs. As usual, it is a relatively small handful of very vocal people that cause the harm and that minority is slowly finding itself overrun by those that accept others as they are.
When anyone isn't interested in discovering The Truth they are only following their destiny. Every action of every person is their destiny, most are without the knowledge that it is so, therefore none of us have any room to condemn anyone's place in their Evolutionary Journey.
I would like to first make clear that this is not an attempt to convert you or anybody to my beliefs. My interest lies more in the 'having my proof examined' portion.
We talked briefly before, where I gave you my interpretation of the books of Moses, primarily Genesis. This interpretation is not a re-imagined or crudely made-up twist of words, but was pieced together by setting it against actual historical events that match up geographically and chronologically with events described in Genesis. In the context of actual history and modern scientific knowledge, these stories, as I'll attempt to show, become much more cohesive and clear and actually suggest a rather logical 'meaning of life' in the process. And through this lens I'll attempt to illustrate how it resolves many of the more seemingly contradictory portions of the bible by providing context to what's being described.
This is as close to actual, empirical 'proof' as I think you're going to get, as the evidence that many see as 'proof' that God does not exist is exactly the same as the evidence that supports what I'll be describing here. Because the natural sciences are the study of matter and energy, we are only able to detect and observe what is within this universe. In other words, we cannot 'see' beyond the big bang. If God is the creator, He exists before/after/outside of this universe and is therefore undetectable. To be detectable He would have to be subject to His own laws and own creation, thus leaving a 'detectable' impact. The 'evidence' of His existence IS the physical world. It's the immensely complex, yet incredibly harmonious and elegant existence we've come to know so well through scientific discovery. The one difference being that from the 'God does exist' side of the coin our being here is not the result of random chance and countless fortuitous events that could have just as easily become something wildly different, but is rather the deliberate creation of a purposeful, willful God. From this perspective existence would 'appear' just as science shows us; as if the universe and everything in it came together all on its own. Think about it this way, what would you expect to see through the lens of science if there were a God that created everything? What do you not see that confirms in your mind that there isn't? What do you 'think' we should see if it were true that we don't see?
Because of your familiarity with the bible, I most hope to get your analysis from that perspective. This is probably the least 'contested' or 'challenged' portion of what I'm laying out here.
Basically, it started like this. The books of Genesis are undoubtedly the most influential documents in all of human history. They've played a larger role than any other single document in shaping the world we now know, for better or worse. They've had a significant impact on people of every society they came in contact with, again, for better or worse. While the oldest surviving copies are nowhere near the oldest, and while our best scholarly estimations based on the text of those documents place their hypothetical 'source texts' no earlier than around the time of the kingdom of Judah, the stories themselves share many common themes with the oldest known texts of this nature. Texts that are almost as old as writing. Stories about a man in a garden who fell from grace and lost immortality, stories about a golden age before humans became possessive and materialistic, and stories about a large catastrophic flood, echo throughout the mythological tales of many of the first civilizations. And in the case of the Sumerians, the inventors of civilization and the inhabitants of the region/timeframe that Genesis is set in, they also wrote stories about things like a large flood survived by a man who built a boat with a handful of people and a bunch of animals in tow, and about a once universal language that was confused into many. So, based on this, I examined those first 11 chapters of Genesis set against what we now know about the history of that region, tossing aside all previous interpretations or religious-based ideologies built around these texts over the millennia.
To locate a timeframe I took the fact that Abraham's father was said to have been from the Sumerian city of Ur, and that Egypt played a major role in the Abraham/Israelite/Moses stories, combined with the fact that Genesis says Abraham was born just under 2000 years after Adam's creation, and established that if there's any literal truth to Genesis then it couldn't have happened any sooner than roughly 5500 BC. Of course the traditional interpretation is that Adam was the first human, and that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 were two different depictions of the the same event. Even though it's made rather clear within the stories themselves that there were other humans in existence during the pre-flood portion of the story. This is made most clear by the last 2/3's or so of Genesis 4 and the first few verses of Genesis 6. Two of the least agreed-upon and most highly debated portions in all the bible. The 'others' that Cain feared would kill him after he was banished, a fear God acknowledged as legitimate by marking Cain to protect him, the city Cain built, the skills the descendants of Cain 'fathered' that clearly survived beyond the flood, and the mysterious man and boy that Lamech killed for wounding him. Then, in the beginning of Genesis 6, the part separated from Genesis 4 by the list of descendants from Adam to Noah later redacted in, probably to explain who Noah was, that talks about 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans' who it describes as 'mortal', only living 120 years, where Genesis 5 says descendants of Adam lived for centuries. And according to other parts of the bible, like Luke 3, the 'sons of God' were Adam and everyone else listed in Genesis 5.
The significance of Adam is made clear by the stories themselves as well. Notice how the humans in Genesis 1 were given specific tasks that would take numerous generations to accomplish; fill the earth, subdue it, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. All of which describe exactly what homo sapiens actually did by about 10000 BC, just a few thousand years before the timeline of Genesis 2-11. And notice that after this it says God looked on all He made and deemed it 'good'. Now, in Genesis 2 it describes a very different creation. While the first chapter explains that everything in existence, animate or inanimate, followed the will of God exactly, Adam was only given one rule and he broke it. So, how exactly could Adam be expected to realize these commands in Genesis 1, and how could God be certain that the 'others' that Cain feared would kill him simply because he was marked, if Adam, Eve, and Cain were so clearly capable of disobeying? And why would God look on these three that directly disobeyed Him and deem them 'good'? This ability to behave contrary to God's will, the creator of everything in existence, this is what was significant about Adam and Eve. This 'trait' is what caused the 'wickedness' in 'humans' when the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of humans' intermingled and had children. And this is why it says that God 'regretted putting humans on the earth'.
Now, I realize none of that means much of anything by itself. So, here's the kicker. If there were any literal truth to Genesis, if there were any truth to what I've just described, then what would you expect to see? We know roughly where everything happened because it directly says. And we know roughly when based on later portions of the bible. Well, you would expect to see behavioral changes for one thing. These stories described Gen1 humans as being 'different' than Adam in that they behaved according to God's will, where Adam, Eve, and everyone 'of Eve' did not. Behavioral changes that reflect the heightened self-awareness and 'knowledge' that Genesis 2 describes. Well, it turns out that it's exactly these kinds of behavioral changes that can be seen first emerging in southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid culture (5400-4000BC) was the first human settlement that we see the invention of the first human cities (the first being Eridu, 5300BC), complete with a ruling and a working class. All other human settlements up to this point were clearly egalitarian. The Ubaid culture also happens to have lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, roughly 16 centuries. Then, around 4000 BC, it came to an abrupt, still not clearly understood, end. What is known is that a flood played a role at least in the region where the Sumerian city of Ur is located as the artifacts of the Ubaid come to an abrupt halt just below the tell-tale 'sterile deposit' of a flood.
Immediately following the Ubaid culture comes the Uruk culture (4000-3100BC). This culture appears to have picked up right where the other left off. They were male-dominant, unlike humans for tens of thousands of years, and they were separated by class much like those of the Ubaid. The city of Uruk was built near the beginning of this period. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list say Uruk was built not long after the flood. Genesis attributes it to Nimrod, the King's list attributes it to Enmerkar. Both are described as 'mighty hunters'. It's also around the beginning of this period that there was a large climatological event, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC) that transformed the Sahara into desert, again, only this time it never recovered. This climatological event actually did cause massive human migrations, much like what's described in the Babel story. And what's really interesting is that the nomads that came from this growing desert region are actually the ones that brought both the noted behavioral changes, as well as at least two of the oldest known languages (semetic and indo-european), to the other settlements in this region, primarily along the rivers (Tigris/Euphrates, Nile, Indus Valley, etc.).
Now, as for Adam and his descendants living for centuries, before most of them were wiped out by a flood, what would you expect to see if there were any literal truth to that? Well, obviously we lack physical evidence. Considering this would be a rather small numbered 'tribe', and considering the whole flood thing, this isn't exactly a surprise. So, what else would you expect to see? Well, considering the region described was populated, you might expect to see their influence in the mythologies, or depictions of their ancient history according to them. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, they all believed immortal beings existed in their ancient past. In the case of the Sumerians they claim there were immortal, human in form, male and female, gods who lived on the earth amongst them and physically inhabited the temples we know to have actually existed at the center of the cities we know to have actually existed. According to the Sumerians, these gods taught them civilization. The 'gifts of civiliization', each known as a 'me'. In the Sumerian stories, an immortal god named Enki established that first city, Eridu. According to Genesis, Cain established the first city. Then, of course, after roughly 1600 years, this rather advanced culture came to that 'abrupt end' I described above.
See, this is the age when humans first began to live contradictory to nature, rather than at the whim of nature. This is when we first began to create numerous inventions and began to develop methods of agriculture that actually allowed us to control nature, rather than be controlled by it. Much like Genesis says Adam and Eve began to behave contrary to God/nature, and how it says they would have to work for it. The Ubaid culture invented methods that allowed them to farm, much like the settlements to the north in northern Mesopotamia and Europe, only they did it in the adverse conditions of southern Mesopotamia. Cain, who Genesis says was knowledgeable of working the land, was 'cursed' so that the ground wouldn't yield crops for him, and says he's wonder restlessly. Then it says he settled and built a city. According to the Sumerians, Enki taught them agriculture, and that these efforts were orchestrated by the ruling class of the temple, and carried out the by Sumerian people. The Sumerians then provided for the inhabitants of the temple. In fact, the Sumerians believed they were created by these gods to serve them because that's what they did.
The birth of every major civilization finds its roots in this dispersion and mass migration of these 'patrist' nomadic 'Saharasians'. It was the arrival of these people in each region that brought about these same behavioral changes and unique languages. And the rest of human history describes these 'civilized' people overtaking the indigenous inhabitants of the lands, killing and enslaving the 'natives' or 'savages'. This, all of this (and quite a bit more), is the best 'proof' I think you'll see. It's this very behavior, this change when humans began to take control of nature to bend it to their will, that Genesis is describing. This leads right up to the story of Abraham, who's father was from Sumer, and his dealings with Egypt. This already populated world scenario also brings a lot of clarity to the whole time in the wilderness, the 613 Mitzvah laws, all of that. It's because this one 'chosen' bloodline that would eventually bring about the savior, had to be protected and controlled. But with this new 'free will' running rampant, this took some doing. That's what the OT is describing, and why it all stopped in the NT.
As for the flood, it clearly wasn't global. For one thing there would be no sense in a global flood, whether viewed through my interpretation or the traditional one, because the descendants of Adam/Eve just 10 generations along wouldn't inhabit the entire earth. But it's also made rather clear by the only two mentions of the 'Nephilim' (Gen6(pre-flood), Num13(post-flood)), ie survivors. And, of course, the whole last 2/3's of Genesis 4 which would be totally irrelevant if everyone (and all the skills those that had skills Cain's descendants 'fathered') died in a flood.
I could literally go on and on, but I'll stop for now since this is already a small book. Sorry for the extensive read, but this is no easy task you're laying out. It's dealing with all of existence, all of human history, all of the bible, all the various mythologies of the world, etc. There's a lot to cover. I'll just let whatever you decide to tackle first steer things from here, if you feel so inclined.Headly:
We discussed this briefly, but then our conversation was already part of a much longer diatribe and it sort of got lost in the shuffle. While I do know a lot about the bible, I will also admit that the history that i've studied is not of that region or that time period, and you know way more than I do. I have a problem with your opening paragraph - I don't believe that the earth is evidence for god's existence at all, and I have large problems with the argument from intelligent design, the TAG argument used by Christian apologists and the Watchmaker argument. I do believe if everything that exists has a first cause, then god is subjected to that same idea, which leaves you with the question: Who created god. Apologists then go for special pleading, and claim that god either a) didn't begin to exist, so no first-cause is necessary to explain him or b) god exists outside of space and time and is not subjective to our perception of its laws or nature. I don't believe that the earth is evidence of any god, and I believe that all of the arguments for intelligent design, first causes or others have all been sufficiently countered by people with much more knowledge on the subject that I have. I'm still learning about it, but I am more than content to say that I don't know how or why the universe began - and it doesn't really matter to me. From everything I do know of science, no ultimate "designer" is necessary.
As far as the crux of your argument goes - I can see where you've lined it up with the Biblical account and I commend you for that. But I think that you're starting to enter into dangerous territory when you, again, start with a conclusion and try to fit various pieces of the puzzle into what you hope to believe. appreciate the fact that you have found flaws in the typical interpretation of the biblical story. Your theory is going against doctrine that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Ultimately you have a creation myth - that one group of people used to justify their own existence on earth, and gave them a sense of purpose. The story of adam and eve was written down and created by the jewish people long after the fact to establish their connection and origin with the being they claimed created the universe. They attributed things beyond their comprehension to this mythical being - much like Romans attributed floods to Neptune, or lightning to Zeus. While the history of the region may be able to be explained by the adam/eve story when you take it completely out of context and paint it in broad strokes to fit, since the adam/eve story was written down much, much later - why couldn't the writers tailor the story around what they already knew about the history of the region? Why does it have to be anything special, therefore? They explained the shifts, therefore, by injecting a special super-human and that human's connection with a deity.
I suppose we can begin there - and I'll do more research about the history of the cultures that you mentioned. I'm sorry that I don't have anything more to go on than that.As for the whole ID thing, my mention of that had more to do with why discussions of 'evidence' of God's existence are ultimately pointless, and why I'm taking this alternate approach. It's not so much a 'first cause' thing because you're talking about a fundamental 'rule' that applies to the observable universe. True or not, the God of the bible is described as the creator of the universe. Therefore He cannot be a part of it and cannot be subject to any 'rules' or 'laws' established through our observation of that universe. So, really its just a question of whether or not you think order can come out of random chaos or not. Can intelligence capable of contemplating the universe and our place in it come from non-intelligence? Are the exact right conditions of this universe that formed this universe and allows for life in this universe to exist as it does just a fluke that resulted in us? A countless series of events within those conditions that just happened to pan out the way it did, but could have at any point gone a totally different direction where we never would have existed? Or, do you believe this existence and this life have a purpose? That they're the result of a purposeful 'intelligence', not unlike the intelligence that eventually evolved in this environment? Personally, I think this does matter because if it is indeed just random chance that we're here, then that means all the purpose and meaning we assign to our lives is nothing more than an imagined thing that makes us feel better about our fleeting time here. It means nothing we do or accomplish really matters at all because it'll all just ultimately go away much like it began. Dust to dust, so to speak. It robs all life of any real sense of importance. True or not, provable or not, is that really the 'better' mindset to harvest and encourage? Or is there a reason the human condition repeatedly 'imagines' something more to all of this? Is that not part of what makes us who we are? What would we be now without it? I honestly can't say that way of thinking would really make the world 'better'. But, that's all aside from the point, and it's this kind of thing that I feel really derails the chance for real discussions that can find real answers because it's fundamentally philosophical and cannot be 'proven' one way or the other. Like free will versus determinism. It's a perpetual argument with no end in sight. That's why I'm going this other route.
You're making some assumptions here about the bible that are distorting things right from the start. First, it's important to know and understand all that is actually 'known' about these texts versus what is assumed. For instance, "Ultimately you have a creation myth - that one group of people used to justify their own existence on earth, and gave them a sense of purpose". The fact is, nobody knows how old the books of Moses really are or who wrote them. Our best scholarly guesses can basically be summed up the 'documentary hypothesis'. The texts as we know them now were edited together from multiple older sources of unknown origin. We just don't know. What we do know is that stories with very similar themes have existed in the 'cradle of civilization' since the beginning of writing and were clearly very well known throughout the region. As soon as humans began to write, as soon as writing reached a point that narratives could be conveyed, they started writing about these stories.
As for your question "why couldn't the writers tailor the story around what they already knew about the history of the region?"... A couple of things. First, let's think about that from the 'no God exists' standpoint. We're talking about a span of time that dates back at least 2000 years before writing, and that spans across the rise and fall of at least two cultures. Without writing, you only have verbal stories passed down, again over the course of 200 centuries, with no written record. For these people to have that kind of understanding of the entirety of the history of the region that would allow them to then frame a cohesive narrative around it would be a monumentally impressive task whether there's any truth to the 'God' part or not. Which leads right into the second point... if there's even 50% truth to this, then there's a lot more value in these texts for purely historical purposes than it's currently given credit for. And it also means that the people of this still very 'mysterious' phase of human history that came before the fall of Rome and the onset of the 'dark ages' was even more knowledgeable than even the surviving artifacts of Sumer and Egypt have led us to believe.
We've only really known about the Egyptians for a couple of centuries and we've only just found out about Sumer roughly a century ago. Yet they were both clearly very advanced and intelligent. For example, the Akkadian empire took over Mesopotamia and basically engulfed Sumer. Yet, they continued to use Sumerian 'religion', mathematics, and science. The Sumerians invented astronomy and mathematics, the Akkadians/Babylonians learned it from them, which is where people like Ptolemy learned it from. They're the 'source', you could say, to everything that came after. In fact, it's incredibly interesting to me that the Sumerian language was used much like we use Latin in modern times. They spoke Akkadian, then later Babylonian, yet they continued to use Sumerian for 'religious' purposes and for their scientific and mathematic practices. Yet the Sumerians themselves didn't give credit to their ancestors for such impressive advances in intelligence and knowledge, they say they were taught.
This is what drives what I do. It's not, as you say, me "start(ing) with a conclusion and try to fit various pieces of the puzzle into what (I) hope to believe". It's me trying to find the real truth using all the information available to us. And it's me being aware of where the facts stop and the human assumptions begin. Like I said, they distort things. And that includes the man-made 'doctrines' that have existed for centuries. They're still grounded in the knowledge base of their time. Just as we are grounded by the knowledge base of our time. The first step in learning always begins with admitting and recognizing what we do not know.
How do you know we cannot see beyond the big bang? MACS0647-JD is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time. The James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's next orbiting observatory and the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A tennis court-sized telescope orbiting far beyond Earth's moon.
If the next orbital telescope can see farther back in time it could see what was here before the Big Bang.Really? Are you suggesting that a telescope will let us see the Universe before it formed? That would be a slick trick since, by my understanding, we have no hope of seeing anything before several million years after the Big Bang or until after the first 400,000 years of expansion.
Turn it around and look through the other end!
Why not. Would not a better telescope see farther and therefore longer ago?
No. We can't see the Big Bang because we use light to look at distant objects. Light is emitted from matter. But, when the Universe was very young the matter and radiation were so densely packed that light couldn't go anywhere. So, it can't reach us today.
All this is, of course, assuming the Big Bang theory is correct.Not all telescopes look for natural light. All we have to do is to look farther away to see what was there. If nothing is visible or detectable then we know that nothing is visible or detectable. We have no idea (yet) of what was going on before the supposed big bang.
You might be referencing the European telescopes launched to detect electromagnetic radiation. But, they think electromagnetic radiation hadn't formed until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. We still don't have technology to see anything prior to that. Or, none that I am aware pg.
I find this rather funny. You're saying they can't detect anything because there was nothing there, so why even look? We look, and if we find nothing then we know.
You may find it funny if you don't understand the Big Bang theory. If you can't see anything before 300,000 years after the Bang how do you purpose that to be seeing things prior to the Bang?
Who told you we can't/or won't be able to see or detect anything before 300,000 years after the big bang?
That would be science. I'm not implying that we will never know, but with current technology we can't know. Out of curiosity, how do you propose to see a time before time began?
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov
From this site
"The James Webb Space Telescope (sometimes called JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. The project is working to a 2018 launch date. Webb will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Webb will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. Webb's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range."
Who knows what it will see? Maybe there was a compressing universe before the big bang? We are able to look into the past, we just can't see ourselves.Again. Electromagnetic radiation, according to the Big Bang Theory, didn't form until 300,000 years after the Bang. I'm not catching what you are driving at. It sounds as if you are reiterating something I already told you.
The Big Bang created a sea of electromagnetic radiation from the get go, hence that is why we observe today, evidence for the Big Bang in the form of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave BackGround Radiation).
It was some 380,000 years afterwards, after forming protons and electrons that the dense radiation began to thin out allowing for photons to escape and travel.The point was that we can't see back further, with the current technology. As I understand it. Rad man appears to believe that we can, with more powerful telescopes, observe prior to the Big Bang.
You again do not understand. I personally have no idea what we'll see, but we need to look. The new telescope will be able to see farther away and if it see's nothing then that nothing is information.
I suppose you could have gone back and read your own statement, but since you didn't....here is the comment you made that led this conversation down the path it took.
"If the next orbital telescope can see farther back in time it could see what was here before the Big Bang. "'And... I guess you know what it was like before the Big Bang. I'm saying if we see nothing then we know we see nothing.
But think about it. If you see nothing and that nothing you are looking at is hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang, you aren't finding out what was before it. What you are looking at couldn't be nothing. You simply don't have the technology to detect it. Unless you are saying that the Bang happened and the universe then formed from nothing?
You still don't understand. You're still talking about current technology and I'm talking about future technology. What happens if we can see much farther in space? What do we see? Do you think you have the answers so there is no need to look?
Did the universe form from nothing? There was something, there is no question about that, but what and where that something came from is the question.Well, I do agree with that post. We have to look, we have to be honest about our limitations and reserve judgement and conclusions until we have the data necessary.
I don't mean 'see' in the strictly visible sense. I mean that anything and everything that is detectable/observable scientifically is the result of the big bang. We can apply our understanding of the matter, energy, and natural laws of this universe and trace it all the way back to its original form, but we cannot 'see' beyond it. When I said 'we cannot 'see' beyond the big bang' I was loosely paraphrasing Neil LeGasse Tyson who says the same thing.
How is it that we could possibly know how old the Universe is? That sounds like whoever made that calculation was grasping at straws.
No, they are making educated calculations based on observation and evidence.
There is a whole explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Fa from clutching at straws the theory is validated by a multitude of tests.Like the Vodka test? Maybe the LSD test?
Or the troll test - one you should be incredibly familiar with, no?
Thanks for the link. *removing foot from mouth.*
HeadlyvonNoggin,
That is very interesting analysis of what Genesis is about. The way I see it, however, is there are far to many impossible or illogical, from the things seen, things for it to be literal which but giving them metaphorical interpretations they could be. However, because we see almost everything happening in cycles and Genesis 1:14 say the sun, moon and stars are for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years, I believe the civilizations follows a pattern of a long time for the evening {time preceding light}, a short transition, a long morning {time of light} and another short transition back to evening. Here's how I see it.
The first 8 verses of Genesis 1 begins with the spirit moving upon the waters {I interpret as people because of Revelation 17:15}, forming of light without a source of light and dividing the waters {people} with a firmament naming the upper one being heaven which, because of the belief in a all-at-once rapture that's what I see it as being. Because the description in Revelation 1:4 & 23 suggest man don't recognize the conditions their flesh it suggest it's a spiritual civilization, therefore it took some 6000 years before man learned their bodies enough to reproduce and eat, so they reproduced for only 1 thousand of years {day of rest} before Adam came into play as the rise of civilization like sunrise of a morning.
Since, according to Genesis 1:9-13, plants appeared on the third day while 2:5 say there was no plants when Adam was formed (V 7) that would be a contradiction unless Adam was born in a desolate place and was then moved to a location with plants at weaning and taught, by a voice[b/] how to survive eating the fruit falling from the trees and drinking from streams until he could reach them. The [b]tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not a physical tree, was placed in the garden for him to begin judging things good and evil was a metaphorical one suggesting the number of things called good or evil would increase as their knowledge grew.
The operation, with him not being told it was going to take place, was a dream suggesting to live in a group as seen among the birds and animals he would have to allow his masculinity or femininity to become dormant but awaking to a presence of the other man he, actually, renamed our specie woven from man in the single term woman, especially since the term man means the ability to become wise or able to comprehend all things. Why? Because 2:24 say leave parents to become man again by integrating the wife into his own flesh, that's the only thing it could mean. Untimely, the flood becomes the completion of the rise of this civilization. For my whole vision of the Bible's interpretation see http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/vision.htm#unsealed.
"Show me your proof for god - any god"
That's where you're going wrong in my opinion. People's belief in god is not necessarily based on evidence (it can't be because there is no categorical evidence either way). Instead that belief is grounded in apparent experience of god. This could be the feeling of being loved, or feeling forgiven, or feeling that some event in life is caused/prevented by god etc. That "experience" of god is what many people's belief is grounded in.
The issue is that belief grounded in experience is different from belief based on evidence. Such belief has a high epistemic status. In other words we tend to believe things we have apparently experienced. This tendency developed due to the process of natural selection because it aids survival (responding quickly and decisively to sensory information was an advantage to our ancestors).
That means people do not believe in god in the same way they believe Everest is the highest mountain. People believe in god in the same way your friends believe "in" you. Your friend's belief that you exist is not based on evidence. They do not reason that they have seen a birth certificate, driving licence, social security number for you, therefore you must exist. Instead that belief is grounded in the fact that they have "experienced" you. It's on that basis that they say they "know" you exist. That is basic belief. No evidence is required for its formation, so asking for evidence is probably not fertile ground for useful discussion.Yes, but there is proof that I exist, and if a god really manifests in the world the way people claim, there should be evidence of his existence. I've run across dozens of hubs alone that claim to have proof for god. I just started a forum to open the discussion.
"Yes, but there is proof that I exist"
Yes but it's not needed to form belief in your existence. In the same way, evidence you ate toast for breakfast is not needed for you to believe you did. Your belief is grounded in your experience of eating the toast, not on an analysis of the contents of your stomach. The fact that such evidence exists is irrelevant to the formation of your belief about it.
"and if a god really manifests in the world the way people claim, there should be evidence of his existence"
Perhaps, but again lack of evidence is irrelevant to belief grounded in apparent experience. If analysis of your stomach showed no evidence of toast, that would not necessarily alter your belief that you ate some this morning. You are more likely to question the reliability of the test than to question a belief grounded in your own apparent experience. Such is the high epidemic status of experience.
"I've run across dozens of hubs alone that claim to have proof for god."
No doubt, but those claims are wrong. There is no categorical, objectively verifiable evidence that proves or refutes the existence of a deity. More importantly there doesn't need to be, for people to form god-belief, which is self-evident if you think about it.It is possible that what people call god is angelic beings, I have plenty evidence of that but don't call god.
The day of my new conception after I had analyzed my life because of the mindset I was in a audible voice told me go back to the church and left me so overjoyed I went back to work 15 minutes before lunch hour was up.
The year was 1978 in the United States of Mexico I was fasting for a day and half because I had not heard the voice for many months when my appetite flared up so I got off the road and prayed, the voice said get back on the road and in less than a hundred miles a trucker going in the opposite direction dropped me food.
In 1986 after I left El Passo, TX I got a ride for over 100 miles to a truck stop where I spent the night and ate breakfast. As I proceeded walking on my way without having food nor water with me around 3 pm I became hungry and prayed for food as there was nothing growing where I was. About 100 yards further there appeared 2 seeded plaints growing just off the roadway but the seeds didn't have the rust color of ripe ones so I refused to get them. As I walked along I questioned myself if I had refused them because they were not ripe or because it was not what I wanted and in about another 100 yard there were another 2 of the plants except there was some rust color on the seeds which i cut off and ate. They were an angel manifesting as the plantsto provide me with food.
And that's only three of many.no no no no, I said evidence. I like the United States of Mexico thing though. It made me laugh.
They are evidence but only to the one who experienced them.
So you always get what you pray for? Prove it. Pray for peace in the middle east. I'll watch in the papers over the next few days to see how your efforts play themselves out.
Dear Lord, please put Rad Man in a better mood. Thanks, in advance. ....................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
How you feeling Rad Man? If that worked, I'll get right on the Middle East thing. If not, ......damn.
(Just kidding)Thanks Emile, I'll feel better after dinner. I don't like to complain or have excuses, but I've been sick all week and haven't had much sleep.
Breath in.... Breath out.
I know I shouldn't pick on The0NatureBoy, but that United States of Mexico was funny. I think I'm feeling better.
Yeh, I saw that comment. I had no idea what he meant by that...but I wasn't about to ask.
Hope you fell better soon.If you read Mexico's money it reads Estatidos Unitidos de Mexico, I may have misspelled the first 2 words but they translates to States United of Mexico
I don't have to pray for it, it has already been foretold. If you observed just before the New Year they Israel has been providing the Palestinians with building materials and holding back on doing anything to them.
just the same there is no proof of the non-G0d faith
it takes a leap of faith to believe that all the king horses and all the king men couldn't put humpty together again...there is no "faith" involved in not believing in a god. that's another common misnomer.
the experience of god's love or forgiveness is something i have known. it was akin to the placebo effect. some folks can have their pain killed by a sugar pill. something so subjective is poor evidence for an efficacious god. i missed it for a while when i first became rationally based. now i have real friends instead of an imaginary one.
Don:
Your distinction between evidence and experience is not productive, because all evidence is experienced. That's how it becomes evidence--because we experience it in some way.
"The issue is that belief grounded in experience is different from belief based on evidence."
But they are one and the same. How do you know the evidence exists? Because you experienced it (by seeing it, hearing it, or whatever).
You yourself prove this point by saying:
"Instead that belief is grounded in apparent experience of god. This could be the feeling of being loved, or feeling forgiven..."
"Feeling" is one of the five senses, and it is one way we detect evidence.
So claims about "feeling" or "experiencing" God do indeed count as claims of evidence. And they are therefore subject to the same requirements and constraints and analysis as all other evidentiary claims. Accordingly, such analysis demonstrates those claims are always faulty and flawed.I'm not talking about experience per se. I'm talking about qualia, i.e. a specific kind of subjective experience. And I'm not talking about evidence per se. I'm talking about objectively verifiable evidence. I assumed that to be obvious given the context of the thread.
That's what I am talking about too. All objective evidence is experienced by individual people. That's how individuals know it exists.
Something may be experienced by one individual alone, but it is still an objective thing. That is, assuming it is part of reality, i.e. it is real.
The OP mentioned "proof" but did not specify a particular kind of proof. He mentioned "reasons to believe" which is very broad, especially given the fact that theists and naturalists tend to have very different conceptions of what counts as legitimate proof.I didn't specify type of proof specifically. The large majority of religious people I have encountered claim to have absolute, scientific proof for god - servantofgod even has hubs about it. I'm asking them to discuss it openly here, since whenever I commented on his hub, he denied/deleted the comments. Forums make that not possible, if you're going to post. Therefore, I was hoping for an open discussion. Don seems unable to wrap his mind around it, and results to insulting me or calling my qualifications into question when I disagree with his arguments. In the meantime, he's not contributing to the conversation at all - he's just saying there is no proof, so I shouldn't be asking. I don't feel the need to supply my college transcripts or debate printouts for his perusal. Fortunately for me, whether or not he believes me has no impact on the reality. I think he just likes being contrary.
I don't know about absolute and scientific proofs of God but I know that atheits can't offer an absolute and scientific proof of a no-God...any news?
atheists don't have the burden of proof - they're not making any positive claims, and you don't have to prove a negative.
Theists are claiming absolutely that a god exists. The burden of proof rests on them.What difference does that make...you are still left without any belief, while others' have one.
so what? I don't have any justification for believing in a god - there is no evidence to require belief.
The nature of belief is just that...believe. No evidence is required or it would not be a belief. It is the leap of faith where you find God.
so do you believe that unicorns exist? Leprechauns? Dragons? Zeus? Apollo? Why not just BELIEVE in them? There's an equal amount of proof for these things as there is for your god.
No I don't. I believe in Our Creator and believe that we have been purposefully created.
I know you do - but you have no reason to believe it. You just choose to because it makes you feel good inside. You have no problem NOT believing in things without evidence - but you require no evidence at all for one of the (arguably) most important aspects of your life and your possible after-life?
Why do you believe at all?
You say I have no reason to believe, but that is your belief.
and I have asked you repeatedly (which you've repeatedly dodged) WHY you believe it.
This forum topic is entitled "reasons to believe". But all you say is "I believe, so there" without ever discussing why - except that you seem to want to.
Who cares why I believe. You are certainly going to criticise. Let's just say it's my choice.
are you missing the whole point of this forum thread? It's called "reasons to believe". I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you're not willing to provide those reasons, then why are you posting on this forum specifically?
I replied to your statement about the burden of proof. Really people believe whether they give you the proof you want or not.
that's not true. Intellectually honest people will consider all the evidence that is presented. If it is sufficient, they will rethink their position. If it is not, they will keep searching. Only the closed-minded people only believe what they want to believe and refuse to listen to any opinion that differs from their own.
Look at science. As technology advances, science does as well. Some of the hypothesis previously believed to be true are re-examined as more and more evidence comes to light. Sometimes those hypothesis are discarded. Sometimes they're altered to include the new evidence. Sometimes they're confirmed. That's what intellectual honesty is - taking everything into account, confirming or disproving your beliefs and staying open to possibilities.
Bingo. I think you are finally beginning to understand.
okay, I've understood the whole time. What are you referring to?
what is then a definition of atheist? I 'd think that when I say X is and another guy says no, X is not then X and Y are thesis and antithesis and then it's a matter of? Exists means that some stuff IS and Does not exist means that "that" IS not...'essence-wise' therefore to claim that the proof is only the requirement for an existence means that the negation needs a proof for an 'acceptable' 'reason' and then we all start bover the same same old stuff
and that is a matter as old as Matusalen or prior so... the easy way out is to say that your logic is 'right' well it may be but by your own same token mine is too...and that is why I ask if there is any news, so again, any news? You cannot deny the existence and experience of intuition the same that we cannot deny that facts sometimes more often than they should would show the absence of spirituality...But, again, spirituality is not provable but determines a life in a way and not in another and that IS...The definition of an athirst is "without belief". Atheists are completely different from "anti" theists. An atheist simply has a lack of a belief in a god. I don't say "no god exists", I say I don't believe in one. They are two very different things
so far so good
although bottom line is nthe same because for some reasons (reasonable or not you claim that there is no God...it is not that you do not care if one existed, it is that you deny that God exists, and so, I ask again, any news??
I know that agnosticism resigns to the fact that still logic and math and 'sudokos; can't prove anything pro or con regarding a deity (much worse deities), but they leave it as such, a lack of proof;
to claim that for a fact God does not exist is a strong statement and it needs proofs and, for me, this statement exhibits also a faith, a leap of faith (as the scientific method can't prove or disprove any gods or not, those will not affect science...
So if knowledge is kept safe, and faith is present in both believers in God and believers in the lack of a god, then we are talking about.... maybe the distaste for the atheist who strongly and arrogantly discharges almost disrespectfully the belief of others. I understand of the pleasures of argumenting thoughts but to reject whatever the Bible says as unverifieable does NOT mean it's unbelievable: that is my right to a leap of faith, and it's mine and here to stay, until the one claiming the contrary will convince me I am wrong, AND it's not the other way around because, simple, you do NOT have any proofs so far Do not get me wrong, McFarland, you can believe whatever pleases you, but are really right? says who?
One special 'reasoning of atheist goes like this: biased by upbringing and/or tragedies in earlier times of their life as a 'proof' of the evility of God, then could it be that God ius evil? well thanks!!! that is admitting that God exists!! yet, their experiences and reasoning still do not convince...This only feeds bitterness and agressiveness, even when all 'good' intentions are forementioned to avoid just what happens anyway...
Another vway they explain their "lack of faith" is thru "reasoning" and so, God who by definition does not have shape nor location, suddenly is given the impossibility of being shapeless and with no location, you know, the spirit?? : so because of that, language forces us to say the "therefore God does not exist"...how about the unspoken loanguage of our souls? and of intuition and of hopes fulfilled by completed a "lottery' wise system? is this completely random? so mr random is powerfull? he showed uo with my fulfilled hope when I asked for it...well yeah, that's a leap of faith, two-ways...No no no no... We do not need to show evidence that no God exists, you are making the claim that god exists therefore you need to show evidence.
I make the claim that big foot exists, but have no evidence. Do I ask you to find evidence that he doesn't exist or do I look for evidence of his existence.
I make the claim that a tiny spiting frog inhabits the arctic. Can you supply evidence that he doesn't exist? No, It's up to me to find one in it's natural habitat and provide evidence.your 'point' is simply pointless; and that is my point; if you deny spirituality you deny man! then you pretend me to congratulate you?
you keep yourself in your track...it's of no importance for me just as it should be of no importance for you whatever i believe of you, your style, your posts...you are free to be a believer of no gods, but do not say that you are not a believer...To believe or to not believe still means a faith...but you keep saying that you are not
and then send the ball to my field...so far, no scores for you nor me...even!your 'point' is simply pointless; and that is my point; if you deny spirituality you deny man! then you pretend me to congratulate you?
you keep yourself in your track...it's of no importance for me just as it should be of no importance for you whatever i believe of you, your style, your posts...you are free to be a believer of no gods, but do not say that you are not a believer...To believe or to not believe still means a faith...but you keep saying that you are not and then send the ball to my field...so far, no scores for you nor me...even!
You are completely missing the point.
Atheism: Lack of a Belief in a god.
Agnosticism: Lack of Knowledge of a god.
Atheists don't have to say "no god exists" at most, the only thing they assert is that none of the "evidence" presented for a god-claim has been sufficient, and that's an easy assertion to prove - if it was sufficient evidence, there would be no atheists. Gnosticism/agnosticism has NOTHING to do with belief. it addresses knowledge. Agnostics state that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether or not a god exists.
I have NEVER said in this forum or anywhere else that "there is no god". Never. Therefore your assertion is false - and also could potentially fall into the straw-man logical fallacy category. You asking me to disprove god is identical to me asking you to prove that unicorns don't exist.
If you're going to participate in the discussion, you need to actually understand the meaning of the words that you're using. I have now defined them twice. You're welcome.
absolutely anybody with a statement of this nature must have a sound base that validates the correctnes or say the truthfullness of the statement; you, McFarland, do not have one just the same I do not have one...everythinng else is piure conjectures...do you know what that means? it means that it may be possible but probability NEEDS more support.
that's how many science advances have began with and succeded and many more failed!! do you understand what does that mean? it means that as long as you feel like it and it is meaningful mand it does not bother you, in particular then it maybe or not...and your statements happen to suffer of the same quality of, perhaps, a possibility...after death we will know for sure...or maybe we won't; in the case we will you loose, in the case we won't you win...it's almost 50/50 % barely Everything else is fruitless if related to the burden of proof on one team sorry for the bad news...and too is fruitless because you reject the possibility of a common approach not even by default but by using the same frame of...mere...just... conjectures...If you impose on some the burden of proof and in your own terms that has a definition in psichology :< so the burden is, itt seems, on you too even if you do not acknowledge it...sorry...it's just like that among humans...we all do and undo...there is always two sides of the coin simultaneously or...?Firstly, your long, drawn-out comments make very little sense. Is english your first language? I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm trying to understand the potential language barrier here.
You're not familiar with debates, are you? You don't seem to understand the concept of the "burden of proof" - it's not something I'm making up. It's scientific, it's logical and it's known world-wide in the debate community, in the religious community and in the scientific community. If you make a claim, you are expected to be able to prove it. If you cannot, then your claim is baseless. I am not MAKING a claim, although you like to misrepresent me a lot and keep on saying that I'm saying "no god exists" when I have said no such thing ever - at ANY point of my life.
I get that it may be hard for you to understand, but your understanding of things does not change the reality.
To avoid a pointless semantic argument let me be clear. There is a difference between belief formed on the basis of that which is objectively verifiable, and belief which is not formed on the basis of that which is objectively verifiable. I am making the points that god-belief is an example of the latter, that there are other beliefs of the same type, and that this has implications for the OP.
By way of illustration I've used the belief of doing something in the past (having breakfast) as an example of belief which does not require objectively verifiable evidence for its formation. It is grounded solely in apparent subjective experience, which by definition cannot be examined by anyone other than the subject. Whether objectively verifiable evidence exists is irrelevant, the point is that it is unnecessary for the formation of belief about what we had for breakfast this morning.
Likewise, even if some theists (mistakenly) believe there is objectively verifiable evidence that supports the existence of a deity, that's irrelevant because such evidence is unnecessary for the formation of god-belief, which may be grounded solely in apparent subjective experience. If subjective experiences are someone's "reasons to believe" then by definition, they cannot be examined by anyone other than the subject.
The opening post says: "Show me your proof for god . . . but be prepared to have your proof examined". This implies objective evidence (by definition you cannot examine that which is subjective unless you are the subject). It therefore makes a false assumption about the nature of god-belief. I have already pointed that out to the opening poster. From his responses I suspect he does not understand, rather than disagrees. I can't fault him for not understanding. Whether you understand remains to be seen.I understand you perfectly fine, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Your premise is wrong, there is no legitimate belief that cannot be objectively verified. Because reality is by definition objective in nature--it doesn't change based on the individual.
You gave the example of eating breakfast--this is objectively verifiable. Someone else can attest that you ate breakfast. Or, if you ate breakfast alone and no one else can vouch, then as I already said, it is still an objective fact that you ate breakfast. Even if no one was around when it happened, the fact is that someone COULD confirm it. It is theoretically possible to confirm it objectively.
If you later hallucinate and suddenly believe that you did not eat breakfast, you are wrong, because the fact that you ate breakfast is an objective fact, independent of your own beliefs or thoughts.
By contrast, claims about God, or angels or demons and whatnot, cannot be objectively verified. That is why they are illegitimate claims, and they rank with fantasy and imagination.
There is not a single legitimate claim that humans can make that is categorically incapable of being objectively verified. And it is the verifiability of the breakfast claim that makes it "believable"--it doesn't take a great leap of faith to accept it. The same is not true of miracles, for example."Your premise is wrong, there is no legitimate belief that cannot be objectively verified . . . You gave the example of eating breakfast. . . . Even if no one was around when it happened, the fact is that someone COULD confirm it."
You comments address a misconception of my argument, rather than my actual argument. Either you need to read more carefully, or I need to express myself more clearly. Hopefully both those things will happen.
The point is not whether someone's belief about breakfast can be objectively verified. Not once have I said it can't be. The point is that falsifiability is not necessary to form or maintain such belief. It is the apparent experience which leads to the formation of such belief, not its potential for falsifiability. If that was the case, no one would believe anything which was not falsifiable. Clearly they do, so evidently falsifiability is not the attribute which determines the formation of belief in those cases. I notice you are now qualifying belief with the use of "legitimate". That doesn't really help. Does falsifiability determine whether a belief is "legitimate"?
Depends what "legitimate" means. Let me start by taking it at face value. If falsifiability determines whether a belief is "legitimate" (whatever it means) then the belief that someone has a headache is not "legitimate". Let me do some pre-empting here: No, that belief is not objectively verifiable. No, a scan of someone's brain/ nervous system does not categorical tell us what that individual is experiencing. No, there is no instrument, test or method that allows us to exactly experience another human being's experience, so it is not possible to categorically tell someone they are not experiencing a headache. By your standard, the belief someone has a headache is therefore illegitimate(!?)
On the other hand if by "legitimate" you mean epistemologically justified, then falsifiability does have some bearing on that, and it doesn't. A belief which is objectively proven false, can still be epistemologically justified. Using your example, if someone hallucinated they had no breakfast, but was not aware they had hallucinated, then belief grounded in that apparent experience is epistemologically justified. This is because, in the absence of contrary evidence, a person is justified in assuming their subjective experience to be real. That is a fundamental axiom by which we live (it happens to aid survival). So the formation of that belief is justified.
However, if it was categorically proven that the experience was not actual, then maintaining that belief would be unjustified. Assuming it was so proven, then for the person in your example we would have to say their continued belief that they had no breakfast is unjustified, but the formation of that belief was justified.
The implications of all this for god-belief are: the formation of god-belief is epistemologically justified if it is based on genuine apparent experience and 2) it cannot be determined whether maintaining certain aspects of god-belief is epistemologically justified, because certain aspects of god-belief are not falsifiable.
So no, falsifiability does not affect the formation of certain beliefs, and no beliefs which are not falsifiable are not unjustified if that's what you mean by illegitimate. Maintaining such belief maybe if it can be categorically proven that it is not grounded in actual experience, but that's not always possible with god-belief. Hence my original point that a discussion about god-belief and evidence is essentially a red herring.Well the word "justified" sounds a lot like "legitimate" if you ask me. But call it whatever you want.
"If that was the case, no one would believe anything which was not falsifiable. Clearly they do..."
Sure, people believe all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they are right in doing so.
Falsifiability is an essential part of knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it is the whole thing, but it is a necessary condition. The reason is simple: how can I know that something is true if I can't sense it or figure it out myself?
I don't entirely agree with the idea that we can't really know if someone is having a headache. But let's leave that aside for now. Suppose I accept the premise that the truth of the headache is indeed unknowable to an outsider.
Ok, so take two statements: "I have a headache" and "There are pixies flying around inside my head."
According to you, both of these statements carry equal epistemological weight. We have just as much reason to believe one as the other. But if someone made the second claim to you, can you honestly say that you would not be worried for that person's mental health?
There is something that makes headaches different from pixies. Headaches and the effects of headaches are observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is affecting many people in the same way.
When someone reports a headache, it does not arouse nearly the amount of incredulousness that head-pixies would. And there is a reason for that.
Now for some reason you are creating a distinction between the formation of a belief and the maintenance of a belief. That's all very interesting, but it seems unnecessary. The question on the table is, what makes a belief (epistemologically) legitimate. You admit that when evidence arises to the contrary, non-evidenced experience must yield.
Now, suppose I accept your argument that certain beliefs are justified in the absence of falsifiability--specifically, beliefs dealing with one's internal world which is not accessible by outsiders. Ok, great. You still have a problem: the belief in God is not a belief about something internal, it's a claim about something external, in the external world. It may be based on one's lonely experiences, but it is still a claim about objective reality--there is a thing called "God" hanging out there in the universe. Well, if reality is so ordered, then it must be accessible to other people in some way too.
One doesn't get to make an objective claim but then hide behind the shield of subjectivity when challenged.
"in the absence of contrary evidence, a person is justified in assuming their subjective experience to be real."
No, all one can say is that it's sometimes pragmatic to believe something without evidence. It requires less brainpower expenditure to just accept whatever silliness pops into one's head than to rigorously apply the scientific method and spend hours researching and experimenting on every idea one has. But pragmatism that enables the average person to get on with their daily life is a far cry from epistemological legitimacy."Sure, people believe all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they are right in doing so."
What do you mean by "right" in this context?
"Falsifiability is an essential part of knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it is the whole thing, but it is a necessary condition. The reason is simple: how can I know that something is true if I can't sense it or figure it out myself?"
Falsifiability is an essential aspect of scientific method, but it is not essential to form or maintain belief in god.
"Ok, so take two statements: "I have a headache" and "There are pixies flying around inside my head . . . According to you, both of these statements carry equal epistemological weight. We have just as much reason to believe one as the other."
If by "carry equal epistemological weight" you mean they are epistemologically justified, then not necessarily. Depends on context. If both statements were made in a situation not conducive to reliable sensory perception, neither would be justified. If either was being made by a person with a known dysfunction that affected their sensory perception, that would not be justified. Note: justified/unjustified does not equate to true/false. Belief can be epistemologically justified, yet false and vice versa.
"But if someone made the second claim to you, can you honestly say that you would not be worried for that person's mental health?"
My first thought would be that it's a joke. If it wasn't I'd think they must have imagined it or dreamt it. If they were adamant they didn't, I'd think maybe someone spiked their drink. If someone was adamant that it was none of those things, I would not assume mental illness but I wouldn't rule it out either. I would mostly be curious as to why they are making that claim.
But that's irrelevant. Assuming the belief is epistemologically justified, that doesn't mean you or I have to believe it. By definition the subjective experience that led to the formation of their belief can't be experienced by us. But just because we have no reason to hold that belief, that does not mean they have no reason to hold it, and it does not mean it is not epistemologically justified for them to hold it.
"There is something that makes headaches different from pixies. Headaches and the effects of headaches are observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is affecting many people in the same way."
The above comment is equally applicable to god-belief in comparison with pixie claims. E.g: there is something that makes god-belief different from pixies. God-belief and the apparent effects of god-belief is observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is apparently affecting many people in the same way.
"When someone reports a headache, it does not arouse nearly the amount of incredulousness that head-pixies would. And there is a reason for that."
Again, the same can be said of god-belief relative to pixie claims.
"Now for some reason you are creating a distinction between the formation of a belief and the maintenance of a belief. That's all very interesting, but it seems unnecessary. The question on the table is, what makes a belief (epistemologically) legitimate. You admit that when evidence arises to the contrary, non-evidenced experience must yield."
The distinction is important. Yes, when categorical objectively verifiable evidence arises to the contrary, maintaining such belief is unjustified. However, the nature of such belief negates the possibility of such evidence. For example, the pixie claim above is non falsifiable, i.e. it's grounded in subjective experience which by definition cannot be examined by anyone else. So categorical evidence to the contrary is not possible. In the absence of such evidence, maintaining that belief is epistemologically justified according to my criteria of justified belief. That does nothing to convince you or I of the truth of that person's belief, but it does mean they are as much within their epistemological rights to believe it, as we are within ours to disbelieve it.
"You still have a problem: the belief in God is not a belief about something internal, it's a claim about something external, in the external world. It may be based on one's lonely experiences, but it is still a claim about objective reality--there is a thing called "God" hanging out there in the universe. Well, if reality is so ordered, then it must be accessible to other people in some way too."
Is the existence of god a claim about something external? I'm not sure. What if the conception of god is something which can only be perceived internally? And does the word "thing" apply? Is god a thing? I think that might be a category error. As far as I'm aware, within Christian theology, god is not considered to exist, but rather constitutes existence. I'm not sure what the corollary of that is for things, but I suspect thing is probably a poor descriptor. How does it all work? No idea. But from existing objectively verifiable evidence, we can infer that our inability to fully perceive something, and how it works, does not preclude us from speculating correctly about something's existence.
"No, all one can say is that it's sometimes pragmatic to believe something without evidence."
No, reacting immediately to sensory perception is essential for survival. That's why we can do it.
"It requires less brainpower expenditure to just accept whatever silliness pops into one's head than to rigorously apply the scientific method and spend hours researching and experimenting on every idea one has."
Perhaps so, but that's not the main reason people form and maintain beliefs without objective evidence.
"But pragmatism that enables the average person to get on with their daily life is a far cry from epistemological legitimacy."
I don't know what your criteria for justified belief is. Present it to me, I'll be happy to debunk it for you."Present it to me, I'll be happy to debunk it for you."
Sounds to me like you're not even willing to entertain my argument. Thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in playing a game with a disingenuous partner.
"Is the existence of god a claim about something external? I'm not sure."
Unless you are aware of a belief system that posits a "god" that does not exist unless humans exist, it seems fair to say that god is indeed something or someone (or some-whatever) external to humans. I see no reason to start questioning that basic idea now.
"What do you mean by "right" in this context?"
Justified, by your terminology.
"Falsifiability is an essential aspect of scientific method, but it is not essential to form or maintain belief in god."
That's just a repetition of your premise from the top.
How does the statement "God exists" add to human knowledge if other humans are incapable of verifying it for themselves? This is the basic problem you keep missing.
Pixies-- "Depends on context."
This is one of your most interesting statements thus far. Now suddenly things depend on context. And what are the rules that apply to contexts? And where did you get those rules?
Suppose that pixie person is legally and clinically insane. Who are you to tell him he is insane? Who are you to determine what is "real" and what is "imaginary"? Maybe you're the one who is insane, and he is the one who sees things clearly. Or, indeed, suppose he's drunk--so what? What if the world of sobriety is a shadow world, and the truth lies at the bottom of a glass?
What are the rules you are working with? What laws of nature? Which way is up and which way is down, and how do you know?
You see, you have opened a can of worms no one in your position can close. I have something you do not have, which is a common, core, universal set of rules for understanding reality. But you, on the other hand, allow for different sets of rules. It's like playing baseball, but sometimes allowing the rules of football... and then sometimes allowing the rules of basketball. There is no rhyme or reason here. You are allowing everyone their own rules. An epistemological relativism.
"it does mean they are as much within their epistemological rights to believe it, as we are within ours to disbelieve it."
In the world of politics, equal rights signifies that everyone has the same freedoms and entitlements. One person does not get special treatment for having connections, or being from a privileged family. In a corrupt or autocratic system, by contrast, rights are relative. Relative to one's religion, one's skin color, one's gender, one's wealth, and whatnot. What you have constructed, my friend, is an epistemological relativism where everyone does not have to play by the same rules. Everyone can believe whatever they want to believe, and no one can say they are wrong.
But no, you will say. There are still objective facts, you will say--things that everyone must agree on because falsifiability applies to them, science applies, naturalism and empiricism apply.
But really? How is that? On what basis do you presume to tell me what counts as "evidence"? You have already sawed off the tree branch upon which you sit. You have already opened this pandora's box of subjectivity and relativism. There is no turning back now. But just as with political rights, it's all or nothing. Either everyone plays by the same rules, or nobody plays by the same rules--anarchy, in other words. Anarchy here means that knowledge is impossible. That is the ultimate implication of your position.
So the real question you must answer--not so much for me, or anyone else, but really for yourself--is, how do you know anything?"Sounds to me like you're not even willing to entertain my argument. Thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in playing a game with a disingenuous partner."
Doesn't the seeming impossibility of me knowing exactly what you think before you express it preclude the possibility that this was anything other than some light-hearted banter? Clearly not for you. By all means accuse me of having an opinion on the subject, but that doesn't extend to narcissism I assure you. Thanks for assuming the worst though.
"Unless you are aware of a belief system that posits a "god" that does not exist unless humans exist, it seems fair to say that god is indeed something or someone (or some-whatever) external to humans. I see no reason to start questioning that basic idea now."
There is reason to question the basic idea. I'm not sure the word "exist" is even applicable to be honest. How can something which people claim is existence, be said to exist? Perhaps, technically, god does not in fact "exist". If god were actual(!?) then the most that can be said is that god is. Even that's pushing it. If certain conceptions of god are to be believed, the most one could say is simply: god. But none of that is particularly relevant to a discussion about belief.
"How does the statement "God exists" add to human knowledge if other humans are incapable of verifying it for themselves? This is the basic problem you keep missing."
The basic problem you keep missing, is that the underlying assumption of that question is that every statement should "add to human knowledge". According to who? The statement "I think Claude Monet paintings are beautiful" doesn't add to human knowledge either. So what? That doesn't mean discourse about art is not enriching. I value the knowledge scientific method provides when applied to falsifiable statements, but I don't accept that such knowledge is the only way human lives are enriched. Art evidently enriches some people's lives, so does god belief. That's the case regardless of whether you think they "add to human knowledge" or not.
"This is one of your most interesting statements thus far. Now suddenly things depend on context. And what are the rules that apply to contexts? And where did you get those rules?"
Nothing "sudden" about it. I've said from the start that epistemological justification depends on a specific criteria. That criteria is based on applying reason to what we know about beliefs and the way they are formed.
"Suppose that pixie person is legally and clinically insane. Who are you to tell him he is insane? Who are you to determine what is "real" and what is "imaginary"? Maybe you're the one who is insane, and he is the one who sees things clearly. Or, indeed, suppose he's drunk--so what? What if the world of sobriety is a shadow world, and the truth lies at the bottom of a glass? . . ."
Two things: 1) the fact he is insane is irrelevant. If someone is diagnosed as "insane" that doesn't automatically mean their sensory perception is unreliable, and therefore their belief unjustified. An insane person can still have an epistemologically justified belief. By contrast if someone was completely sane, but had a tumour on their brain which was known to be putting pressure on their visual cortex causing hallucinations, then their sensory perception would indeed be unreliable. So the sanity of a person is irrelevant to whether their belief is epistemologically justified.
2) Querying the validity of all that is "known" is a philosophical position known as scepticism. I am not a philosophical sceptic because that position is self-defeating. It rests on the proposition that nothing is truly knowable. However, if that were the case, then that proposition itself cannot be known. So either the proposition is false, therefore things can be know, or it is true in which case the proposition can't be known. So employing scepticism in a discussion is futile.
"What are the rules you are working with?"
They are not "rules". They are a criteria for justified belief. I'm happy to clarify anything you don't understand about that criteria.
"I have something you do not have, which is a common, core, universal set of rules for understanding reality. "
No, you have another philosophical position known as evidentialism, which is simply the assertion that belief is only as good as the evidence it's based upon. That philosophical position also has problems. To believe something, you must have supporting evidence for it, but that evidence must in turn be supported by evidence. Any evidence you provide in support of further evidence must also be supported by evidence, ad infinitum. In order to prevent this problem of infinite regress, at some point you have to draw a line in the epistemological sand, and make an assumption. By definition that will not be based on evidence, so does not meet the evidentialist criteria for justified belief. So if evidentialism is false, then belief is not only justified by evidence. If it's true an infinite series of evidence is required, so effectively no belief can ever be truly justified (remember the problem with that from scepticism). In short it is another self-defeating position.
"What you have constructed, my friend, is an epistemological relativism where everyone does not have to play by the same rules. "
That's a misconception, and the rest of your post seems to relate to that misconception. There is no "epistemological relativism". Your attempt to employ philosophical scepticism to suggest there is, doesn't work as that position is self-defeating. Our most fundamental beliefs are based on assumptions. They have to be in order to avoid the problems of evidentialism and scepticism. Indeed that's why we assume what we are apparently experiencing is real. To do otherwise places us in the clutches of that evil Cartesian demon. The fact that we must assume certain things is exactly the reason belief can be formed without evidence and is the reason for the high epistemic status of our own apparent experience.
But that doesn't mean everyone has to believe everything. It just means you can't assert that someone's belief is unjustified simply because you have no reason to believe it. Likewise they cannot expect you to share a belief grounded solely in their subjective experience. That's what it's all about, the difference between what is required for someone to form belief based on their own experience, and what is required for someone to convince someone else of their belief. The former requires only a genuine apparent experience. The latter, by definition, requires something objective.
But just because someone does not have objective evidence for their belief, does not mean it isn't justified. If you assert otherwise then you need to address the ramifications of that assertion, i.e. if belief grounded solely in genuine apparent experience is unjustified, then the belief someone has a headache is unjustified. Likewise, if their belief that they have a headache is justified, then likewise god-belief must be justified. Again whether either belief is true or not is another matter, but we cannot assert that a belief is unjustified simply because we don't believe it. Likewise we can't assert a belief is justified, simply because we do believe it. Both constitute a fallacy, a non sequitur.
In short what we believe is true, or even likely to be true, is of no relevance to whether a belief is epistemologically justified. The fact that people form belief grounded in subjective experience is simply part of the mechanism by which we process the world. We cannot assert that beliefs that come through that mechanism are justified when we agree with them, but unjustified when we don't. That's disingenuous and self serving. The only time we can truthfully assert a belief is not justified, is if we can categorically prove that there is some fault with that mechanism in the case of a specific individual. What constitutes a "fault"? Anything that can objectively be proven to make someone's sensory perception unreliable. Why objectively proven? Because we are trying to prove the reliability of their sensory perception to ourselves. By definition that requires objective evidence because we are external to the person holding the belief.Lol, you need to work on your banter skills, that's all I will say about that.
"How can something which people claim is existence, be said to exist?"
Most god believers do not couch their beliefs in those terms. Most say "God exists." This is not just true of most strains of Abrahamic believers (which are the overwhelming majority of all theists), but many non-Abrahamic ones as well.
My point is not that knowledge is the only human good. My point is that statements that are intended to convey information had better be justified. The statement "God exists" is an attempt to convey information, i.e. new information, i.e. new knowledge.
If someone wants to have a discussion about how they feel, how connected they feel to the cosmos, the fact that they feel a life energy connecting us all, and whatnot, fine. I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with, is when people make a positive claim about objective reality based on faulty evidence or unjustified assumptions.
No one would ever say that the chemical makeup of the paints Monet used necessarily leads to a certain opinion of his art--that objective facts should determine subjective feelings. And yet we allow the reverse all the time--that subjective feelings should say anything about objective facts.
"Art evidently enriches some people's lives, so does god belief."
If we are only talking about subjective feelings, fine. But those are feelings or personal opinions. That's not objective reality. People who express opinions about art do not presume to use those opinions as a basis for explaining the origin or structure of the universe. Yet people who believe in "God" do that all the time.
"No, you have another philosophical position known as evidentialism, which is simply the assertion that belief is only as good as the evidence it's based upon."
No, I am not and have never been an evidentialist. This is a misconception on your part. I do accept the need for blind faith assumptions, always have. But they are much narrower and much more limited than what you probably accept.
And I am not employing "philosophical skepticism." I was simply using questions, some real and some rhetorical, to demonstrate the point that your worldview is unsustainable. (As an aside, whether my own worldview, skeptical or not, is flawed, is irrelevant, because it is your worldview that is "on trial" here, as you made the opening statement.)
"The fact that we must assume certain things is exactly the reason belief can be formed without evidence and is the reason for the high epistemic status of our own apparent experience."
This statement is a total non-sequitur. Just because we must assume certain things does not at all give our experience "high epistemic status."
Of course belief can be formed without evidence. But that does not mean any particular belief so formed is "justified." You are making many leaps. There are seemingly infinite examples of personal experience failing to conform to reality. We thought something was true, then we find out it's not.
"...the difference between what is required for someone to form belief based on their own experience, and what is required for someone to convince someone else of their belief."
Is there one reality, or isn't there? Because if there are multiple realities, each of us in our own little world, literally, then this statement makes sense. But if there is one, single reality of which we are all a part, then this does not work. If there is just one reality--one group of things that are real, for all of us--then what is good enough for one observer must be good enough for another. And what is NOT good enough for one observer is also by definition insufficient for all others.
Why should the epistemological bar be lower for one’s own beliefs than for someone else's beliefs? This is extraordinarily arbitrary.
"if belief grounded solely in genuine apparent experience is unjustified, then the belief someone has a headache is unjustified. Likewise, if their belief that they have a headache is justified, then likewise god-belief must be justified."
Again, there is a difference between a headache and a god. A headache is a purely naturalistic phenomenon, does not require the existence of a parallel world or supernatural world. God does. Note that this has nothing to do with the truth of the headache, or of God, but rather with whether the belief is justified in the first place. If God exists, then some kind of supernatural realm must exist (even if such a realm is only or entirely occupied by God). I do not need to ask how a headache is existentially possible, even if I have never experienced one. It is obvious how it is possible. But I do have to ask how God is existentially possible.
Moreover, if someone says they have a headache, this is simply a statement about their own feelings. A subjective statement based on subjective evidence. But to claim that there is a god, and the evidence is one’s feelings, is an objective statement based on subjective evidence. You can’t just make any random statement about anything and then say “cuz that’s how I feel” and voila, you’re off the hook.
"Why objectively proven? Because we are trying to prove the reliability of their sensory perception to ourselves."
Don't you see the self-defeating nature of this worldview? You are seesawing between two different sets of rules (or "criteria" if you prefer) for the epistemological justification.
A person makes a claim. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience. And how do we know their experience is accurate? Can we have a similar experience? Oh no, that's not necessary. All that is needed is to make sure their senses are working well. And how do we know that? By objective analysis. And what is our objective analysis based on? Objective rules that are not limited to one person.
Ok, so suppose a person makes a new claim: objective facts do not exist. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience (feelings/ visions/ hearings/ whatever). How do we know their experience is accurate? By objective facts.
Voila, objective facts have confirmed that objective facts do not exist. We, external people, may not have to accept that claim, but we are not allowed to say that claim is wrong.
Either there is one reality for all of us, or there is not. You can't have it both ways."Most god believers do not couch their beliefs in those terms. Most say "God exists."
No but from an ontological perspective these are interesting questions. What does 'exist' mean? What is it to 'be'? Can god 'be'? I don't think 'god exists' can be
entirely accurate, but that's another topic.
"My point is not that knowledge is the only human good. My point is that statements that are intended to convey information had better be justified. The statement "God exists" is an attempt to convey information, i.e. new information, i.e. new knowledge."
You are confusing two seperate things, the accuracy of a belief (truth) and justification of a belief (warrant). These are descrete concepts and one bears no relation to the other. Justified is not a psynonym for accurate or true. In an epistemological sense a belief can be justified and true, or justified and false.
So for a belief to be epistemologically justified (warranted) you need to be able to show that person's sensory perception is not dysfunctional and that they were in an environment conducive to reliable sensory perception, i.e. not asleep etc. And yes, to do that objective evidence is necessary.
"How do we know their experience is accurate?"
Depends what the claim is. If's objectively verifiable, we can determine accuracy that way. If it's not, e.g. it's about some internal perception of god, then we don't know whether that belief is accurate or not. We can speculate that it's likely/unlikely based on existing knowledge, but that's all. But that's irrelevant to whether that belief is justified.We can say that even though we can't determine the accuracy of a belief, a person is justified in holding that belief based on subjective experience.
You are entitled to say it is unlikely to be an internal perception of god if that's what you think, but you cannot reasonably say a person is not justified in holding a belief grounded in their own apparent experience, in the absence of refuting evidence.
"Ok, so suppose a person makes a new claim: objective facts do not exist. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience (feelings/ visions/ hearings/ whatever). How do we know their experience is accurate? By objective facts. Voila, objective facts have confirmed that objective facts do not exist. We, external people, may not have to accept that claim, but we are not allowed to say that claim is wrong."
Again you confuse accuracy with justification.
If a person's sensory perception is not dysfunctional, and they are in an environment conducive to reliable sensory perception, then in the absence of any categorical refuting evidence, belief grounded in their subjective experience is justified. That does not mean that belief is accurate. If there is subsequently refuting evidence, we can say the formation of that belief was justified, but maintaining that belief is not justified. However, if there is no refuting evidence, then whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, maintaining that belief is epistemologically justified. You can certainly say you think it's unlikely the belief is true if that's your opinion, but you cannot reasonably say it's not justified. Once again that does not mean that belief is accurate. It means it is epistemologically justified.You keep harping on the distinction between "justification" and "correctness" when I have already said that I understand the distinction perfectly well, and your argument still does not hold up.
"And yes, to do that objective evidence is necessary."
So again, all subjective claims are buttressed by objective fact. So it all comes down to objective facts. But what happens when the subjective claims violate those objective facts? This is the problem you keep missing.
You will say "the person was simply mistaken, but their claim was still justified/ allowable." But I'm saying that to make a subjective claim in the first place is unjustified. To be mistaken when making an objective claim is one thing. But to make a subjective claim, which definitionally does not require any objective facts, is quite another.
Subjective claims are not allowable. They are fine for areas where the subjective is all there is, such as art, music, fashion, parties, whatever. But not for objective claims about reality.
You are basically saying that for claims that definitionally require objective evidence, objective evidence is not required to make them justified (NOT necessarily correct). All that is required is for the claimant to be of sound mind/ body, which is, in turn, determined by objective evidence. The internal contradictions are running in multiple directions.
The unity of reality is something you completely ignored in your most recent comment here. The notion that a claim is "allowable" for one person, but not "allowable" for another person, is extraordinarily arbitrary and frankly makes no sense. I can believe whatever I want, but as soon as I open my mouth and start trying to convince my friend, suddenly the evidential bar that needs to be overcome shoots up in front of me? What is it about me opening my mouth that alters objective reality so drastically?
Sorry, but having breakfast is indeed an objective experience, there is hard evidence for that. To imagine having breakfast on the moon would be subjective.
You are breathing, brother. That's good enough for me.
that, unfortunately, is not good enough for me. Everybody breathes. That doesn't mean that a god out there made it happen.
I exist and you exist. This is a fact ! ... ?
If a person comes to me saying they are your representive; If they say things to me that I expose to be untrue, does can I assume that you do not exist?If an all-powerful being existed and manifested in the natural world, there would be signs of his presence. There aren't. My existence isn't what's at question here - your god's is.
Who/what do you presume my God is?
Everything and everybody is under some kind of doubt from somebodythat's the point - i'm not presuming who your god(s) is. I'm asking for evidence of any god, and it doesn't really matter which out of the thousands of gods that have been proclaimed throughout history you're claiming to prove exists.
Hundreds of years ago there was no proof that bacteria existed yet a few people “Knew” something was there. Some people thought that evil spirits hid in the sheets and clothing so they burned them. There was no proof that this thing existed yet it did. Their theories were wrong concerning what it was, as is many of our ideas concerning the identity we call God. We Christians are close minded when we refuse to change our ideas concerning who/what God is and where God resides.
If All doctors and scientist had kept a closed mind, bacteria would still be unnamed and thought to not exist.You must admit that your god is supposed to be undetectable - yes? So your argument is silly. I understand you need to defend the belief in any way you can - no matter how silly, but this is scraping the barrel.
In any case - Bacteria actually exist.Again, you are clumping me into a tight little form which is your perception of what all other “Believers” believe.
All that I am saying is that there will always be unknown things that are soon to be discovered. I do not admit that “MY God” is undetectable. Uranium still is undetectable without the proper device or without the willingness to accept the validity of the evidence presented.So - your god is detectable than? We just haven't developed the technology to do so. Is that so?
I am clumping you into the garbage you have spouted at me to defend your irrational beliefs in the time we have known each other. You think I wasn't reading all the stuff about biblical prophecies coming true? I take it you now reject the biblical god that you have been claiming for all the time we have known each other - yes?
You made a NEW GOD UP?We may hear a person speaking and we may read the things a person writes and still not understand what they are thinking because we think we already know what they are going to say.
We hear a sound, see face expressions and lips moving and yet know not what we think we know.I can tell you that even when one speaks in riddles other know that one speaks in riddles.
What has that got to do with our discussion other than more smoke screens?
do you remember that song? "If You Don't Know Me By Now you will never never know me"
I know you as well as you are capable of representing yourself.
And you judge my ability to represent my self through your ability to understand
You are judged on your ability to communicate your thoughts to others. If we are having trouble understanding your thoughts it's because you are not communicating your thoughts properly.
Thanks Emile R. Sometimes I think I'm the only passenger on my particular train of thought.
I suppose we all do from time to time.An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
I think we know who the troll is, pencils sharpened?
And what exactly is your particular train of thought again?
It seems to be something along the lines of Bacteria exists and we didn't know it did, therefore the bible is correct, but don't assume the god he is defending is the god of the bible just because he spent 3 years saying that.
Got it - all me not being able to understand. Say some more nonsense to defend your beliefs. Lie a little even. That will always work. Emily will probably say how clever you are.
By the same token ... Maybe if you were better explaining your beliefs we would better understand them.
Hope you see I'll not insult you by adding unnecessary adverbs and adjactives.Out of courtesy (misguided as it will inevitably prove to be) I'll clarify the comment I posted in response to Jerami's statement. He said "And you judge my ability to represent my self through your ability to understand". I do agree. Miscommunication is responsible for more disagreements than anything else.
That is not an argument for the existence of God simply because it can be applied to any and all things, real or imagined.
There was plenty of evidence that bacteria existed. The evidence is what led people to burn burn sheets. If you were to point to what evidence we have for a God that is like the evidence for bacteria you would certainly have the worlds attention. Unfortunately a ticking clock is only evidence of a clock maker.
I think that all evidence at that time was circumstancial and not the kind of HARD evidence we seem to be insisting upon today.
But the only reason we looked is because a scientist rejected the "god," hypothesis and actually looked.
Sorry your not understanding. People getting sick for no apparent reason was hard evidence for bacteria. The evidence was there before bacteria and or viruses were found. This completely different than God because your starting of saying that bacteria/God exists and looking for the evidence.
False assertion. Every natural phenomenon is a sign of something, but we can't always perceive what. Quantum entanglement may be a "sign" there are more spacial dimensions than we thought. We don't know because we can't currently perceive those spacial dimensions. The universe may be the "sign" of a big bang, or a rapid inflation, or a collision between two inter-dimensional membranes. Again we don't know, so we can't determine what the universe signifies. Some people assert existence is the sign of a deity which constitutes existence. Again, we can't tell what existence as a phenomenon signifies.
So unless you have some never before seen information about the universe, you cannot determine what aspect of the natural world does and does not constitute the "sign" of a deity, let alone determine that no such sign exists.if you're claiming that I'm using a logical fallacy, do tell me which one.
I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. And still, none of it adds up to evidence for a god."if you're claiming that I'm using a logical fallacy, do tell me which one."
I'm suggesting that your assertion there are no signs of a deity's presence, is false i.e. the opposite of true. I think that's fairly clear. What's more I'm suggesting such an assertion is as nonsensical as suggesting there are signs of a deity's presence. There is no rational basis on which to make such assertions.
"I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. "
Now that is a fallacy. Straw man to be precise. You are responding to a misconception of my argument, not my argument. My argument is that any phenomena could be a "sign", i.e. an indicator, of some wider phenomenon. Causal relationships have nothing to do with it. The issue is that we can perceive certain phenomenon without being unable to perceive the wider phenomenon it is part of. Therefore we are unable to determine what it indicates, or if it indicates anything at all. It does not follow that because we are unable to determine a wider phenomenon, that therefore no wider phenomenon exists. In other words, just because we are unable to determine whether a phenomenon indicates the existence of a deity, it does not follow that therefore a deity does not exist. That's another fallacy, a non sequitur.
"And still, none of it adds up to evidence for a god."
You seem preoccupied with evidence. Let me repeat myself: there is no categorical, objectively verifiable evidence that proves or refutes the existence of a deity. So you (and the theists who think there is) would do better to move along and stop flogging a dead horse in my opinion. However, that's all irrelevant to god-belief, many instances of which are not formed on the basis of evidence, but are grounded in apparent experience.
If you are refuting the supposed "evidence" for god presented by theists just for the sport, then say so, and I'll leave you to your sport. Otherwise you could develop your position to address the argument that evidence is irrelevant to certain beliefs, including god-belief.What signs of a deity's presence would those obvious signs be? You on the one hand claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, then turn around and say that the assertion that there are no signs of a deity's presence are false. You're contradicting yourself - which one is it?
"I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. "
Your second paragraph made no sense at all. I'm a debate student and have years and years of experience, but your assertion of logical fallacies do not fit into any rational knowledge I have on the subject.
If i'm preoccupied with evidence, so be it. I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they're to be believed. The fact that religion, and not just christianity, has existed for thousands of years without any evidence whatsoever is ridiculous. there should be evidence if you're going to devote your life to a supernatural being. Without it, there is no justification for belief. It's blind faith - and I cannot see blind faith as a good thing.
Evidence may be historically irrelevant for religious beliefs, but it's not to me. Without evidence, why believe? Servantofgod has several hubs claiming to irrefutably prove the existence of god - but he falls far short of the mark, and deletes comments that disagree with him. That's willfully ignorant if not intellectually dishonest. It's not a sport. I'm genuinely curious. If there IS no evidence for god, it's sure to catch a lot of believers by surprise. I'm just asking them to present their case. I don't understand how that personally affects you at all. You claim there is no evidence. Fine. So why are you in a forum that is asking for that evidence?What I think Don W means, is that as of yet, there isn't any evidence of a god's existence to speak of objectively, and to keep things even, there isn't any evidence against a god's existence to speak of objectively as well. Most of our beliefs are based on our experience of the things around us, and in matters of observation, our sensory experience, and said beliefs are hinged only on how reliable we should perceive our senses to be. Ergo, we have as much basis to disagree on what we deem as, for instance, the colour purple, as we have to disagree on the existential status of a supreme being.
Those looking outside the field of faith for something to reinforce their own faith, usually find much comfort in supposed miracles, a common example of which would be the miraculous recovery of an individual from a supposedly incurable condition. That's as much evidence any religious individual would need to substantiate their own beliefs, and anyone who say otherwise can go to hell. Figuratively speaking of course.No one has to "prove" that god doesn't exist. Claiming so is shifting the burden of proof - or "moving the goalposts". To not believe in god without sufficient evidence is the default position. You have to be taught religion in order to believe - and the religion that you were taught is directly linked to where you happened to be born. In the united states, that typically meant that you're taught christianity. If the same person was born in Iraq or Iran, they'd most likely be Islamic. If they were raised in China, they are more likely to be something else.
Christians (and other religious people) claim to know definitively that their version of god exists. they're making the positive assertion - that means that they have the burden of proof. I'm simply asking them to supply it. I am not claiming definitively that 'no god exists'. I'm not arrogant enough to assert that. I'm simply stating that, thus far, no sufficient evidence has been presented.No one has to "prove" that god doesn't exist
That is a statement that fascinates me in the atheist/theist debate. Both sides insist they don't have to prove anything. I think they do... Once they have chosen to make a stand and claim a cosmic truth. Stepping back and claiming you aren't saying God doesn't exist is somewhat like cheating...once you've made that initial claim. Aren't you doing the same thing the theists do? Moving the goalposts to support your argument?
From where I sit, atheism is little more than a fringe branch of theism. 'Fighting the good fight' in their own mind. Standing up for 'reason' as the theist stands for 'god'.
To those on the outside it all looks the same. Who can claim cosmic truth? None can know anything for sure on the grand scale. Review your own opening statement. You were a missionary. You know the dogmas. You've read the Bible cover to cover, repeatedly. Then you proceed to share the conclusions you have come to. Is this any different from the Pentecostal who chooses to evangelize their understanding of 'the truth'?
Not really, the color purple, like many other physical things that exist in our universe, is indeed agreed upon, as are the many various permutations of purple our eyes can perceive, let alone the technology and instruments we have that deal with the visible light spectrum. That is no comparison at all to the existence of deities.
"You on the one hand claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, then turn around and say that the assertion that there are no signs of a deity's presence are false. You're contradicting yourself - which one is it?"
It's very simple if you think a little. The fact we are not aware of any categorical, objectively verifiable evidence, does not mean there isn't any. In 1900 we were not aware of background radiation in the universe (an indicator of the big bang, or rapid inflation) and would have suggested there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the big bang theory. Later of course we discovered such evidence.
"Your second paragraph made no sense at all."
You mean you didn't understand it. There is a difference.
"I'm a debate student and have years and years of experience . . . "
I see no evidence of this in your responses.
". . . but your assertion of logical fallacies do not fit into any rational knowledge I have on the subject."
If you don't understand what a straw man and a non sequitur is, I suggest you need further study. If you don't understand the argument, I suggest the words "I don't really understand your argument, can you explain it in a different way" might be a more fruitful.
"The fact that religion, and not just christianity, has existed for thousands of years without any evidence whatsoever is ridiculous."
No, it's just a different theory of knowledge and belief. The one you are expressing is called evidentialism, which sits within the area of philosophy called epistemology. There are a multitude of other theories of knowledge. Rationalism for example, appeals to reason as the source of knowledge rather than sensory perception.
"Without evidence, why believe?"
What did you have for breakfast this morning and why do you believe that?
"I'm genuinely curious."
Then I suggest you start by learning about epistemology, starting with evidentialism and the differences between that and other theories of knowledge, if you don't already know. Specifically look at the Infinite Regress Argument and the responses to it (foundationalism, coherentism, scepticism etc,) which should better inform you of the subject you are trying to discuss.
"You claim there is no evidence. Fine. So why are you in a forum that is asking for that evidence?"
To point out that it's a nonsensical question, and to share whatever knowledge I have on the subject. Are you implying I shouldn't?
If we can observe the "wider phenomenon", why bother with a sign? That would suggest the sign is merely a subjective opinion of interpretation and diminishes the phenomenon for what it is exhibiting to being irrelevant.
But, one need not create that fallacy considering your argument for a "wider phenomenon" that has yet to be observed and is being asserted as a deity is a non sequitur. Nature has never in any way, shape or form given indications, evidence or "signs" for the existence of deities. By stating that some "wider phenomenon" will eventually show up as a deity in another phenomenon as a sign is the same as waiting by the chimney for Santa to come down or watching your pillow for "signs" of the Tooth Fairy.
That would be an argument from incredulity based on your own words...
You have chosen to ask and answer and loaded your question up front ! Fine , you're here among fellow God stompers , roll on man !
I have been an atheist for the past 18 years but before that I was a Pentecostal evangelist. I too have a similar background with Christianity and have read the bible on 4 occasions cover to cover. I was a literalist and believed the bible to be the true and inerrant word of God. I was baptized and I preached for four years mostly in local area churches and I had a street ministry with my partner that we ministered publicly on Saturdays and Sundays.
One thing I hate about theists is that as your first responder Brenda Durham has so nicely demonstrated is that they immediately doubt your experience with Christianity. They assume you did not truly serve the Lord of have a genuine conversion etc. It's insulting and arrogant when they do this.
As for your request for evidence of God, I don't think anyone can provide that since the only evidence they truly have are subjective and therefore invalid. I still search as you do for truth in all matters but I am convinced that the evidence for God does not exist. This is the reason that faith is necessary. Faith does not require evidence all it needs is your acceptance to believe without evidence.If you accept Jesus as the son of god or an enlightened person his last words on the cross (Matthew 17:46-50) suggest his own lifeforce, the Bible calls the ghost, was his god. Otherwise I see no proof of god in any religion's sources.
I would never try to convert you to my beliefs for two reasons:
1) My beliefs are mine and based on my understanding of the Bible. You believe what and how you choose to believe (or in your case not believe) as according to your understanding
2) I have too much respect for you to try to limit you to my way of thinking. As a scholar, You have way more knowledge of what the bible says than I do. When I hear a scripture, I try to analyze what it is saying to me. My opinion is not the total truth. It is simply my opinion.That is the way it's supposed to be, people are to discuss their views and if one reasons the other is or isn't to their satisfaction they respect them in what they believe. The reason for Christian's working to convert others is because of how it became a world religion as revealed in
Revelation 6:2. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow {weapon}; and a crown {knowledge or gospel about Jesus} was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
That tells how Constantine's crusades the Catholic Church continued to go about preaching Jesus and if they didn't accept it they killed them until they accepted it. Today it's the attempt of 1% of the 1%, or what Revelation 13:1-3 calls the Beast who wants to control the world by using the United States' nuclear arsenal to instill afraidness in everyone world wide. That's why there's so many up-heavers worldwide, they are causing them to send the United States {Beast that came our of the sea} to occupy them in this new way of colonizing the world.
I agree with Brenda somewhat you are on the defense but i think you may be plagued with things you saw and thnk to yourself " if there's a God why would he allow this" the answers are in that book you claim you read cover to cover "The Bible". We all go thru trials and tribulations that is apart of life.
No man, no philosophy, no doctrine can provide the proof you seek. These things can only point to God. Only by experiencing will you have all the proof seek. Will you understand these experiences? Probably not, at first, but when you disengage the mind that is designed to seek knowledge your proof will come to the fore. It is beyond words or thoughts.
Like the experience of love, you cannot share that experience with any one except through using words to describe it. They however will never experience what you have experienced.
Any experience is unique to each and every one of us.I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're saying that the only way to find god is to willfully decide not to use your brain and think. Didn't your god create your brain? Does he not want you to use it? What kind of god would give you the ability to think, decide and reason and then only reveal himself if you ignore the tools that he gave you?
It does not escape my notice that the "original sin" in the garden of eden was that adam and eve ate from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" If they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, then they cannot possibly be expected to understand the consequences of their actions. Without that understanding, god still judged them guilty of disobedience - even though they can't possibly understand disobedience or the consequences because of it. that's not moral. You don't sentence a mentally handicapped person to the death penalty if they kill someone. You sentence them to get treatment.
The church has been anti-knowledge, critical thinking and rational thought since its inception. Apparently, that philosophy is still in full force.Yes that is what I was saying.
An analogy might help? When we experience the wind we cannot catch the wind in our hands and give it to another. We do not use the logic to experience the wind, we use it only to describe it. We can think about it through the experience but as soon as we do the essence of the experience is lost.
Just so you know, my understanding of God is not like the mainstream understanding. God does not have a gender but is the essence of all that exists. It cannot be described or it becomes something entirely different in nature although still connected.
Good/evil, right/wrong, etc are concepts (dual in nature) created by the logic that separates 'this' from 'that' when really there is no separation. We separate ourselves from 'what is' because we subscribe to the reality of the logic, as in Eves case.Couldn't you just hold a fan up to your face?
If you like, haha. So is holding a fan to your face the exact same experience of feeling the wind on my face or is it something different? Was the speed the same was the gentleness the same or was it a lot more forceful than my experience. If you believe that it was, it is a belief, not a reality.
but we know what wind is. Its effects can be observed. So can the effects of love. So can familial bonds. Your analogy doesn't really hold water. We can't see air, either, but we know that it exists and we can define it. It has properties that can be tested through experimentation.
I'm sorry, but I can never see giving up my brain and my thought-process and my critical thinking skills just to possibly experience a god. If you give up logical thought, you become open to any claim that anyone makes. In that regard, you should believe in every possible religion because you cannot think critically about any of them.Effects can be observed I do agree. How do you test for properties you do not yet understand. How do you test for properties that are yet to be discovered?
Yes and therein lies why many do not understand God. Critical thinking or the tree of knowledge of good and evil is too enticing to the masses. The fear of giving up logic keeps one bound to the rules that it governs no more no less. The fear that we lose what we are is exactly what makes us lost to what we are.It is only through testing and exploration that we come to understand things that are not yet known. Can you imagine what would have happened if Galileo or DaVinci had never explored the unknown - in the face of persecution and potential death at the hands of the church, no less?
If humans didn't use their brains, we would be no different from the other animals today. It is our brains that set us apart from practically every other creature. We evolved to have bigger brains and to be able to use them to think critically. If you want us to stop using our brains, then we'd no different or better than cavemen. I rather like our technological advances - or else I couldn't be here talking to you. How did it come about? By people using their brains, challenging what they've been told about what is/is not possible and pushing the boundaries.What makes you think that animals don't use their brains? Animals have reasoning skills as well. As for cavemen, They used the tools that they had access too at that time and when something new came along, they adapted to it all the way to today.. That's called evolution (I think...)
animals do use their brains, but not in the same manner that we do. Some animals are HIGHLY intelligent (like Dolphins, for example) The fact of the matter is that the current homosapian brain is bigger. That doesn't mean that all of us big-brained folks actually USE it, however :-)
I think the issue isn't so much of whether or not we USE it. The issue is more in HOW we choose to use it
That's probably true :-) Although animals do choose to use their brains as well. Some species exhibit morality, social constructs and modified behavior.
Things yes, God no. We can test and explore God till the end of days with logic, yet God will be as elusive and incomprehensible as God has been since the beginning of time. Especially if we persist in using the brain and logic.
Logic leads us to believe we are some how 'set apart' from other species simply because we have the ability to use our brains, that by design separate "this" from "that", when really nothing is separate. The same brain separates rich from poor, beautiful from ugly, high from low type of thing. That is it's learned function. Generally it is whole, is does not discriminate, but old/learned habits die hard, which is why we need to disengage it for a while when seeking the experience of God
It's called the 'Scientific Method', which is used to test things like properties.
The reason is because gods are invisible and undetectable, hence impossible to understand.And impossible to test right? No scientific method available yet.
If you recall, God warned them that if they ate from that tree they would surely die. What's not to understand about that? So they knew the consequences of their actions, but ate the fruit anyway. With this in mind (based on my understanding of the story) I would conclude that they were guilty of disobedience because they were warned of what would happen, But Eve listened to the serpent then caught a look at the fruit that was looking good and then she and Adam ate. But of course this is how the story goes.
If you tell your child to not touch a hot stove or else they will get hurt, do you fully expect them to understand the pain and negative sensation that touching that stove will cause?
If they disobey you and touch the stove, do you ground them for the rest of their lives - or condemn them to death because they disobeyed? Do you expect them to understand at that age that actions have consequences? Does telling them NOT to do something not automatically make that forbidden action more attractive? Most of the time, if a child touches a hot stove once, they'll never do it again. They learn by doing and accepting the consequences because they're fully able to comprehend them.
Actually, what god really said "the day that you eat of it you will surely die". They didn't. They lived for a few hundred years afterwards. Sure they "started to die" from that moment on, yadda yadda. The fact of the matter is that god told them of a consequence that did not come to pass, so he had to compensate for it by kicking them out of the garden and cursing them instead.
Do you disown a child for a single act of disobedience - ESPECIALLY when they're not in a position to understand what you're saying? Of course not. that's not a moral judgement. Until they understood the difference between right and wrong, how could they know what disobedience really was - or what it would cost them?No argument from me here.. Then again, I currently don't believe this story is true. When I was a kid, I always viewed this story as a harsh example of what would happen if I disobeyed God and this story (among some of the others) kept me fearfully in line for several years. Then I grew up and started expanding my mind to different books (time away from the church help that too) as well as the dictionary and stumbled across the definition of myth. This opened my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities and ideas regarding the bible and how I never looked at it for myself and the context of which I was reading it all of my formative years was totally off base. This led to my rediscovery of the bible and my new mindset as to being open to any possibility.
And then, mankind was cursed forever more.
It would appear more reasonable to conclude God was guilty of incompetence and took his anger out on his own failed creation.
Or, is that the type of behavior we should be learning from this wonderful story of love and compassion, to curse forever the very thing you create, for having made one mistake.
Is that how we are supposed treat others?You have NO argument from me on this one if this story is true (which I doubt).
Nah this is not any kind of behavior I learned from that particular story. I never thought that particular store had any love or compassion even when I actually believed in it. I looked at that story as a story of punishment for one mistake with no forgiveness involved (which kept me fearfully in line for years)Fear, and more precisely, the reward/punishment system is what is supposed to keep believers in line with religions, yet it is a failed system as we can observe believers don't even follow the system, they do whatever they want, anyways.
Just like Adam and Eve with the apple.Except that there is both love and forgiveness involved. Even though they were cast out of Eden, they weren't forever banned from communion with God (which satan was.)
No. It's "I can't let you stay in this house but that doesn't mean I don't love you and I won't help take care of you."
did you disown your children the first time that they disobeyed you - especially if they were unable to differentiate between right and wrong?
My children were not grown human beings who tainted my whole household beyone repair.
If you choose to look at things that simplistically. There's actually a lot more to the whole thing.Adam and eve had no knowledge of good or evil. They had no way to understand the consequences of their actions before they did them. We do not judge people guilty for crimes when they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong. We get them treatment. Is your god less intelligent than modern justice?
Additionally, god told them that the day that they ate from the tree that they would surely die. You can claim it was a "spiritual" death all you want, but what it comes down is that god was impotent to follow through on his threat.Adam and Eve were not "grown" human beings either, they had no childhood and were created as adults with no knowledge or experience of the world around them, which would equate to them being small children.
I notice that, as usual, you left out the part of my post that was inconvenient for your response.
Not as lame as your response. And you sneer, also right on schedule.
Only in a world as flat at ATM's. In the real world there's a real difference.
I'm going to leave that one alone.. but there is a question floating in my head
You mentioned the world that ATM lives on versus the "real" world.. Whose world would you consider the "real world" and how do you know that that is correct?
ATM's world appears to leave no room for nuance. Based solely on his interaction with myself, he appears to believe that anyone who believes differently than himself is an inherent and willful liar. And as such is not worthy of a reasoned or reasonable response, only sneering and jeering. Were I the kind of person who does the armchair Freud thing, I would say it's unsurprising that someone who expresses themselves in such black and white (and largely humorless) terms would see religion as a black and white (and humorless) and oppressive institution.
To answer your question a bit differently, if God really does talk to you then the real world would be one where God talks to you.
Are you saying that you prefer ATM's deity-free world?I am saying that ATM's world is the real world.. to ATM.. Just like the world you live in is the real world... To you and the world that I live in is the real world.. to me..No one world is better over all than the others except to the person living in that world. Our world is shaped by our own experiences and as such we couldn't imagine ourselves living in each other's world because we haven't had those same experiences. Even if we did share the same experiences, each of us have different minds and can come up with different reasons for the same experience. That's like the saying "there are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. Each of our sides is colored as to be biased in favor of our point of view while the truth is unbiased and objective.
The inherent problem in your statement is that if there is a Heaven and a hell, and a God, and Jesus really did die for our sins and rise again on the third day, then not only denying their existence but also doing things to prevent others from believing in them makes you culpable. And by the same token, if none of those things exist, then the point about not facing reality is valid indeed. It all sounds very noble to say that whatever world you live in is the best one for you but it's not axiomatically true..
Exactly my point. Whatever world you see with your perspective is only from your perspective and may not be the truth. We will not know the truth until we either pass away or until the return of Christ (Provided he exists out of respect for my atheist friends). You know your truth based on your experiences.. likewise for me.. Likewise for everyone else around the world. But once THE truth is revealed, then the only division that there will be is purely based on how people respond to the truth
But, you will continue to ignore reality, never facing it in light of those beliefs, which by any stretch of the imagination are as childish and ridiculous as the minds that created them. And, that is what the believer should be made culpable.
Condescending assertions by people who are guilty of so many what they so readily ascribe to those they are so accusatory of does not equate to actual correctness or even rectitude.
In plain english, there's no one as self-righteous as the one who is accusing others of it.And yet, it is YOU who claims to converse with gods, the epitome of self-righteousness. No one is making accusations, YOU are willfully telling us that is what you do.
Our criticism and ridicule of such claims is only fitting to such open dishonesty.You want honesty?
Okay.
I think you just like to fight.I'm not the one making dishonest claims about talking with gods. YOU are.
You are the one making dishonest claims that man has no spirit, and that God does not exist.
If you can definitively prove that man has a soul or that god exists, then share it.
Otherwise, disbelieving in an unprovable deity is not dishonest. Is following the (lack of) evidenceI think this basically falls on a two side of a coin. each side apparently accuses the other side of dishonesty based on something that is unproven either way (at this present time). However, on each individual side of the coin, each side believes they are being as honest as possible with their belief (or lack thereof out of deference to you and my other atheist frineds) about how they view God (or the lack of one, again out of respect)
It's imposible to prove something doesn't exist, but possible to prove something does exist. I can't even prove big foot doesn't exist. It's up to the believers in big foot to prove he does exist. There are currently people searching our junk DNA for messages from aliens, incase they visited millions of years ago and wanted us to know they were here, but no one searching for God.
Yes, and this us what a lot of believers have a problem understanding. You cannot prove a negative. A believer cannot prove that Allah or Krishna or zeus does not exist. They can demonstrate what makes their existence unlikely, but so can atheists. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the people making the positive claim - even more so when they claim to have absolute certainty.
And again that is a statement I agree with to an extent. But the thing about faith and belief is that it is considered certainty without needing proof. Because ultimately, if there is no other answer to be found, The final answer (to a lot of believers) is God.. Now unfortunately, that is also the FIRST and only answer as well
Hey.. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I was just merely stating that it is funny (to me) how each side accuses the other of dishonesty (sometimes blatant) when something is being argued from two different perspectives. Each side accused the other of bias based on what they specifically view the situation
It's interesting and I don't call it dishonesty because both parties truly think they are correct. But we can look at it this way. What is the most likely case. A God that has aways existed outside our universe made this vast universe with billions of galaxies some 14 billion years ago when all that was needed was our solar system in order for us to just drive in the last few thousand years in order to worship him and is impossible to detect in any way shape or form. Or natural process brought us here as science has and is confirming?
Or maybe (I know this is absurd.. even to believers) a combination of the two.. *shrugs*
I'll pay complete attention when you give me some evidence.
By all means ignore me.. I was just stating possibilities.. not certainties.. I told you I was crazy sometimes
I don't think Rad meant that to be taken personally.
I didn't take it personally at all. I understand where Rad was coming from. The strange thing about me is that I think very differently than a lot of people and explore possibilities that both sides would consider absurd. That's why I said something about being crazy..
I like Rad, you, ATM, Getit, and even Mark. I am able to separate myself from my beliefs and discuss them without taking it personallyCould you please teach that to everyone else who can't?
Sorry, I chose my word poorly. I meant something "get back to me when..."
No No No.. I understand what you were saying. I didn't take offense at all. My response was in humor. I have no proof of my specific unique belief, I only speak of possibilities.
How about those who claim to have conversations with gods? Are they being honest?
How about those who claim to understand reality for what it is and how it works based on logic, reason and evidence? Would that be honest?
I'm trying to understand what you mean about dishonesty being unproven either way?What I mean, ATM, is that for either side to come outright and give an absolute yes or no regarding the existence of God leads to a type of dishonesty. I will give you the fact that science, reason, and logic answers a lot more questions than religion (especially organized religion), especially when you factor medical advances, scientific research, technology, etc, but (And I will beat you to it, it's gibberish and nonsense and a fallacy) for as small as it makes the chances of there being a God of some sort (And I'm not necessarily talking about the Nutjob that is portrayed in the bible at some points) it doesn't completely rule out the possibility that there might be a creator of some sort (No I don't have evidence, Just saying).. On the flip side, It is just as dishonest (and more so) and illogical for God to be the first answer for everything with no hard evidence other than a perceived experience. This is why I speak purely about possibilities (which given some of the things i speak on I get crazy looks from both sides). But even though I say I believe, I can also say hey I could be wrong. In fact, There are some times I'm not even sure which one I prefer (Right or wrong)
I have gained an even stronger respect for you after this post. It can't have been easy to lay it all out there like that, and I'm impressed. Thank you for sharing this.
No, it wasn't hard at all for me to admit this.It is what it is. I arrived at all of this several years ago. As a child, I can admit to being indoctrinated with the whole "Hell mob mentality" that organized religion teaches (or programs into children). Luckily (or unluckily depending on who you are) for me, my mother stopped being to take me to church because she worked a lot so from the age of 10 or so to my early 20's (The prime years where indoctrination could be really set in), I was very sporadic in church. Maybe it was the specific church I went back to, but when I went back to church, I heard so much that sounded.. well, wrong, to me, that I went back and started reading the bible for myself. For every verse I found that seemed wrong to me, I looked up the word that made it sound different and then started thinking about context depending on the definition. Based on this, I was able to piece together some applications that made more sense to me than it did with me going along with the most common definitions of words that are used in society. So now, for me, I believe in the possibility that God exists and I follow that possibility because even when science runs out of answers, there is that possibility. I cannot divorce myself from that possibility totally because even though there is no specific, physical inimpeachable proof (so to speak) that God exists, there are still a lot of questions that must be answered. I know that this is an oxymoron (when looking at a lot of believers) but I actually have reasoned and examined things rationally and logically regarding my belief in the possibility of the existence. This is why I debate with both sides objectively (or with equal bias...LOL). Based on my understanding and what I have been able to piece together, I have come to the conclusion that even if God exists, he really doesn't want us depending on him like a newborn needing mother's breast (unlike how a lot of believers act in general) I could pull a scripture and break it down my way if I wanted to, but It would only bore you..LOL
Well, JM, here is my reason to believe I guess.
And in my reason to believe, This is how I define religion. What I spoke of is only what I believe. Unlike organized religion, whose mentality is to ostracize those who do not believe the same way as they do, , I do not expect or want to sway anyone to my beliefs because in order for you to believe what I believe and how I believe it, you would have had to experience what I experienced. Without those experiences, it will never be possible to convert anyone to any way of thinking. And I also do not (now will I ever) condemn someone to a place that may or may not exist because they disagree with me. I have been told by fellow so- called "Christians" that I was going to hellSorry, but that is a false premise, science has not run out of answers, science is collecting answers every day, building a huge library of knowledge and understanding. Science already shows the possibility and probability of gods existing to literally be impossible, that is, unless everything we understand is scrapped in favor of the magic supported by religions.
What questions? Put them up on a thread and see if there are answers already.
I would agree with that. However, you'll find few atheists who will come out and make that bold statement. If they are saying there is no god, they are most likely referring to the fact that no gods have ever shown themselves.
Not only that, there is the history of religions that show how they evolved over the centuries all the way back to sun (son) worshipers, strictly through man made ideals and actions. We can see the obvious similarities between Christianity and other religions that came before it, for example. There is so much information that show religions have zero credibility and validity in that regard.
I totally get that. However, with possibility, one must also look at probability, the probability of a creator based on the evidence and understanding we have of the world around us. The possibility is easy to accept, however the probability of a creator is so infinitesimally small based on what we know and the fact that so many physical laws of nature need to be violated or scrapped entirely based on that probability, with magic reigning supreme, it has little to no chance of ever seeing the light of day.
Believers always put forth the possibility of a creator, but rarely if ever talk about the probability, simply because it demolishes the possibility.
And, have you noticed that even believers within the same religion rarely if ever agree on their shared beliefs and usually wind up hurtling insults at each other, calling the other a demon or lead by the devil? Those folks can't even agree with themselves and then expect non-believers to understand their position.Then why not say no gods have shown themselves. I have met atheists that have made absolute statements
I can agree with a small probability factor, but at the same time, a probablility (even one so small as to be easily dismissed) is still a probability.
You have my 100000000000+% agreement on this one.There are miniscule probabilities for a great many things, like unicorns and leprechauns, but we don't usually build worldviews on them. Instead, we focus on that which has a much larger probability, usually associated with facts and evidence and not wishful thinking.
And I can agree with that. The problem is that this worldview was created and generated long before science and technology could be advanced enough to lower the possibility and probability
There are still differences between a belief in God and a belief in unicorns. Although it's true that there are people who believe that unicorns exist, it is a very small number and no actual religion has been built around the unicorn (again, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I've known a lot of people who were into weird things by anyone's standard and there's no equivalent of the Bible for unicorns.) A better analogy might be Allah or Brahmin. Just because there are "small probabilities" does not mean that every probability is equally small or that they are equivalent in other ways.
No, there isn't, they are both beliefs, identical in their form and result. No difference whatsoever.
That is only true if you want to isolate parts of an argument and extrapolate it out in order to bolster your desire to dictate the terms of the discussion. Or if you just like to insult people. There are differences.
You once denied my statement about nuance. You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that among people, even people with similar beliefs, there are variations. And there are variations in the way that people, or God, deal with people and situations. Yes, God is a constant. He exists (for the sake of argument if nothing else, to explain my point.) You also exist and in that way you are a constant, as am I. But you don't deal with me the way you deal with someone who hasn't claimed "to converse with gods" even if they claim to be a believer. I don't deal with you the same way I deal with other non-believers. Situation often dictates action. Variance. Nuance.
WOW ATM.. Looks like you're in the middle of a big fight
It's the typical liars for Jesus who have nothing to say, so they create false accusations and dishonest claims. It's laughable.
The world we both share leaves room for nuance and for God.
Nuance presents itself in our world all the time, God doesn't.
Really? I thought it was all about your claims you talk with God? Yes, that's exactly what it was about.
That is the respect one deserves when they make such claims.
Our world, the one we both share, IS a deity-free world, unless you or your god can show otherwise.Nuance and God are both constants. Based solely upon your interactions with me, you seem to have room for neither. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but I wouldn't know it based on your previous actions.
A small group of interactions have been about my claims to talk to God. Which is a misnomer but that's for another time. You have, with a few exceptions, acted this way toward me long before I ever made any such claims.
Really? So you really think your argumentative, brow-beating absolutism deserves better?
He has. Often.LOL. A nuance is a variation, how can it be a constant, it is the antithesis to being constant.
Your God could a nuance, a variation of reality, but if YOUR God were a constant, we would all know it.
You can't expect to receive respect when you go about making clams of talking with gods. Ridicule and criticism is all that deserves because it has attained the height of dishonesty.
And yet, another example of that dishonesty. Very sad.Wow, Chris! You came up with another way to say, 'I know you are, but what am I' Well done.
And, would that be the "real world" in which you converse with God?
It seems you missed the point. The point of the story was in the beginning no distinctions were made, when you make distinctions (ie eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you will surely die..... from the awareness that there is no such thing as good or evil except if our minds make it so.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Distinctions?
What I think she is referring to is that in the beginning there were no differences made known to Adam and Eve between good and evil. As a result, they were unaware that not listening to God's warning would be considered evil until they ate the fruit off the tree of knowledge
All that manages to do is support the incompetence of God for not having made those distinctions clear.
Yeah, But I think this is where the parental "Because I said so" thing comes into play..
(Note: I agree with what you are saying regarding the story.. If the story is true)That would be the response of a parent who is not intelligent. I would suspect that would be the same kind of logic a God would use.
Wait a minute...
There were no distinctions before the eating of the fruit lol
Actually no, the knowledge of good and evil did not come about until she ate from the tree. The eating of the tree was neither good or evil. Gods warning was that they would surely die. We know from biblical texts they did not physically die, so it was pointing to a spiritual death or death of the awareness of the whole. Knowledge then tended to make one believe it was now separate from the whole and duality as we know it came to the fore.
That's a patent apologist excuse. Good told them that the day they ate from the tree, they would surely die. They didn't. God failed to follow through. Therefore, a lot of Christians say "oh it was a spiritual death". That is a modern extrapolation that does not exist in the text. You're making excuses for gods ineptitude.
If you take the bible literally yes you are correct. Do you really believe that Satan was a serpent too? Do you really believe that revelations should be interpreted literally as well? This is where logic becomes useful.
So, you don't take the Bible literally? If not, can we use that answer in further posts where you DO take the Bible literally?
Well I don't take the Bible for anything more than a manual for immorality and disgusting excuses. Use your brain to interpret the Bible, but don't use it to try to locate the god who "wrote" it
Yet once upon a time you bought into what it advocated. The bible has not changed, your taught understanding has. I see that as a good thing. It always pays to question what another man professes to know about a written text or God. Like I said earlier, no man, no philosophy, no doctrine can ever give you proof of God. Questioning is always useful.
we're supposed to question but not to look for proof? We're supposed to be doubtful - except when it comes to god - and then we're just supposed to shut our brains off and just believe? That doesn't make any sense.
Beliefs have no role at all. Nor does faith. As I said earlier, it is beyond words, thoughts. Beliefs are thoughts that we cling to by habit. Words are vehicles that convey that belief. One must always question, because words and thoughts of the logic are use to ruling.
so now you're not supposed to believe in a god or have faith in one. Just know (without anything that leads to knowledge) that a god is out there?
Knowing and not experiencing is not knowing...... That is faith and belief. Experiencing is knowing. Faith and belief not required.
In reality, things don't work that way. You believe in something once you know that it's real. I could WANT to believe that there's a tiny laundry fairy that makes all of my clothes dirty every time do the wash - or that steals the sets of matching socks. If I believed that she existed, that wouldn't make her exist. That would make me crazy. The time to believe in something is after you have proof of it. The fact that socks disappear is not proof of a laundry fairy.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true WITHOUT PROOF
then to me, that would be the definition of hope - not belief. You hope that this god is true, so you'll act as though he is. That hope does not make it true. I get what believers say, but I cannot wrap my mind around accepting something with no evidence whatsoever and sacrificing my own instincts and my own will to following it - without knowing if I'm sacrificing myself for a lie or not.
The mind is an amazing thing isn't it? It can create a simulation that the ego itself can't or won't see. Clearly, it's only fantasy happening in their minds, but they protect it in the face of logic. Did anyone read what vector7 wrote in the forum "Reasons to Believe" Quoted - Counted? someone get that boy some help. He's going on about seeing demons with both his eyes and his mind, then he goes into great detail about what they do. Most (I hope) would agree somethings up with that, but they don't think their own simulation of God as being odd?
There is a difference between hope and belief..
Hope is the feeling that what is desired CAN be real.
Belief is the knowledge that something IS real
The difference (though slight) is that with hope you want something but you can understand and accept that it may not be real. With belief, you basically have no doubt in your mind that it is real and (In the case of some people) You refuse to accept any other possibility that it isn't real
Okay, I looked that one up because I don't have belief without proof. By that definition, anyone who lives in Florida would have to not believe it exists because they have the proof. Strange semantics.
Well then, for you it is no longer a belief, but a certainty because you have evidence that is sufficient enough to convince youof the existence of God. Good for you that you have that evidence. Perhaps for some others that do not have specific evidence enough to change that belief to certainty will find their proof as well
And I mean this totally. I am happy that you have proof
Why not? What you are declaring seems to be illustrating exactly what I said?
The issue with faith is that some people hold to it as being real even though they don't have the knowledge for sure
No.. Part of the questioning stages is to get your answers verified. I simply think the is saying that it doesn't matter how much you question or how much you question it you may never find the proof of God that you seek.. Which, for some people, means what's the point in trying. That's where faith comes in. For some, Belief is considered knowledge without proof. (Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the Evidence aka "proof" of what isn't seen)
**Note, I said SOME people. I didn't say it makes sense**
Is there a difference between good or evil in your mind or not? Is that not a distinction?
That depends, but those distinctions were never placed in the minds of Adam and Eve. Incompetence on the part of God.
It wasn't, that's the point. God made no attempt to teach anything.
Now you make no sense. Who said God was attempting to teach anything? If the ability to make distinctions were placed nowhere, how did Adam and Eve know they were naked after eating from the tree?
Well said Pennyofheaven, but I do have one exception and that's to your "when you disengage the mind that is designed to seek knowledge your proof will come to the fore." Disengaging the mind from seeking knowledge isn't what is required but stopping the mind from clinging to taught concepts without proof is the requirement. Knowledge objectively observed leads one to determining purpose and proper use for it but even from our mother's womb the concepts of right and wrong are instilled into us which prevents our being objective in our approach to things. It's the concepts of good and evil deeply instilled into us which prevents our seeking evidence which will make us wise. Even that book tells us everything unseen is revealed through the thing made therefore it is only our lack of objectivity which blinds us. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
I am not advocating disengaging the mind when in search of knowledge. It is useful. In search of experiencing God however is an entirely different thing. If the logic is engaged while experiencing, the essence of that experience, for the most part, is lost.
I do agree, everything unseen is revealed through the thing made and vice versa. Yet most cannot see beyond the surface of the made and the mind needs to be disengaged. When the experience comes to the fore, most are able to see, even if it is part thereof, the essence of the made and the unseen.
We cling to concepts sometimes without awareness. Words are such concepts we blindly accept to define our logical reality. Nothing wrong with that. It works for the reality we accept. If we seek the understanding of God however, words fall short.Good points, But the issue with this is that in disengaging our minds and just living by the experience, we would essentially dismiss any other possibilities of other occurrences that our engaged minds would consider. For example, Some believers get pregnant and say God did it but dismiss the fact that the man stuck his part into a woman's parts and the resulting mixture of an egg ans sperm actually created the child.. The origin of this design is irrelevant (for the most part). The point is that Some people thank god when the actual power to conceive the baby is ours
Yes that is the dilemma most face when they think about disengaging the mind. Believing that God did it however is an engagement of the mind.
Sorry, but that sounds like the lamest of excuses. Logic makes God disappear? How does that work? God is so weak that He can't stand up to logic? Hilarious.
You lost me here as well. I will not say that it is an excuse, Just that it makes no sense
Where did I say God disappears in your mind? If you read carefully, it said the essence of the experience is lost. Simply because the logic (when it comes to God) will always try to fit what it does not yet fully understand into a box.
That is pure baloney and a lame excuse.
There's absolutely nothing to support that view.
It has nothing to do with me. Show us how your claims are supported? Can you do that?
Read my initial reply to the OP. You insist on a show and tell which cannot be done as I have been saying all along.
Doesn't matter, the experience will not be fettered no matter what logic is put forth. If it does, then the experience is false.
Yes agree, it becomes false when logic rules because that is the way logic deals with what it cannot grasp.
LOL. Sorry, but logic can easily grasp your examples. If it becomes false with logic, then it IS false.
Your logic has not that is apparent. If you say so.
Your posts have rarely if ever shown any logic, so it is apparent you are unable to understand what logic consists and how it's used. It's not a matter of me saying so, and in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with me.
Then why bother discussing any thing with me if you believe my posts show no logic?
Can you clarify what you mean by the essence of the experience is lost? How is it lost?
The cool thing about life is that you have the choice to believe whatever you want and you shouldn't need someone else to prove anything to you as if you believe something you do and if not , then not!!! Enjoy the choice you have chosen for yourself!!! No one else's opinion should matter.
Absolutely, people have the right to believe as ridiculous and childish things as they want. They shouldn't complain then, about the sorry state of the world when they are the ones contributing to it.
When you can see it and touch it,it is no longer a maybe,but a fact. It will later come to the world that God shall reveal Himself to world population in many ways,yet,some will not believe,but it was meant to be.
I don't speak from books nor schools of education,but from experience and hands-on knowledge. He made me a witness,and so I speak.If you define god as that which produced all this then it is self evident that there is a god, because all this did not always exist. Simple as that.
But no where in the definition does it say what this god is.
You now have two choices. It might be a conscious god of which you have over 4000 models to choose from, or it might be a non-conscious process such as the nature of energy.
Despite there being over 4000 conscious god models there is no evidence for any of them.
But there is plenty of evidence for the nature of existence and the laws of physics.
No one converts to Pantheism. You either recognize your own world view in it or you don't.
Dan Barker goes into some detail in his book about how real his faith was, how he FELT the presence of Christ and so on. He gives accounts of people saying that he must not have been a 'true' Christian if he fell away from it. Good reading. This defense is just another one that religious people use to find a way to dismiss your claims. I'm sure your faith at the time was as solid as anyone's. You should write lots of hubs or a book about your experiences.
Have you read his book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists?" It's quite good and I'm sure you could relate to much of what he expresses. I'd encourage the faithful to read it too, but that would really be pointless, I think.I love that book. In fact, I've had to get several copies of it because I loan it out to friends and they like it so much they don't give it back. I've even had the chance to see Barker speak.
That's one of the Christian tactics that I find the most frustrating. As soon as they find out I'm an atheist, they seem to automatically dismiss my history as irrelevant. If I tell them about my background, their first line of defense is to tell me that I was never a true christian at all - because it would be impossible for a true christian to become an atheist. It grates on me to no end. Who are they to tell me that? They weren't there. They didn't live through it. To me it seems arrogant at the very least - simply because a christian turned atheist makes them uncomfortable.I believe that's exactly the case, they are uncomfortable with someone converting because everyone who is "right" is a Christian (in their minds). Personally, even when I was a Christian, I never really "felt" right doing it, it was just a choice I made to stick with... Church made sense and I like the values and some of the right way of doing things (like the importance of staying faithful to your spouse and don't kill, among other things), but I don't like the way that Christians try to guilt you into doing these things, instead of explaining. I never understood the mentality of Christians I've encountered, but then again, I've known many Atheists with the same mentality as well. In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
After reading the praise of Dan Barker, I thought I'd look it up on Amazon. Now when I look up a book on Amazon, I make it a habit of reading both the gushing 5 star praise reviews and the 1 star 'the book is crap reviews'. It appears that Barker has come out of the right wing intolerant fundamentalist branch of Christianity, which as we see evidenced on these forums, is populated by people who are often wilfully ignorant of the bible; people who choose to rely on their church leaders to interpret it for them rather than thinking for themselves. Apparently he freely admits that as a Christian he was not very knowledgeable of the bible. Now evangelists do not need to be; they only need to memorise sound bite verses that support their mission to convert people. So it seems to me that as a Christian, Barker was as far removed from a deep thinking sober biblical scholar as it is possible to be. So why should I be inclined to believe he has applied any more rigour to his arguments now as an atheist? If he singularly failed to apply himself to understanding the bible as a Christian, should we assume he has any better understanding of it now? If his grasp was shallow then am I to believe it is any deeper now?
Just for the record, I do not hold the view that if someone walks away from Christianity, they never were one in the first place, and I accept without question your testimony as a former Christian. I have spent an awful lot of time examining my own history as a Christian, reevaluating, asking myself if what I believed and went along with was real. I think that today's Christianity is very often a feelings based, experiential, sensationalist religion, which when serious questions are asked of it, it does not stand.Understanding of what exactly? It is simply not possible to "understand," something that is beyond human comprehension.
What's beyond human comprehension Mark?
Hi disappearinghead,
I agree with some of your statements. I really do not know Barker but I assume he is also an atheist. I cannot blame anyone if one turns to be an atheist. To tell you the truth, if I had not made my own investigation, I should have become an atheist. But my study and personal experience of God became an unshakable faith that there is God and there is hope beyond this lifetime.
Sad to say, the majority of this world's religion has blatantly and erroneously represented Christianity. So SAD... I hate to say this but the leading misrepresentor of Christianity is the Catholic church who blended the Christian faith with paganism which God clearly abhors. But if one truly came to the TRUTH, I believe that that person will also develop an unshakable faith. We have to realize that Satan deceived the WHOLE WORLD (Rev. 12:9). So what we see in the world today is not the doing of God but of Satan but one day He will finally intervene and establish His kingdom here on Earth and every atheist and person will bend their knees to the one TRUE GOD.Hi, we don't need any more religious extortionists here, thank you
How exactly do you think that christianity is misrepresented? You do understand, don't you, that without the Catholic church which you hate so much, there would BE no christianity today? They were the ONLY christian church up until the reformation. They were responsible for the texts, the scriptures, the gospels, the writings, etc from the earliest days of christianity up until now - and without them (as flawed, distorted and altered as they are) you would have nothing.
Tell me one thing in your particular version of "true christianity" (which miraculously every denomination claims to have while decrying everyone else) does NOT have pagan roots?Actually in parallel to the Catholic Church there was the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Coptic.
yeah, and all of them have different versions of christian history and fail to agree on even the most mundane points. How do you reconcile that?
Heck I dunno, I guess I'll sort that out after I've implemented World Peace.
If you really want world peace, do away with organized religion. It won't solve all of the world's problems, but it would probably be a good start.
Far be it from me to support organised religion it is not the cause of all the worlds ills as well you know. I'm sure I don't need to mention Stalin, Chairman Mao, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1&2, etc.
I agree. This world's religion cannot achieve world peace because it is not what the TRUE Church is supposed to do. This world is ruled by Satan and time will come that God will ultimately step in the world scene and intervene in man's affairs and establish lasting peace on Earth.
Yes. I firmly believe that my Church do not have pagan roots.
And by the way, it is not the catholics who come up with the Bible. The oracles of God is given to the Jews. It was the scribes who painstakingly made copies of the manuscript.Everything IN your religion has pagan roots. Have you ever studied it? Any of it?
You get that all religions claim that they're the "true" church, right? And none of them, including yours, have any actual proof to back up that claim.
DO you know how the bible was formed? Put aside the old testament for a moment - how was the new testament formed? Do you know that there are more recorded mistakes/copying errors/differences between the earliest copies available for the new testament books than there are words in the new testament? True story. Look it up.@ JM - that is interesting. How can you say that my religion is of pagan roots when you do not know my specific beliefs?
- really? well, please give me one link so I can read them.
I firmly believe that God is the Creator and Possessor of the whole universe. He will not let His very Word to be adulterated by us humans. He is God and He can protect the Bible from malicious people.Sorry, mate, that's already been done before God himself could even blink.
Hi HeatBlast,
I agree, there are many adulterated versions of the Bible but we can still go back to the original text and see the real meaning of a passage.we don't have any of the original texts - that's one of the biggest problems that biblical scholars have. DO you have the originals hidden under your bed somewhere that you're refusing to share with the rest of the world?
1) Christmas is not actually christ's birthday - it is the Saturnalia celebration in ancient pagan Rome. Incidentally, it's almost Yule, the celebration of the winter solstice, which has existed for millenniums prior to the birth of christ.
2) Easter is named after the pagan goddess Ostara. hence why it is still celebrated by the easter bunny (a symbol of fertility.
3) there are hundreds of other "messiahs" in both jewish and pagan traditions - sun gods who die, and after three days are resurrected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78751914/Misq … art-Ehrman
Bart Ehrman is a world-renowned biblical scholar. "What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways….There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.1 [emphasis in the original"
If god can protect the bible, then how come it's been changed, forged, altered, etc. For example, none of the gospels were written by the people who's names are on them. In fact, no one knows who wrote them. Dating them, however, has proven interesting. The earliest date for the earliest gospel (Mark) is in the mid 70's - after the destruction of Jerusalem. We know that because Mark makes errors, which are later corrected by Matthew and Luke, neither of which were eyewitnesses. They mess up geography (they have jesus going 55 miles out of his way on a journey, stating that a city was on his way to another city - when it's in the opposite direction) they call the sea of gallilee a sea, when really it's a lake - one that is not troubled by hurricane like storms, incidentally. They go out of their way to prove prophecies have been fulfilled, when, in order to fulfill a prophecy, you can't ACTUALLY go out of your way to try to inject it. This has been studied for thousands of years, it was mocked by philosophers in Rome, and it is criticized by biblical scholars today.
I studied theology, and I read the scriptures in the original languages. I went to one of the most prestigious bible colleges in the country, and I actually have a background in studying this crap. Because I studied it, I no longer believe it. The bible is no more the word of god than "The Night Before Christmas" is truth about Santa Clause. If you examine the evidence rationally, and without your pre-existing bias, it's easy to see.hi JM,
Sorry but we dont celebrate christmas and easter in anyway. We know that it is pagan and God clearly abhors these holidays. We only celebrate God-ordained festivals written in Leviticus 23. what a dismay for you huh?
I admit that i did not study any thing that you mentioned and i lack the scholarly knowledge. and because of this discussion, i am driven to study archeology and how God's word was preserved. thank you for this conversation."He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Get it?
Not yet.so you celebrate passover and all of the other jewish holy days? Yet you believe in christ? Interesting. Tell me - do you smear the blood of a dead human on your doorway, or the lamb that you slaughtered to remind god not to kill you? Ironic, since you'd think if god knows everything, he'd KNOW which houses are his, and which ones are the egyptians, don't you think?
You have made no studies, it is your indoctrinated faith that drives your belief system.
No, we won't.More claims of arrogance servantofgod from yet another theists who claims to know the "truth." In the U.S. alone there are around 35,000 Christian sects and they like you all claim to have the truth. Which one is right? Somehow you have managed to find the truth all on your own of course with the aid of the Holy Spirit which every Christian church known to man claims to have. But I guess you sog are the exception.
Your faith is self contradictory as are its texts and most of the information there is not historical but rather doctrinal. All the accounts of the trial, death, and especially the resurrection of Christ disagree with each other blatantly. It's actually an insult to my intelligence that I once believed it all hook line and sinker. Also, your faith does not require evidence since it is based entirely on hearsay and cannot be corroborated by any credible external sources.
The truth is, for an atheist, there is no proof of God's existence. So no matter how many proofs presented, all will become in vain and pointless. I believe forums like this does not aim in seeking the truth but only for amusement.
Just like what Psalm 14:1 says, "the FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God".
So no matter how you to talk to an atheist, since he or she is a FOOL, then nothing will happen. It is like talking to a chicken.
Atheists believe that there is no God and yet they always attack God (which they think does not exist). How ironic.
An atheist will refuse to look at the hard evidences that God exists because he or she does not like Someone or God for that matter, to tell him or her what to do with his or her life. Plain and simple. For example, people read in the Bible that HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin, abortion is murder, divorce is wrong, since they practice such behavior, instead of changing their ways, they will rationalize things and discredit God so that they will not be bothered by their conscience. FREEDOM as what they call it. But Freedom without God's guidance will just lead to destruction.
Look at America today. What was previously the greatest nation now becomes the WORLD's number one debtor. All because of moral degradation especially the re-engineering of the family unit which results to many untold sorrows. America is founded in the Bible and the founding fathers recognize God and His word to be the best Guide to run a country. Deviate from that Guide and suffer the consequences.Fact-check before imposing silly arguments, please and thank you. Also, through what logical train of thought did you manage to relate 'the re-engineering of the family unit', the concept of which is, like the Bible itself, man-made itself, to America's somewhat bleak financial crisis? Bear in mind the OP's sexual orientation, by the way, if you're going to lambaste on anyone else's behind that facade of self-righteousness of yours.
@ heatblast - I am not being self-righteous. I am just telling what the Bible says. It is not me who said it, it is the bible. you can read it yourself.
I believe the Bible is written under the inspiration of God though written by men.
The only way a family work is having the traditional structure of family composed of father, mother and children. You can see the statistics that most juvenile youth came from broken family.
Because of unending cycle of poor family structure such as single moms and unprepared pregnancy, more and more people rely on the government to meet their needs. this leads to further financial crisis.
I don't really care what you believe about the purpose of this forum. If you want to just come and preach and not provide any evidence to prove your case, why are you here? There are no proofs. There haven't been for thousands of years, and I don't believe it's possible to prove god - any more than it's possible to prove purple pet dragons.
Almost every scripture in the world without fail has some kind of passage like this in it. It is an attempt to validate itself and discredit any alternate beliefs, rather than providing firm evidence for its claims. Funnily enough, however, Jesus himself says that if you call your brother or sister a "fool" you are in danger of hellfire.
How is asking for proof attacking something/someone? I don't understand this logic. If a god exists, and that god manifests in the natural world, there should be ample evidence that he exists. In the case of the christian god, he supposedly used to travel down to earth quite a bit and talk to people face to face - yet there's not one shred of proof that he was actually here, so you have to make justifications and excuses for his existence - none of which hold water.
I'm not refusing to look at anything. I'm asking for something. There's a big difference - one that you seem incapable of understanding. You are in no position to lump all atheists together and judge us as a whole - especially since you seem to have no understanding at all what atheists actually think.
Your little diatribe about America is sounding dangerously like the Westborough Baptist church. Picketed any soldier's funerals lately?Hi JM,
Sorry, I am not too familiar with American setting or news for that matter. So i cannot really relate what you are talking about Westborough.
But let me explain about the "fool" part.
You should not fail to see the context. Being angry with sin is lawful. there are many instances in the bible that talks about being angry and not sin. God is righteously angry with the wicked (psa 7:11) because of the suffering they have caused. Jesus was angry with the pharisees (mar 3:5). When Jesus was talking about calling someone a fool, He is saying that a person is in danger of hell fire if he calls someone a fool without a CAUSE. Sometimes strong words are needed to rebuke people. Thus, there is nothing wrong when God said that people are fools when they do not believe that God does exist.
Alright. Let me ask you something JM, how can you prove evolution?Evolution proves itself with natural selection and diversity of species.
In the same way, God proves himself by what has been created. Ask any Hopi.
He told you that?
Why not ask God, that is, if you can find Him?
@troubled man,
evolution is a fairy tale. that is why it is still called "THEORY" and nothing more. Charles Darwin was so frustrated that he cannot come up with the evidences to support his theory. He "HOPE" that the evidences will surface in the future but more than 150 years ago, there is no solid evidences to support this pigment of imagination of Darwin. When he hoped, this is only an exhibition of his "FAITH" on his theory, more faith is needed to believe on his theory than what the bible actually says.Jesus is a fairy tale. that is why it is still called "FAITH" and nothing more.
How is that?the only thing your response demonstrates is that you know nothing about science - just like you know nothing about history, archaeology or ancient literature.
the "just a theory" argument is so ridiculous it's actually laughable. Do you believe in gravity? It's a theory too, you know. Evolution is a FACT. It can be observed, repeated and tested in a laboratory. Why don't you add the scientific process to your list of things to study.So, you admit to evolution being a "THEORY" yet you call it a fairy tale. Of course, your dishonesty in calling it that is due to the fact you know nothing about evolution and are only trying to defend your religious beliefs at any cost, lying included..
That is entirely false. Why are you lying about that?
So sorry, that you're must resort to such tactics in order to defend your beliefs. How very sad. It's little wonder your religion causes so much conflict in the world.the definition of theory that applies to evolution is the same as the wave "theory" of light or the "theory" of gravity. these are overarching principles that tie together a field of science. this sort of theory does not mean someone's best guess or hypothesis.
It's also slightly different than the application of "theory" I've heard used for evolution before, which is that enough evidence has been found that scientists are comfortable that any holes will be filled in at a later time. So while you can see gravity more or less en toto right now, the same is not true for evolution, but the scientists have faith that it's all there waiting to be discovered.
Evolution is better understood than gravity, the cause of gravity is distortion in the space time continuum by way of complex relativity a hazy field at best, evolution is simple genetics, are there points in the evolutionary chain that we don't have fossils from? Sure but that is mathematically inevitable given enough points.
We can definitively genetically prove that several species evolved so we are on the working assumption that all did, maybe one day we will find one with no genetic markers of previous forms in the evolutionary ladder.
In our genome for example there is code for a reptiles' three ventricle heart, a Japanese man was recently found with just such a heart due to a genetic oddity after going to the hospital with chest pains, a part of his DNA that is usually inactive because we have evolved out of it (reptile heart) was activated.
There is no question at all therefore that humans evolved, we can trace that process in inactive genes.Not questioning at all that the genomes are there (I admit I don't know much about it but I do find it fascinating and do appreciate opportunities such as this to learn a bit more!) why is it "proof positive" that we evolved? Why is it not possible that God did create humans with similar genetic material to other creatures, not unlike an artist reusing themes and motifs from other work?
Does it make sense that God would put inactive old genetic material in creatures that would help the evolution theory? For instance, people have been working with birds to turn on certain genetic switches to hatch dinosaurs. Birds have the genetic material to produce dinosaurs but mammals don't. Ever wonder why the human embryo develops a tail? Ever wonder why people are sometimes born with a soft tail? A study of Human vestigiality and perhaps the Appendix will help.
I actually knew all this. And yes I do wonder. Ever wonder why I believe in God?
You know, I shouldn't sound so cynical. I guess I'm a little disillusioned myself because after actually treating people like they're smart enough to figure out what I was saying and leading to, it turned out that most of them prefer me to simply state things categorically that they can disagree with. But in this way Mark was right, it "won't end well for you." I was hoping for actual debate and discussion, I find that stimulating and rewarding. There's a reason why I don't argue with some of the people here. But everyone seems so comfortable just thinking of me as somehow deluded.Here's the thing, Chris - and it is the last thing I will say about our former discussion.
If you were to set out a preposition that was DELIBERATELY over the top and sarcastic like, I don't know, "atheists eat babies for breakfast" and then I came along behind you and said "how dare you call me a liar. I do eat babies, and you're mocking my own dietary choices" that would be absurd. I was mocking my OWN projection, not accusing you of being dishonest. There was no possible way for me to know in advance that you were actually going to claim that, instead of appearing to you in your living room like I suggested, you were going to say that god appeared to you in your head. If you turn the situation around, it makes sense but you jumped to conclusions unnecessarily.
Furthermore...just because I'm not asking the questions that you want me to ask does not mean that I'm not smart enough to figure things out. I was asking questions in the first place, which is more than I can say for others I've seen. I tried to be respectful, albeit sarcastically respectful. I gave you several chances previously, and you gave me chances as well. After all that, however, it ended poorly. I don't want to be "led" to the correct (in your view) questions. I'm not a sheep and I don't enjoy being herded. I'm not a mind reader. I was asking you the questions that came to mind as we continued our discussion, and you ridiculed the attempt when I made a real, genuine effort. None of that encourages further conversation. I've seen other atheists mock you and speak to you disrespectfully and you've gone out of your way to tell them it's not productive and then do the same thing yourself. Yes, I was upset but I believe that I have justification for it. I did not call you a liar like you seem to believe. I'm a human being and sometimes I have a short temper, but if I'm doing my best to treat you respectfully and listen to what you have to say, perhaps you can extend the next person making an effort the same courtesy.Okay, I appreciate that. And since you're relatively new, you didn't know that yes, I would claim to have known God personally. I've done it before, it's not news.
Yes, you were asking questions. The problem was that nobody ever asks the right question, which is "Why do so many people who were not previously disposed to belief in God become believers and can I study this?" Usually the question asked is, "Why do people believe in God?" and then an answer which seems self-evident to the asker but not to people like me, and which reflects negatively on people like me, almost always reflexively follows, I decided to try a different tack. The question is not specific enough and the answer is too wrote. I assumed that if I kept at it long enough that someone would get it. What I didn't take into account was that people would give up. In hindsight I suppose that being told I had "written off" atheists when in fact I was doing exactly the opposite should have been foreseeable. When I called ATM an idiot, I did know he wouldn't understand what I was saying and he didn't. I kept trying to lead him to a certain point, not a conclusion necessarily but a place where real dialogue and debate could start. Instead he said that he didn't believe me at all. So much for that. When you also said you doubted my statements, I felt a little despair.
If it helps any, the fact is that even within the church you get funny looks when you claim supernatural experiences (assuming you don't go to a Pentacostal church, which I never have.) And it's too easy to make that the sum total of your argument, both pro and con. But I have experienced God's presence, more than once. Which is the ultimate reason I stick to my position, no matter what is said to me. And a lot has been said, from the respectful disagreement to the frothingly accusatory.Excuse me.
...real dialogue and debate...
That's hilarious.
You're under the impression I don't understand. Of course, that is only too obvious a conclusion from the perspective of an indoctrinated believer who claims...
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a place in which real dialogue and debate can begin, but instead, only serves to repress it from a position of feigned authority.No, I'm not under the impression you don't understand. But, in retrospect, I admit that thinking you were interested in dialogue and debate is pretty funny.
Sorry, but there are no grounds for dialogue or debate from one so superior and special in their authoritative position of being within God's presence, more than once.
What's really funny is the fact you actual believe that.What's even more really funny is that short burst witticisms and intractable non-responses are what you try to pass off as intelligent replies.
But that's just you.
I do laugh, though!Oh, I almost forgot. You are trying something new, though. You take snippets of different conversations and piece them together as if they were one continuous string and then respond to that. Sort of.
Not at all unlike people who pull one or two verses out of the Bible and claim that they know the whole thing backwards and forwards, eh?
Chris, there are perfectly logical explanations for the things that are happening in your mind. The mind has a way of protecting us by making a representation of whatever it is we need. A simulacrum. Much like a lucky charm is real to those who perceive it to be. That explains why God is different to everyone. I'm not saying you are lying about feeling his presence, you most likely really felt it, but only in your mind.
This is the respectful disagreement end of the spectrum. I know you guys are tired of hearing about it, but let me say again, for the record, that it was not one single experience or even a cluster of them in a short time. Attempts to psychologize what I think and how I feel have all managed to miss the mark because they consistently ignore (by accident or design) events in my life that I have recounted.
And, with all due respect to you and JMcFarland and Mark Knowles and yes, even A Troubled Man, I am never not struck by the irony of the fact that most of what you all use to explain me in terms other than those I use myself could just as easily be used on yourselves. And if you think that condescending or patronizing, then maybe your empathy button will click and you'll think, "Oh, yeah!"And how exactly do I refer to you in terms other than you use to define yourself?
How about the lectures about how people who stop being Christians can still feel it? I would say that counts.
That can be explained with a little knowledge of the mind. Sorry to interject.
'salright.
Your point is valid but I was responding to a direct question. In fact, what I've had trouble making clear from the beginning and has especially been lost in the shuffle now is that I do think about and read about all this stuff. What seems like such an easy explanation for some people usually just opens more questions for me.
But maybe that's just me.
that wasn't about you - it was about their experiences. I'm trying to demonstrate that "feeling the presence of the lord" is not a purely christian experience - and that even after recognizing atheism, former ministers can still feel the same way they did before when they were praying. How does their experience translate to defining you unless you're uncertain?
Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I took it, but to me it came across as another way of saying that my experiences weren't valid, or at least my interpretation of them wasn't valid. Again, I'm aware of this stuff and I think about it a lot, but on the other hand it's not one experience or even one cluster of experiences that led me to think and believe what I do.
I don't think that is condescending or patronizing and we are all of the same mind, as we are all human and have the same abilities. I'm merely suggesting that the things you feel or sense could only be in your own mind.
I understand but by the same token I've been blasted as condescending for things I've written that were in no way meant to be and I still don't understand how they came across that way. I understand that you don't mean to be condescending but come on, put yourself in my situation and tell me that you honestly would just be feeling like, "Okay, thanks for the help!" when someone is trying to help you by pointing out that, once again, the most probably explanation for your beliefs is delusion.
Actually I take one part back. It's been made pretty clear to me why some people felt my last bit was condescending. But it was not meant that way AT ALL and I'm sorry that anyone felt that way.I don't remember ever getting that from you, I've always thought you were being as honest as you can be. I think I've backed you up a few times because of your honesty, I think even this time.
Yes, you have and I saw that post and I thank you. Sorry I didn't say that earlier.
You know, Chris, I've always thought you were very open and honest with your experiences, and I've appreciated that in you. As far as you being condescending, I never really got that from you either. I get that you are passionate with your views (as are we all). I think when it comes to believers, some of us (me included at times) hold on so tightly to what we believe that we sometimes refuse to entertain any other ideas. This idea is what leads us closer to the line of arrogance and condescension in the minds of others
You make a good point. I will admit that sometimes (with certain people) I do give my snarky side free reign. But I try not to be condescending about things because I'm all too familiar with what it's like on the other end. Still, it can be a fine line between defending what you believe (no matter what that belief sounds like to someone else) and getting carried away.
Thank you.I try to keep my snarky side reigned in (to an extent), but I let mine loose when I notice people heading toward the arrogant side with their arguments. If we are simply disagreeing respectfully about certain points, then that's cool, But when it would appear that things are getting to a certain level (even with myself at times) I will bow out before my snarky side really comes out.
Trying to lead a conversation with an intelligent person is not going to work as conversation. If you want to answer a specific question answer it.
Thank you. That's ultimately what got me so frustrated. I felt like a puppet on a string who was being ridiculed for not following a script. You herd cattle. Sheep. Dogs. If you genuinely believe that you're conversing with someone who is intelligent and worthy of respect, you don't lead them by the hand like a small child. If you have something to say, you need to come out and say it - not try to control the conversation like you're talking to a preschooler.
Again, you walked in on this conversation relatively late in the game. I've done all the things you guys say you resent me for not doing, and the reaction was, while I got points for intelligence, no less one of antipathy than what I'm getting for trying a different tack. I answered questions directly. I brought up points for discussion. I did research and put up some lengthy posts and even some hubs. Let me just say as example that there is little noticeable difference between ATM's responses to me now than there was then. I felt that what you all wanted was points of resistance, not moments of clarity, and I tried to get you all to see where I was going (NOT assuming that anyone would agree with it) a different way. Your response that what I was trying to drive to (which I have stated flat out on more than one occasion) was simply something you would never be interested in and never ask speaks volumes on multiple levels and I suspect is the articulation of what many here think.
You have to know that different people think differently. Just because we're atheist does not mean that I'm going to respond the way Rad or troubled does. If your previous attempts fell short with them, they might have worked with someone else.
I don't speak to you the same way that I speak to deepes, or Mo our Melisa because I've come to know a little about what they respond to and how. I can joke around or poke fun because I've seen their humorous side and I know they aren't likely to take offense. Sometimes I get it wrong, but that doesn't mean I chuck it spill out, try something completely different and then get frustrated Wyeth it doesn't work out. I get that your personal experiences mean a lot to you, but every time I've seen you flip your lid and go off on someone is in reference to them. If you keep talking about them, they are going to be examined critically our even criticized, and you should expect that given their extraordinary nature. If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't bring them up.I appreciate the conversations you and I are able to have now JM. In the beginning I admit to having a guard up from atheists because I had not dealt with very many and especially not on this type of level. But from talking to you, Mark, Rad, Getit, And ATM I've come to learn the differences in how each of you think. I've also come to learn that we think similarly in terms of how to live. The difference is that you came to your conclusions based on looking at everything wrong and contradictory regarding the bible while I (based on my understanding of the bible) picked out a lot of the applications that made sense (the way I interpreted them) and mainly can admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God. With this in mind, My belief is more of an optimistic opinion instead of a certainty that i place a death grip on. I try to think outside the box, which is why i debate with both atheists and believers objectively (or equally biased...LOL)
I noticed the more we talked, the more relaxed you've become.. Maybe Fluffy the wonder Dragon has been a good influence on youYou may notice we all look at holy books differently based on what we need. Some compare the bible and the world and come to the conclusion there is no God, while others don't want to look critically because they still have a need. I think the same happens in marriages, and I can only hope my wife has rose colored glasses. I have a friend who maintains he needs to make his wife think she needs him at all times. He says, no life insurance and no great paying job and a mortgage is the ticket. It's kind of funny that that marriage has lasted almost 30 years and my other friend who is just making way to much money is on his second brutal divorce. They gotta need ya.
I can agree with that. That's why I feel that organized religion fails miserably. You cannot apply a blanket principle to what is supposed to be an individualized philosophy. The blanket will only cover those who will fall under that blanket. I lucked out a little. I grew up under indoctrination and was under that for most of my childhood. Luckily, My mother started working more and I didn't have to go to church as much.. I didn't go to church throughout my teens and early 20's. I still believed, but I just wasn't going and as such wasn't still under that constant programming. When I went back in my mid 20's, I heard so much that rang out as WRONG to me that I started reading the bible for myself along with a dictionary. When I got to a part that seemed off to me, I looked up the word that was causing the confusion and checked the different definitions. For some scriptures I plugged in the definition that made the most sense to me. For some of the others I acknowledged where any definition might fit. Then looking at the fact that the bible is a collection of books with different writers with different perspectives, I really was done in. Ultimately, This is why I am more open to the fact that I could be wrong. Rad, You mentioned that you think that If God is real that we don't need him. I got that same thing out of the bible with specific scriptures. Based on all of what I gathered out of the bible I hold to my belief more as an optimistic opinion rather than a certainty. But If there is a God, He ultimately empowered us to do things for ourselves. But the problem is that organized religion AKA the mob mentality. seeks to rule out of fear of the bad points rather than love of the good... It's sad
The mob mentality of the church does the ego no favours when fighting of the super-ego's wants and needs. Unfortunately when we ignore the ID to long it strikes back like a televangelist caught with a prostitute.
Yes, Fluffy has been teaching me quite a bit. It's almost time for her weekly burnt offering. thankfully, since she breathes fire, I don't have to actually burn it myself.
When i first started entering into forum discussions on hubpages, it was a new experience to me for a completely different reason than you. I'm used to debating, but the debates that I'm familiar with are in person, moderated events - and I usually run across the exact same arguments over and over again.
talking with people on a more intimate level on the forum has taken some adjustment, and I've had to shift my perspective a bit. I like to think that I've become less on edge (typically - but I do get frustrated at times) and more willing to listen to what people say. It is infuriating, however, to get to a certain point in a debate where a theist just says "i believe what i believe because I believe it and I don't care why". I want to get to the root of the issues and have a calm, rational respectful discussion. Sometimes it's possible but sometimes it's not. Learning to accept those "not" scenarios is still challenging me, but I'm persevering.I understand that. When I started in the hubs, I felt like I was fighting three battles. The first battle was the battle to defend my beliefs against what I considered (at the time) harsh criticism from Atheists. The fight I was most surprised about was against fellow believers. I was not totally shocked, but still wierded out a little at how we believe in the same God, but you're telling me I'm wrong. I even had a fellow Christian ask me if I was sure that I was a Christian. Then my final fight (that I seem to be winning.. more or less) is the fight that Although I consider myself a Christian, I am not like some of the others. My ace of spades isn't "You're going to Hell!!" But As I got deeper into the forums and talking with you and some of the others, I've come to enjoy my time here. Having a good dialogue (even with some of those that may still try to push a button) has really been enlightening to say the least.
The mind is a terrible thing to wast. All the time I've been here I've been wondering why. I think I now have some answers for myself, but perhaps it's just a need.
Perhaps it's a combinations of a few things, but jonny mentioned something a while ago that struck me a brilliant. No surprise there of course and it stuck with me. Perhaps we believe what we need to help us through this life in the most peaceful manner. If you need a father figure to say, point you in the right direction or if you need to be kept on the right direction because your being watched then that's what you get. Someone in another thread just mentioned the loving two way relationship she has with God. Perhaps she needs to feel unconditional love.
Understanding Freuds's model of the mind is a great help to understanding the God thing, at least for me. We have the ego, the mostly conscious part balancing what the super-ego demands and what the ID demands. The ID want immediate rewards and thank goodness it subconscious. The super-ego wants to look right in others eyes and to do the right thing and as it turns out is mostly conscious. This super-ego sounds very much like a God talking in a mind telling them to do the right thing. The super-ego and the ego are in constant dialogue and this certainly explains why people think they have conversations with God. Some religions teach that this dialogue of the mind is a dialogue with God.
But, just how does the mind do it? Give us what we need? Make us think something is there when it's not?
This was the part I have been struggling with for a while until I can across a youtube video link that someone on hub pages posted. It turned out to be a series of videos of someone who looked familiar so I watched them and although they were a little boring I found them interesting.
In one of the videos he described the Simulacrum of the mind. And it just made perfect sense to me. I'll try to find the link, but it may have been to long ago to still be in my computers history.
In short it's a simulation our brains run for the purpose of giving us what we need. Kind of like a lucky charm. Most people hold no value to lucky penny, but to those who do the charm holds real luck.
I apologies if I've offended anyone, that is not my intention at all. I'm just telling you what I think, just you are doing the same.
Found it. This link is the first of the series. They are a little hard to get through, but it may be worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp … D163BE880AThis is actually a very interesting perspective that makes a lot of sense. I remember reading up on Freud while I was still looking at the world through my fearfully indoctrinated sight and thought that while he made sense in some areas he was still crazy because GOD was the true answer for everything. I've since gone back and realize his genius.
Exactly, and it is the claims of meeting and talking with God that are show stoppers of the discussion. It is impossible to move beyond those claims as they are clearly bunkum, hence anything stated afterwards cannot be trusted.
Chris just can't seem to get that through his head.IF they were "clearly bunkum" then you'd be right.
But you're not.
And it's not like I'm stuck on that as the only subject of conversation. There certainly are people who cannot get past that, but I'm not one of them.How very sad you feel compelled to keep supporting that obvious fabrication, Chris. All it does is serve to show the high level of dishonesty from indoctrinated believers. No morals.
Hmm.
Well, at least your predictable, canned responses are always good for a laugh.
Interesting point. In fact I would say that until this latest foofarah, Rad was probably the one I had the best relationship with here because, religion aside, he and I see eye-to-eye on so many social and moral points.
I would not say that my experiences have ever been examined critically. Criticized, yes, psychologized, stigmatized, notarized, bastardized, scandalized and booby-prized but not examined critically. I keep talking about them because they keep coming up. People ask me why I believe. Those are the reasons. I think most of the people here remember a time when I was gaining a bit of a reputation as a thinker and I'm more than willing to go back to philosophical conversations about the nature of morality and the place of religion. I enjoy those. But what you perceive as me flipping my lid is mostly a response to what I perceive as others flipping their lid. In a very real way, this whole subject is indirectly what led me to losing a relationship here. But I have to stick to what I know to be true.
Which doesn't mean I have to beat it into the ground.How would you define the difference between someone examining your claim critically vs criticizing it. I WANT to have this discussion with you, or I wouldn't have persisted for some time. If I wasn't interested, I would have bowed out a long time ago.
The only time I felt that you were condescending unnecessarily is when I felt like you were intentionally try to manipulate my puppet strings and telling me that, although I was asking questions which was good (and uncommon) I wasn't asking the RIGHT questions. I'm sorry, but that reminded me of my father who used to tell me all the time "well you're learning, but you're not learning the right way, so I'm going to demean you until you figure out not the truth but the truth that I want you to accept without question". Perhaps it was my issue, not yours, but it rubbed me the wrong way. And then you accused me of calling you a liar, when I did no such thing - but I think you've accepted my explanation of what I was trying to do after I explained it to you in this forum - that I was mocking my own suggestion, not what you were actually saying.
While I share the same non-belief as others, I'm not them. On some things we may react the same way, but on others we may not.Okay, that's a fair question. I guess, not unlike yourself, my perception has been coloured by previous interactions with other. As for "examining critically" vs. "criticizing" I would say the one end of the spectrum is ATM, who rather uncritically rejects what I say, usually with little in the way of academic discussion. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a smart guy and I even rather like him, but his replies usually run along the lines of a) how can you believe that, b) that's obviously untrue and c) no wonder religious people cause so much conflict. He even goes to the point of saying "That's not true and you know it," (at least a half dozen times) and finally, "I highly doubt any of that happened to you." So in that sense, yes, he's calling me a liar whether he thinks he is or not and I react to anyone else who says they doubt my experiences the same way. I apologize if I went over the top on that. I was just trying to get someone to wonder why someone like me (not predisposed to Christianity, not brought up in it, not searching for something along those lines) would have such a sudden and radical conversion. Now I know it's not going to happen. C'est la vie. Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about it but I've been trying for months with multiple people and the response is either that they don't care or they think they already know and are way off base.
I'm very sorry to hear about your father and please understand that I was not trying to belittle you. Please also know that I was not trying to ram MY truth down anybody's throat.
That's fair and I will try to keep that in mind in future.thank you for this, I do appreciate it. I'm a bit hesitant to ask you about the specific details of your experiences because I'm slightly wary that any critical questions or points I would make would be viewed as "criticizing" and not "critically examining" I hope that you know, going into this, that I'm going to be highly skeptical of what you say and that someone asserting that they don't necessarily believe you or they doubt your story does NOT mean that they're calling you a liar. I fully accept that you believe you had these experiences and you're not willfully lying about them. That doesn't mean that me or anyone else has to accept them as truth. There's a difference. I think you're hyper sensitive about them, and from what I've seen (limited time or not) you've reacted incredibly negatively to any comments about your experiences at all, no matter how well-intentioned the commenter.
I think you have a hypersensitivity to being called a liar, like it bugs you to not be believed at face-value, but here's a newsflash for you. Skeptics are skeptical. Unlike a lot of the christian community, if someone claims a miracle or an unexplained "supernatural" event, skeptics are likely to question it. They won't just accept it and suddenly view the world differently. I have seen christians claim miraculous events and had other believers just fall in line, praising god for his miracle - when it turns out that the original statement was made up by the person posting it. I've seen it more times than I can count over years and years of experience. I don't think you're just making this up, but I also think that if you're going to bring your personal experiences into the equation and continually try to talk about them, then you have to be prepared to be doubted. Doubt does not equal the label of "liar". I get called a liar all the time about my education or experience, but it doesn't really bother me? Why? Because i don't have to prove things to virtual strangers on the internet. I know the truth and the people that know me know the truth and whether or not anyone else believes me is completely irrelevant. A lot of people are extremely discomforted by the idea that someone who has attended a bible college would turn around and denounce their faith as false. They want to believe that all atheists don't believe because they're ignorant about the bible and the true meaning of god. Encountering someone of intelligence who does not succumb to it is unsettling, and this is evidenced time and time again in the comment section of my hubs. They either discount me entirely because "what does an atheist know" or they tell me that i have no business writing about god because I don't believe in him. Yet I still write. It comes with the territory.
I hope that you understand what I'm saying, and I'm doing it in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect. I'm not trying to throw you under the bus, here. I'm simply trying to help you so that our conversation can continue.I've seen Christians fall into line as well. Never actually met any of those Christians though. As I've said to you and to others, someone who does not go to a Pentecostal church but still claims either direct experience or close second-hand experience gets funny looks even in evangelical churches.
I may be hypersensitive, but there's a difference between skepticism and accusation and the latter is more often what I've encountered, so it's a conditioned hyper-sensitivity. I'll be more, ah, "sensitive" to that
You don't have to ask me any questions, I put up a hub about a lot of it. http://chris-neal.hubpages.com/hub/The- … e_accepted
My point was that I went from having NO experiences to MANY in a short time. Again, this is where the difference between "skeptical" and "accusatory" took it's toll. I was accused of lying and of delusion many, many times.
The assumption of many "skeptics" appears to be that if I claim these experiences, ipso facto I have checked my brain at the door, will swallow anything and am a poster boy for every evil (real and imagined) they care to ascribe to the church. Maybe they don't mean it that way but, like your experiences with being an intelligent person who has turned away, my experience with being an intelligent person who has turned to faith is that all kinds of excuses for why I can't be the genuine article are hurled at me.
Interesting world, don't you think...
Except that wasn't working either. Back to previous point. When I did answer directly I was accused of having walls up and not thinking for myself. When I try to conduct intelligent conversation I'm accused of condescension and writing atheists off. When I stick to my guns I'm desperate. So I tried option "B".
Chris, I don't really care "Why do so many people who were not previously disposed to belief in God become believers and can I study this?" so that would never be a question I would ask. People believe in god when they didn't before for any number of reasons, and they're usually not good ones - at least in my experience. People believe in god when they didn't before for the same reasons that people believe in god all of their life - it doesn't make it true, and I don't by any means believe that the number is significant. the majority of people who believe in a god do it for all of their lives. The stragglers usually turn to god (in my experience) because something changed in their lives and they were looking for answers - and they clung to whatever happened to make sense to them at the time. People convert to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc too - does that give their faith justification as well?
A lot of people claim to have personal experiences with a god. The phenomenon is not limited to christianity. If you're claiming that your experience is justifiable proof that the god you happen to believe in exists, then how do you discount all of these other personal experiences? If your personal experience is valid proof, these other experiences in different religions should be just as valid. Are they? Or are they all wrong, because they are from/for a different deity?
When I was a christian, I believed that I felt god's presence too. It was indescribable at the time. But I've been an atheist for years, and I still have that same feeling - every time I hear a particularly moving piece of music, or see a beautiful sunset. It's not god. It's me. I know former pastors that can still feel "filled with the holy spirit" and speak in tongues - even though they know that the entire experience is bologna. It's gibberish. I still want to know how god identified himself to you. How would you, who had no knowledge or belief in the christian god, know that what you were experiencing was not only divine in nature but specific enough for you to identify the deity. Furthermore, do you not find it somewhat disheartening to know that, while god was taking the time to appear in your living room - or your head - there were helpless children dying? There were people being abused, beaten, raped, murdered - and I would bet that a large number of them were screaming out for help, but your god was too busy appearing in your head and identifying himself to you to hear or help them?I want to push this thought (just to be sporting). Do you think it possible that it may not be a different God? Could it possibly be that person's vision (or visions for the polytheistic) of how they see God?
Does everyone here really think I have never thought about that?
That there's one god, and he/she/it just answers to whatever name it's called by and transcends cultural and religious boundaries? It's an interesting question. It's something similar to what my wife believes, but she maintains agnosticism. She believes that there's something more to us, but she doesn't call it a deity - it's more like a universal power.
From a psychological perspective, I can understand that some people feel a need to beseech or cling to a "higher power" that they can credit for unexplainable events. The problem I have with this kind of prospect is a) it still can't be proven or demonstrated and b) since it truly exists worldwide, it seems to be a human phenomenon - not a supernatural one. When people experience something that they can't explain, it means that they can't explain it - it doesn't mean that there's not an explanation. I think it's somewhat disheartening that a lot of people jump to the assertion that it's a "god" without examining all of the options, researching or applying their critical thinking skills. The fact that everything that seems unexplainable is attributed to a god is not a new thing. It's been happening for thousands of years. the list is just gradually shrinking with the advent of science.I agree with this one. But to push it further, there are some that do think critically enough to keep asking questions until they run out of answers. once there are no more answers to the questions, that's where the final answer (for some) becomes God. For others the final answer becomes "I don't know". Still for some others the answer becomes "I don't care, but I'm not going to give it to a deity".
Okay, but this makes it pretty clear that I wasn't the one writing people off here.
Was I or was I not still conversing with you? You wanted me to ask a specific question so you could answer it, and when I didn't, you got frustrated. The question you wanted is never one that I would have asked. I was interested in other parts of the question, so I was following those parts. What you wanted to discuss was not within the scope of my interest, and it simply cannot be quantified, unless you speak for everyone that has come to believe later on in life.
I'm wondering if you are the only one who missed that point by such a wide margin. Replay that sentence but eradicate that phrase "so you can answer it" and replace it with "so I can think about it".
If you're going to be frustrated, at least be frustrated for the right reason!
Yes, you were still conversing and yes, I do appreciate that but how many times did you threaten to just cut me off? And not to be badgering you but that post just shows that you still don't get what I was trying to do, even though I've come out and explained it.
But don't worry, I'm not going there any more. You guys want straight up, I can do that.
It is dishonest to reject that which one has very little understanding and only shows a deep indoctrination of religious beliefs being defended at any cost.
I rejected nothing. In fact I was very grateful to Josak for an opportunity to learn something, even if for me it opened up other questions. I find it ironic that a person who so often claims that people like me don't think for ourselves doesn't seem too keen to help us do that. Berating is more fun, I know, but it's also still ironic.
there is NOTHING in the bible about abortion being murder.
though not directly mentioned as abortion, we can derive some principles when it comes to abortion.
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life...
God gives importance to unborn babies that He will punish anyone who will cause a pregnant woman to give birth prematurely.
When Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, despite of being a shame to Joseph and a shame to the whole community, she still decided to continue her pregnancy and did not decide to abort the child. The same situation happens to most women today who consider their pregnancy to be unwanted.
Abortion is killing. PLEASE BE HONEST WITH YOUR SELF.what about all the times that god commanded his people to kill children and "rip unborn children from the womb"? How do you line that up with your theology? Or what about: Numbers 5: 12-19 sets the stage: if a man knows or suspects that his wife has been sleeping with someone else, then he has to take her to the priest with a “grain offering of jealousy”. The priest takes the woman to “stand before the LORD”. He unloosens her hair. He puts the jealousy offering of grain into her hands. He takes some “holy water”, and sprinkles into it some dust from the temple floor. Then he puts her under oath and says “If you’re innocent, may this bitter water not harm you.”
But if she is guilty, it is God’s command that the priest ask God to curse her and cause her to have an abortion and have her uterus collapse, as a warning to others and as a way of making sure that the husband is only raising his own children.
God provides a recipe for a forced miscarriage.I have to admit that upon rereading Numbers 5 it is a bit bizarre and full of medieval style superstition.
There's a reason that this passage is not often quoted or studied. For all of those that claim that god is "pro-life" there are lot of biblical passages (and this is among them) that seem to contradict that assertion.
Hi,
I admit in the surface, numbers 5 seems very negative. But with the proper understanding, it can be explained. Let me quote a statement from our website.
"The offering of jealousy can seem to be one of the strangest offerings in all the Bible, offered by a jealous husband who suspects his wife of infidelity. Stranger yet, perhaps, is the awful ritual the wife is required to undergo. But there is a purpose to everything God commands. The Nelson Study Bible notes, "This text can be read as an exceptionally harsh judgment on an unfaithful wife [or even a faithful one!]. But there is a sense in which this law ameliorated the harsh realities for a woman in this time period. A woman could be divorced in the ancient world on the mere suspicion of unfaithfulness [thus leaving her destitute]. Without the limitations of laws such as this, a woman might even have been murdered by a jealous husband just on the suspicion of unfaithfulness. Here at least there was an opportunity for the woman to prove her innocence before an enraged husband" (note on 5:11-31).
Still, to some this whole proceeding might conjure up images of witch trials from medieval to colonial times, in which women were dunked in water to see if they drowned. A survivor was considered a witch and burned at the stake, leaving drowning as the only proof of innocence. Yet there are major differences here. For one, the faithful wife did not die but was exonerated in childbirth, and her unjustly jealous husband made to look the fool for his unfounded accusation.
Yet there is another, even more important difference. Whereas God never commanded and had no part in the completely absurd witch trials just described, He directly commanded and was an integral part of the trial of jealousy. Notice: "Bitter water that brings a curse was not a 'magic potion,' nor was there some hidden ingredient in the water. The addition of dust from the floor of the tabernacle to a vessel of holy water and the scrapings from the bill of indictment (verse 23) were signs of a spiritual reality. Holy water and dust from the holy place symbolized that God was the One who determined the innocence or guilt of the woman who had come before the priest" (note on 5:18)—not freak happenstance or the reasoning of ignorant people.".It is true that God commanded Israel to make war and wipe out another tribe and race, including children and women. Rather than an act of cruelty, this is an ACT OF MERCY. God in His infinite wisdom chose to end the miserable life of these people instead of continuing in their lifestyle. Instead of suffering the consequences of their sin, it will better to stop them from causing harm to themselves and others. That is how loving and merciful God.
AND it should be noted that those people are not forever forgotten because there is a resurrection waiting for them where they will finally hear and learn God's word and way. GOD is truly a God of Justice. He will give everyone the chance for salvation.Okay, first of all - you have absolutely no proof that these people were having a miserable life - and how does murdering them, slaughtering them or condemning them to a life of sexual slavery make their lives any better? It's immoral. It's repulsive and it's ignorant. Do you go around killing everyone that doesn't accept your god? It would be an act of mercy, right? After all, they disagree with you - they don't accept your god or your beliefs, and since your god is SO MERCIFUL death would be better than continuing to live. (ironically, this kind of rationality is the EXACT same mindset of terrorists who fly planes into buildings - you're basically saying that terrorism is justified)
Not everyone is going to be resurrected. According to Jesus himself, the only way to eternal life is through him - and that not everyone who says "lord, lord" who has done miracles and cast out demons etc will be saved. Once you're dead, your chance at "redemption" is over - at least according to the majority of christian theology. You are an immoral, evil person if you believe that killing another person on behalf of a god is a GOOD thing. What did those innocent children do? What did the unborn fetus' do to deserve that kind of gruesome death? Yet you're opposed to abortion - unless god commands it, in which case, killing an unborn child is a GOOD thing. what is WRONG with you? You're an excellent spin doctor if nothing else - I have never heard anyone speak so highly of genocide before - it's mind-blowing. Hitler would be proud.If you’re going to discuss these portions of the bible, you should at least do so in the proper context in which they’re set. It makes a world of difference. You’re right, from our modern view, living in our modern socially evolved communities, protected by an established government in a land protected by a military from the outside, and governed by established laws and law enforcement agencies within, it’s easy to read these stories as barbaric. But just as you would in any other case, you should go into reading these with an understanding of the environment in which they’re set in, especially if you’re going to criticize them. Given your knowledge of the material, you should know what I’m talking about.
Let’s just imagine this for a minute. Whether it be in the context I’ve described (world already populated), or whether it be in the traditional context, we’re talking about an environment where there are only two established civilizations (Sumer and Egypt). The rest of the landscape was lawless and demonstrably violent and chaotic as even our archaeological and historical record will attest. This was arguably the most turbulent time in human history. This is the age when organized warfare was invented. Artwork during this timeframe shows a low regard for human life, or life in general, than in any other age prior.
If you wanted to survive in this age, you had very few choices. If you were not part of the established majority in an already ‘civilized’ society, then you were most likely either a slave or you were out in the lawless lands outside of those established societies fending for yourself. And you remember the stories in the bible about the gangs of men attacking visitors of their town, like in Sodom, or how the Israelites were under constant attack while out in the wilderness, often losing the weaker members of their party while out in the open. You and I can hardly imagine the landscape these people lived in. If you wanted to keep yourself and your people safe, your only real option was to take a plot of land by force and hold it. And in those cases you had to do something with the inhabitants of that region. It’s not like they could just go the next town over, or go find some sort of gainful employment elsewhere. And it's not like those being overtaken were just going to cohabitate with those that overtook them, though God gave specific commands about that as well that were otherwise unheard of in that age. Though it sounds detestable to us now, slavery then was a way of life. As a slave you were provided for and protected.
And in the case of Numbers 5, it’s not like there was an established social norm, or established laws to handle this kind of situation. I can assure you that what’s described there is a much better alternative for the accused woman than what would happen if these rules were not put into place. Again, whether it be in the context I describe where the world’s already populated and Adam is the introduction of a ‘free will’, or whether it be in the traditional context, this was the early days, just 30 or so generations after Adam. The commands given to the Israelites obviously had everything to do with controlling breeding, protecting against disease and infection, and maintaining order where there was none, and no established law. Things that were much more important then than they may seem to us now because that age is when the first societies that would ultimately lead to what we know now were first established. If not for these laws and for the actions of these people, there may not be a Jewish/Israelite population in existence for everyone here to be discussing now. They may never have made it.
If you are here, and I am here (as well as everyone else in these forums), that means that we all descend from people who in some way had to do much the same thing you’re condemning now for any of us to be here. Indigenous cultures were uprooted, enslaved, massacred, for us to be here. It may seem harsh to you now, but like it or not it’s what was necessary. What can I say, ‘free will’ is a volatile thing.Absolutely amazing!! A few thousand years ago a group of people convince themselves that God told them to commit atrocities on other tribes and a few thousand years later you are defending murder, rape and slavery as a means of survival of this particular group as directed by the same God as if it matters that it was a few thousand years ago. You would think an ethical God would have instead convinced other tribes to leave the special ones alone? You would think an ethical God wouldn't have favourites? This would involve thinking and not justifying and defending the bully.
What is the ethical thing to do with children in the school yard? Teach your favourite to strike first or teach them all to respect each other?I'm sorry, Rad Man, but it's the truth. I'm not defending anything. It's not like the Israelites were the only ones doing this kind of thing. Every established society back then did the same thing. Every one of them. What alternative do you suggest so everyone could just peacefully get along? And what exactly should God have done, in your mind, to convince other tribes to leave them alone? Free will is free will. God getting involved and forcing everyone to behave in a certain way would override free will, thus they would not truly by free. It would be God 'bullying' everyone and forcing His will. Hence not free will. God was not 'teaching' in this age. There was a particular need. A savior that must be born because of the behavior inherent to free will. To realize that in this landscape, this is what had to be done.
If you knew the history of the region then you'd understand how your statements make no sense, whether a God was involved or not. Even outside of the context of Genesis, this age was demonstrably chaotic. We can actually see in the historical record that humans changed here. Dramatically. And in the wake of that the ensuing chaos is beyond what anyone here living in this age could imagine. It would be much more like what has been seen in recent decades in Africa, with hoards of enslaved young men being brainwashed and forced into militarized mobs who hack innocent people with machetes and rape and pillage. Even the big guys, Sumer and Egypt, were under constant attack by violent nomadic tribes as their historical records attest. Nobody was safe. In that age, military power was the currency. If you didn't have that you had little chance of survival.Nonsense, of course, God is a bully, is forcing everyone to behave in a certain way and is not offering any free will whatsoever. He sends those who don't agree to behave in a certain way to hell. That isn't free will at all.
It's also amazing how you claim God could not intervene because that would go against free will, but he directed the Israelites to murder, rape and to keep slaves. Your claim that he only revealed himself to the Israelites because of the coming saviour is another contradiction and only one that the Israelites would make up. Your claim that God doesn't know how to treat children in a playground is an indication that the story is somewhat skewed. Claiming I don't understand the history is irrelevant when your dealing with what you consider a moral/just God.
so basically, the Israelite-led genocide was okay because everyone was doing it? Then why did they need a god to order the slaughter of whole tribes of other people? I don't understand how a grown man can look at deity-ordered mass-murder and call it good - while at the same time condemning hitler or sadaam hussein, or anyone else of their ilk. How do you reconcile that with reality, dude?
Oh, don't let Hitler and Hussein take all the credit. If we're really going to condemn all the mass murders of tribes and such as if they're all one and the same, why stop there? Why not the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Syrians, British, Americans, etc.? Who here is not here by way of mass-murder in their past? Unless you're descended from the native people of the land you currently inhabit, you're here as the result of mass-murder. It's woven into the fabric of human history. That's humanity's MO, so to speak.
The fact is those that did not live this way in that time and place are no longer here. You're apparently looking for God to have just made everyone get along. So how does that work exactly? When you read the OT do you see a God that has the firm control over the behavior of people? Is that not what the whole thing is about? Human behavior? Is this story not told against the backdrop of the most tumultuous time in human history? This is when the first civilizations rose up and began to war with one another. All around this little region. Free will was running rampant. There was no law, no authority to make sure everyone was treated fairly. What do you propose God should have done differently?I don't know - ANYTHING? It's funny how god commands his chosen people to behave in a way that is rampant among various other tribes and cultures - instead of, i don't know, proving that as an all-powerful GOD he could do better. God is not imposing any higher morality, he's just going with the flow. Is that what you're trying to say?
Don't you imagine that a god who not only supposedly created the world, but also then wiped it out with a flood could have come up with a better plan that did not include the needless slaughter of thousands of people - simply because they already lived somewhere and didn't know anything about him? Basically you're saying they were simply born to the wrong clan. If they had been born a Jew, they would have been the ones doing the slaughtering instead of the other way around.
Don't you think it's puzzling, to say the least, that a god would command his chosen people to do just what everyone else around the area was doing? Why did he give them a land that was already inhabited anyway? If the garden of Eden was now supposedly invisible, because it was being guarded by an angel with a fiery sword, why weren't there a multitude of angels surrounding the holy land so the jews could walk right in? Why didn't god just wipe all the people out - we know that biblically he was capable of regretting things and destroying the whole world. Why make your people do the dirty work for you? What lesson did they learn from it? That it's okay to act against the 10 commandments when god tells you to? Why did he bother to include "thou shalt not murder" in it at all? Why not save it for later? You're trying to rationalize an immoral, evil act by saying "everyone's doing it, why can't we?". Do you also make excuses for the holocaust because Hitler was acting in god's best interest by punishing his evil, evil people?Exactly. God's not imposing a higher morality. He's not forcing anybody to behave in any way beyond this one line. And only those that are in direct conflict, or pose a direct threat, to that line are taken out when necessary. And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, way back when the line was still very small and these cities were teaming with people who were a very real threat to the chosen line.
This is why the context I'm trying to stress is so important. We can see this dramatic change in behavior in the history of that region. And like I said before, those who didn't fight for their place in it are no longer here. This is not God's will, this is free will. That's the difference. All throughout the creation account it describes God willing things into existence. Everything, animate or inanimate, formed according to His will. Then He created Adam who didn't. And Eve didn't. And Cain didn't. And in Genesis 6 their descendants began intermingling with humans. This is given as the reason for the 'wickedness' in humans and why it says God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. It's the result of free will, not God's will.
And if you'll notice, the people that inhabited that land were the descendants of the one and only group beyond Noah and the gang that the bible says lived both before and after the flood. The Nephilim. Children of the intermingling of Adam's descendants and humans who the flood was meant for.
As for the whole all-powerful God you keep looking for, what about the testing of Abraham? God did not know what Abraham would do. And I know He can see past/present/future. That's what's so significant here. Think about it like this. God, being outside of space-time, being the creator of it and therefore existing outside of it, doesn't see time linearly as you and I do. There's no span of time between past and present and no space between here and there. It's all one point, unchanging. There is only what exists and what doesn't. In the case of Abraham, God commanded him to take Isaac and sacrifice him, stopping him just before he did it. If God had not commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the situation that caused Abraham to make a willful decision never would have been made and God really wouldn't have known what Abraham would do. Because God intervened and created the situation, Abraham's decision existed. This is because Abraham has a free will that is apart from God's. He, just like you and I, can create decisions and actions that are not 'of God' and can often be in conflict with His will. This is an element that I don't think you're really considering here. How powerful a free will really is. It's the equivalent of matter choosing for itself how exactly to react to gravity. Imagine if each particle in the universe behaved in non-constant, random ways in relation to gravity. That's the kind of situation the stories of the books of Moses are set against.
And what exactly would the point of all of this be without free will? If we all just behaved exactly according to His will? Why live life? Why just perpetually go through the motions of birth and death? Why create existence at all? It's our behavior, and how it's an anomaly compared to the rest of the predictable world, that's the whole point to the stories of the bible, that's the whole reason for Jesus, and it's what gives this life purpose and meaning.
Since you seem to be so convinced that how He went about it was wrong, or not how a true all-powerful God would have done it, what's the right way? You must have a better way in mind that makes you so certain that this way was wrong. What do you suggest?prophecies
Genesis 15:18 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.
2 Samuel 7:16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[a]; your throne will be established forever.
I bring up prophecies to show you that God claims to see the future. You claim God has no idea what Abraham will do when given a murderous task, but God is pleased that Abraham will follow through with the murder of his son?
The bible is littered with prophecies. You claim that God can see the past, present and future, but doesn't know the future is ridiculous. With all the stories we are told about God listening to our thoughts and knowing and loving us he pulls a stunt like the one above to Abraham? In the above story who has their head on straight, God or Abraham? What do you say to someone who tells you they about to kill their child because God told them to? Should I give you the definition of merciful again? Ever wonder why the God of the OT is not the same as the God NT? It's simply because they were written by different people with different needs. Gods are a reflection of what people need. The people of the OT needed justification and entitlement and that's what they got. The people of the NT needed salvation, love and mercy and that's what they got.If you think about it for a minute you'll realize what I'm saying make sense. God intervened in the case of Abraham. He created a situation that forced Abraham to make a decision. If He hadn't, that particular decision of whether or not to sacrifice his son never would have existed. In every other case, every other decision created by a human, that causes another to make a decision, and so on, each decision or action only happens once in one way. So God sees and knows every decision and action, thus He sees the future. Without outside interference, each person's life plays out one way. They, of course, had control of their lives and made their own decisions within each moment of their life, but from God's perspective He can see the beginning, the middle, and the end. It all only happened once and only played out one way.
When God gets involved and changes the course by creating a difference that creates a new decision that didn't exist otherwise, He does not know for sure until that decision exists what would have been done. He knows our hearts and minds, knows our thoughts, but just like you and I don't actually know for certain how we'll behave in a given situation until it happens, God does not know for certain what decision we would make if a situation were introduced into existence that caused us to make one.That's silly, if he see's our future he knows our decisions. As I sit here today I am aware of the decision my oldest son made regarding his university education. His decision was made in the past, but at the time it was that present. So claiming God can see the future, but doesn't know what decisions your will make is silly.
It's really not. You're missing the part where God created a situation that forced a decision to be made that otherwise wouldn't have existed. Your son's decision about his university education always existed from God's perspective. That was not a case where God intervened and created a situation where a decision had to be made that did not have to be made if God hadn't intervened. Do you see what I mean? Unless God gets involved, every decision you or I or anyone else makes is within this universe. Within space-time. To God's perspective it's unchanging. Every decision in every moment was only made one way. Every decision you or I make exists in this case. But, let's say a time comes in your life where you have to sacrifice yourself to save your son's life. If that situation never comes up you don't have to make that decision and nobody knows for certain, including God, what you'd do. Though we're all pretty sure you'd gladly give yourself, nobody knows for certain unless you face that choice and choose. Now let's say God speaks to you on the 100th day of your 65th year on this earth and tells you that he created a situation that will make you choose whether or not to sacrifice yourself to save him. If God creates that situation, He has altered how your life would have played out if He had not directly interfered. Now a decision you made exists that would not have if God had not created that situation. Get it?
No, I guess I don't get it at all. A forced decision is till a decision and a God with knowledge of the future would know what your decision was. I said to my kid when he got his acceptance letters. "you can go to this school or that school and study this or that?" At the time I had an idea of what he would do, but didn't know for sure. With my knowledge of the past I can tell you for certain what decision he made.
Right, but would you know for sure what he would have decided if he never did make the decision in the past? What if a school that wasn't one of the original options he chose between were added to that same decision? Do you know if he would have made the same choice, or would he have chosen this additional school if it were an option? If the decision wasn't made in the past, then you don't know for sure what he'd do. You'd probably have a pretty good idea because you probably know him pretty well, but not for certain. Now, let's say God intervened and through that intervention added an additional school to the list of those your son had been accepted by. Would his decision change? Do you know for sure how he would have decided if this additional school were an option back then when the decision was made?
See, that's the key. God is outside of time-space. There are two versions of existence here. One where the situation didn't exist and Abraham never had to make the decision, therefore his decision doesn't exist, and another where God created the situation that then caused Abraham to choose. No matter if you can see past/present/future or not, if the situation that caused you to decide never happened, then your decision doesn't exist, therefore even God doesn't know for sure what you'd do unless He intervenes and creates a situation that causes you to decide. Get it now?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So, if He created it, how exactly does He exist solely within the bounds of His own creation?
I don't know, but you can create a house and live in it. I can build an Ikea chair and sit on it. Surely, it's possible if you an all powerful God.
Right, but you also existed before that house and chair, right? Your whole existence isn't tied to the existence of that object. You're more than that object. You can live in the house, outside of the house, before the house, and after the house. Whether or not the house exists, you still do.
Which makes your claim that God is outside of the universe irrelevant, because he can come or go just as I can come and go from my house.
Right, but before the house you still existed. The house, assuming you built it, wouldn't exist without you, yet you still exist without it. You can exist outside of it or inside of it, before it and/or after it. The pocket of air that is enclosed by insulated walls and climate controlled by the AC you installed wouldn't exist in that spot had you not created the house, and would not exist in the same way if you tore down the house, because it's dependent on the house (walls, foundation, roof, insulation, AC) being there. You're not.
Let's see, you've given your God the ability to come in and out of the universe he made as well as to see all of time at the same moment, but he has no idea if Abraham will murder his own child because he asked? He could just jump to that point in time to see what he would do, but instead he decided to torture Abraham, but not really because Abraham seem ambivalent. I think I would have said. Please God I'm old take me instead. Just saying.
Jump to what point in time? If God hadn't first told him to do it there'd be no point to jump to to see what he'd do. God's command created the situation that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Still not getting it? You've created a God that can see his own future. He would already know he would ask the question and what the answer would be.
Rad Man, it's Abraham's decision. A decision he wouldn't have to make if the situation that caused him to decide never happened. If the situation doesn't exist then he never makes the choice. No matter what point in time you, or God, or anyone else 'jumps to'.
But you are claiming the situation does exist and you are claiming God can move in and out of time. I'm showing you that if that were the case he wouldn't need to ask.
But if He didn't ask then Abraham wouldn't decide. Time doesn't matter. It's whether or not Abraham made that decision. The request/command is the cause. Without the cause you have no decision.
Now time doesn't matter? You can't just throw time out of the equation because it's not helping your argument. Either your God knows the future or he does not. Which is it? If he know the future he doesn't need to ask the question. If he has to ask then he doesn't know the future. If he knows the future and asks anyway... well he's not very nice.
How's He supposed to know the answer if He never asks the question?
Oh, of course. How silly of me. The future. Just look to the future to the day Abraham decided whether or not to obey God and sacrifice Isaac..... oh. Wait. There's a problem. He never told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so Abraham never made the choice. So, what now?
do you or do you not think that god is omnipotent?
Omnipotent as in 'capable of creating a stone so large even He can't move it' omnipotent? What are you asking? Do you think that means He should know what Abraham would do without Abraham actually having to decide? Or do you think that means He should be able to test Abraham, then go back and do it all over again, only this time not test Abraham?
sorry, I responded too quickly and got the wrong omni. I meant "omniscient"
I think free will is free will. Yes, God is all-knowing in everything that is of His will. And God knows our hearts and minds. But free will is the kicker. Notice how God brought the animals to Adam to 'see what he would name them'. Or how he 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. Or when He tested Abraham's faith. Free will means a will apart from his and that's what was significant about Adam and everyone 'of Eve'. That's why there was a flood, why there were commandments and Mitzvah laws. That's why we need a savior and why it's up to us to choose. Free will. That's what the whole thing's about, right from the start.
Interesting. SO you're claiming that the human "free will" that god gave them negates his ability to be omniscient?
Is that not how you read it? How else does it make sense for Jesus to say, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."?
A truly free will is a will able to create decisions and actions that are not 'of God' or according to His will. That's how sin is even possible. Sin comes from the capability to behave contrary to God/nature. Because everything else in existence behaves according to His one singular unchanging will, human behavior that's outside of that is in a sense 'unnatural'. It's like cells in your body being able to freely choose whether or not to adhere to the behavior mandated by the DNA code. At any point each cell can potentially behave like a cancer, endangering the body as a whole. Salvation comes through willfully choosing to respect the DNA code (God) as the authority so that the body doesn't do what it has to do to survive and fight against us.
I think God made us creators, in a sense. We're able to create decisions and actions that are not 'of nature'. Existence consists of everything made according to His one will, as well as every decision and action we make or do. We create incredible art and music and poetry and architecture. We're creative, but we're also incredibly destructive. it's in the very same age and region in which early Genesis is set that humans first began to behave contrary to nature. That's when we first began to willfully control nature rather than be controlled by it. The natural world maintains a cyclical balance. We're constantly at odds with that balance. We destroy environments unlike any other species. Create waste, pollute the air and water and soil, create chemicals and materials that don't break down naturally. We're a destructive force capable of destroying this planet and everything on it despite our limited lifespan.I'm confused. Have you not told me many times that God does not have our sense of time? He is everywhere and anywhere? He is in the future and the past?
Yes. And without God's involvement (flood, Abraham thing, Babel, etc) that influenced the behavior of free-willed humans, every action and decision made by humans is engrained in the timeline of existence and only plays out one particular way. You make each decision in each moment only once. So, from God's perspective, everything played out just one way. That's why the story of Abraham is significant. That's why God intervened here and there. To realize the desired end-game, so to speak, which He can see, He had to take action to alter behavior, which altered how events played out in the timeline.
It's like a programmer tweaking a program. The program code itself is stagnant. Only during 'run-time' is there a timeline. So God, like a programmer, intervened in specific moments and places, influencing the behaviors of humans through commandments, punishments, floods, sodom/gamorrah, etc., that would have played out differently if He had not, which altered the outcome.Sorry, all creatures make their own decisions. You may want to study animal behaviour.
Right, that's why they're so predictable across the board. Don't try to muddle this up. Just step back and take a look around. It's pretty obvious.
Besides, animals aren't a very good side-by-side comparison. Just compare 'civilized' humans to indigenous/tribal humans to see what I mean. Same physical brains and bodies, same capabilities, yet vastly different behaviors based on their willfully propelled desires.Actually our willfully propelled desires and very similar to the chimps. We are just smarter. You should look into it.
I have. It doesn't even compare. You need look no further than overall behavioral patterns. Chimps are chimps. Indigenous humans are indigenous humans. Their behaviors haven't altered much for tens of thousands of years. Behavior only alters, in the case of chimps, when the environment mandates it. Indigenous humans are a bit different because they did alter things, like tools for example, where no other hominid ever did. But their behavior is much the same across the globe as well, and unchanged, again, for tens of thousands of years.
But he did ask. Didn't he? Why are saying he didn't ask when he did?
That's my whole point. He had to or He'd have no way of knowing how Abraham would respond. Abraham's will is independent of His. God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is what created the situation that made Abraham make a decision. If somebody within time-space had asked this of Abraham, and not God, then yes, God could have just looked to that time and seen his response because that all happened within the one existence during that one timeline.
Remember, to God there is no past/present/future. It's all one point. There's only one existence and only one timeline. It all only played out one way. So you can't know Abraham's response AND not create the situation for Abraham to respond to.Dang, Rad Man, you really are struggling with this aren't you? I understand, it's a complicated thing to grasp, tethered to time as we are. It's hard to wrap your head around. Just think about it, and try not to assume it's the 'God-believer' that has it all wrong and is delusional. Maybe give me a little credit and try to grasp what I'm saying. It all really does make perfect sense.
I think I've got a good understanding of how time works, but I am struggling to understand how you can wrap an omnipotent and omniscient God into one that has to ask a mere person to kill his own son to see what he would answer? Are you saying God is not omniscient? Is that how you get around this? He can predict the future because he can see it, but he doesn't know what Abraham will do when ask to murder his own son. I'm perplexed by two things really, the above mentioned and the fact that you think such a God is worth your worship.
Free will is what you're not grasping. That's the key. Abraham, you, me, our behavior is not dictated by God. God is omniscient in regards to all of existence that is 'of Him', or 'of His will'. Just as we see through science, matter, energy, living creatures, it's all predictable as long as you understand their nature and the natural laws that govern them. That's all nature/God. Predictable. And He is all-knowing where that's concerned. But us, we're the unpredictable element, by design. That's the whole point to all of this. So that we can exist, live eternally, and with our own wills and own minds.
God went through a whole lot of trouble just to give you the capability to argue against Him and doubt He's there. To allow you to live and behave of your own free will and mind. Without even realizing or acknowledging it you're currently utilizing the independent will He gave you as a gift to speak against Him. To me, He is very much worthy of worship. I'm just sorry you can't/won't see it. It really is a beautiful thing.Interesting, you may be the first to believer to admit to me at least that your God is not all powerful and all knowing. I do admire your independence. I also wish you could see it from my perspective.
I know you won't believe me, but I can and do see it from your perspective. That's how I got here. Your perspective, or the causal/scientific perspective, made a lot more sense to me than what I was taught growing up in a church. But it didn't address everything. You have to buy into the idea that it's either that we're just a fortunate accident that resulted from the exact right conditions and the exact right timing and inter-play of non-related events way too numerous to mention that resulted in us being here as we are, or you have to consider the whole countless parallel universes, each varying slightly from the other, scenario to explain the exactness of the conditions in this particular universe that led to us being here. Then you've got the intelligence resulting from non-intelligence thing. As well as reducing everything we see as meaningful and purposeful in life to just being an illusion we reasoning beings manufactured to pacify ourselves, when actually nothing any of us do really matters because ultimately humanity's time here is the equivalent of a tiny flash in a gigantic pan that burned bright for an instant before disappearing into nothingness.
I have too much respect for humanity and the human intuition that has gotten us to where we are to dismiss the higher power/spiritual aspect of life that the majority of our ancestors so strongly believed in and lived their lives by. Our scientific understanding is still very new to us. Humanity now is like that cocky teenager who went off to college, read a couple of books, then came back convinced that everything their parents ever told them was completely wrong. I think many are jumping the gun, eager to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, where God and religion are concerned. Based more on what misguided/flawed humans have done with it than anything else.
And then there's my own life. I live way too recklessly to still be alive, in one piece, and doing as well as I am without guidance. Many of the most defining moments in my life were not orchestrated deliberately by me. I'd usually reach a point where I'd find my haphazardness had gotten me into yet another seemingly insurmountable situation, only for stars to align just right so that I could then get out of one jam, start over, and eventually get myself into my next jam.Existentialism, I can't tell you how much time I spent think about this a child and into my teenage years. Why am I stuck in this head? If my parents were to tired on that particular night I would not be hear. How many generations have come and gone to get me/us here? We could have easily have been different, perhaps never getting out of Africa. But here we are anyway. In another 50 years or so we most likely will be gone, enjoy the ride.
If you did in fact have respect for humanity you wouldn't need a higher power to explain us. Respect is given when earned. When someone accomplishes something great we give them respect for their hard work. It would be disrespectful to tell them they didn't or couldn't have done it on their own. Humans simply needed intelligence to survive in the open african savanna. It's simply how evolution works, the cheetah needs speed, we need tools. tools and weapons require intelligence, and here we are. If you respect humans you will give credit where it's due.
I too could have been dead a few times. Consider yourself lucky, sooner or later your luck will run out. Only the good die young. I've seen to many young people around me die for no reason what so ever. This last summer three girls who just days after graduating from high school with one of my sons rolled a car on the highway and one was killed. A few days ago a 16 year old boy from the area (know by my friends) died skiing. Just like that. I'm not even going to get into my own family. It's just random. The only ones saying they are alive because of God are the ones alive. I've watch 2 brother's in-law die before they hit 40 leaving behind small children. Am I next? We come, we stay, we go.Regarding 'respect for humanity' and giving credit where credit is due, think about what you're saying. From your perspective the majority of human actions that resulted in us being here as we are came long before full fledged reason and self-awareness, so it wasn't a conscious effort on the part of our ancestors. Once we did reach the age of awareness and reason it's still not really us, is it? Our actions and behaviors are determined by our biology and our experiences and our freedom to choose our actions is merely an illusion. We can't justifiably hold someone accountable for their actions or give credit for their accomplishments because it's all just mechanical biology, right? Yet, from my perspective, it really is you. There really is accountability and reward for behavior because it's you behaving according to your own individual will that is something more than just the biological machine you participate in this finite life through. In that light, great accomplishments through hard work really does warrant respect because you freely chose your actions of your own will. That will, in itself, being a gift and accountability/reward being a result/consequence of that.
A kid graduates from Med school. Do you congratulate him for have the means, intelligence and desire or do you thank God for giving him those abilities. The guy who picks up his garbage only has the desire. Does he thank God? Reality is a bitch. You could thank God for that or you could look at reality for it is.
Clearly, in a free will scenario, the kid who chose to stay the course and finish what he/she set out to do deserves congratulations. In your scenario it's his/her biological makeup and his/her previous life experiences that determined the outcome. So, is congratulations really warranted? I do think God provides guidance and opportunities where He sees fit, but the whole point of life in this perspective is how you choose to live it. Otherwise there'd be no point. We'd ultimately just be going through the motions. Live for a while, struggle, triumph, laugh, cry, love, lose, die.
Headly wrote:
"I do think God provides guidance and opportunities where He sees fit."
Where he sees fit? I love that. I wish he would see fit to feed starving children. Instead he see's fit to make sure some lawyer gets another Porsche defending murderers? I wish he saw fit to protect those 20 children in their own classrooms. Nope, doesn't look like anyone is looking after us.What would be the point of us having free will if God 'nerfed' the world and there were no consequences for our actions?
What would be the point of god if human beings just acted according to their own innate morality?
We don't need God to have consequences for our actions, we have prison systems for that. Tell me what have people done in Africa to deserve their children to starve? What did the 20 children do to deserve being shot in their own school? What did the wealthy harvard student do to deserve that education? Consequences?
Ah, so you're guessing, just say so next time.
How's that a guess? It's pretty straight forward. Are you saying that time-space exists beyond the universe? If so then I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it. And if that's true, and God created the universe, then Him existing outside of it is just a logical conclusion.
Obviously, because it does not say that in the Bible. Your claim is not supported anywhere.
Whether it is or not is still guesswork on your part.
And, please don't use the term "logical conclusion" when talking about invisible sky daddies.Uh, yeah it does, and no it's not guesswork. It says 'God created the heavens and the earth'. It also says that from God's perspective a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Until Einstein that didn't really make sense. Now it does. Much like numerous other examples that make more sense the more we learn. It's a logical conclusion that's supported by what the bible describes and does not conflict with our understanding. Our understanding actually clarifies it.
And an 'invisible sky daddy' is a much more logical conclusion than suggesting everything, including intelligence, 'came about on its own'. So, clearly, you're not qualified to be the logic police.I don't think we needed Einstein to explain that the God of the bible has a different perspective of time.
The more we learn the more sense the bible makes? I don't know what your learning, but the more I read the bible the more I'm perplexed as to why anyone would buy into it.
An invisible sky daddy is a completely illogical conclusion that is used as a pacifier. The only evidence for a sky daddy is series of stories that don't hold up under examination.Depends on who's doing the examining. Time-space being relative makes sense out of the whole 1000 years = 1 day = 1000 years thing. Big bang makes sense out of universe having a beginning and coming from a single point. First 11 chapters make sense out of how behavioral changes actually spread just like described in human history. All kinds of things. The more we learn the more it all lines up. Sooner or later, you'll see it too. It's just a matter of time.
Sorry, you got to be a very good spin doctor to make that work. Tell me where in the bible does it say it all came from a single point? What does the bible say about evolution?
In other words, the idea that the universe had a beginning, and came about from a single point, is much more consistent with the creator God of the bible than the previous idea that the universe was infinite. Genesis explains that the will that drives life to be comes from God. It's the one thing not accounted for by evolution. Some, like you, suggest the will to live is just one of the first genetic traits that then propagated on. Whatever the case, living things are obviously driven to survive and procreate, which is a vital trait that drives the process, which is exactly what life was told to do in Genesis. That and the fact that all life did in fact originate from the sea. And that the age of mammals (synapsids) came after the age of reptiles and birds (sauropsids). The more we learn the more consistent existence is with what's described.
Just because we currently think this universe had a beginning we don't know what was before it. Is it just a pulsing universe? Are there parallel universes? You're bible doesn't say the universe came from a particular point. It states God make in all in a week. Evolution answers our will for survival, I've explained that as well. Mammals came before birds. The first mammals lived in the Triassic and the first birds lived in the Jurassic. All originated from tetrapods. To suggest that birds came first because the bible says so is ridiculous.
Right, we don't know what was before it. All we do know is that the universe most likely had a beginning. Before it was thought the universe was infinite. All I'm saying is that the universe having a beginning is more in line with the creator God of the bible than if the universe were infinite.
You explained what you think about the will for survival. You may be right and you may be wrong. Doesn't matter. What does matter is that living things have a will to survive and procreate (be fruitful and multiply), which Genesis described way before we knew any of that.
That's why I said the 'age' of reptiles and birds and the 'age' of mammals. We categorize all vertebrates the same way it's broken up in Genesis. Sauropsids and Synapsids. You asked what the bible had to say about evolution, I answered.
