Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash Actually there is plenty of tangible evidence for love. Why would a parent sacrifice themselves for their children, or a husband for his wife and vice versa?
Tangible doesnt = physical .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
If you find this as evidence for Love ^^^ then the fact people will sacrifice themselves for God is proof that God exists. Behavior proves nothing.
Yes & no. In wallflash's examples, you can reach out & touch the object of affection, if you need reassurance about its existence.
In Mr5150's example, you're still left without anything tangible. God is an abstraction - yes, the claim is that He created the universe, predates it, & so on. Even so, you have to fill in the connections between God as the creator of everything & the immanent presence in the World.
The next issue is related - both sets of parties act as if they're in love. That is, they behave in a certain way, their eyes dilate, the blood rushes to their skin, & a whole series of related physiological responses & brain activity. It's still hard to pin down that people are in love, other than by behavior observed over time & the physical/CNS responses noted.
We could simply call that & all phenomena illusions or mistaken perceptions of the outside World, but that leaves us in a solipsistic universe. The more considered response is to take the World as a real place, & that we are in the World & act in it & upon it, & interact with the other people we find here.
People don't choose God. God chooses people (John 15:16).
On what basis? I presume he doesn't shut His eyes and rummage around in a bran -tub. What I'm getting at is that the actions of the people control whether God is even able to choose them or not, unless the system is totally unjust.
If you find this as evidence for Love ^^^ then the fact people will sacrifice themselves for God is proof that God exists. Behavior proves nothing.
No,sorry. The proof was of the existence of love, an emotion felt by some beings, not the existence of the one being loved. That parents would die for their kids and end their existence shows this emotion is real.
But feeling an emotion for someone or something does nothing to prove the existence of the object being loved. But in the case of family members, their existence is beyond question.
But dont jumble up and misapply my example. It applied to proving an emotion that was claimed to be unprovable.
What evidences are you referring to? Can you please line them out here for me? They would have to be non subjective ones, in other words, not the fact that mountains are glorious ( they are ), butterflies are beautiful (they are) , or grandkids are special ( they are).
Outside of subjective feelings, what evidences can you offer?
How about you provide evidence of something, anything that can never be called into question on any level?
I doubt you could find anything that can't have a pinpoint of doubt pricked into it.
Even something like a well-documented event as the landing of the moon has deniers. When an atheist asks me for evidence like you are doing, I know that they are really just wanting to goad me into showing my cards so they can shoot it down immediately and feel better about their atheism.
Actually you get real. Most Drs, especially from decades ago, are in some form Christian. I have numerous nurses in my family, and am friends with a few Drs. To claim that these folks would simply see this and make no attempt to understand it is pure nonsense. At the very least, it would have been known by Christian nurses and doctors, who could have told others of faith, and this would have gotten out, and the absolute proof of a miracle cure would have been provided, known about, and undeniable evidence shown.
Your claim assumes that all medical folks are atheists who would try to suppress this. In fact, it is the exact opposite . At the level of the family physician, most are believers to some degree, and seeing this would shake up a Dr who had faith himself but didnt accept these sorts of miracles. But it all passed along quietly with no notice from anyone.
In addition, nowadays when we have more ability to hear about , locate and provide evidence on the internet of these things, none seem to exist. Can you point today to any medically verifiable miracles like a retarded person having their brain healed, or someone with an severed spinal cord being made whole and walking? Or did this end at the point we can video these things, access medical records instantly on the net, and put this on the net for all to marvel at?
And there lies the paradox of miracle healing. There would never be any marveling even in the extreme examples that you demand. Why? Because such events are occurring in the natural realm for you to observe and therefore your brain would scramble to come up with some natural logical explanation. I don't think you could even define what a miracle would be to you because you can always just say that a natural process was involved that science has not uncovered yet. Like with the cases of stage 4 cancer just disappearing, the atheist will say, so what, cancer has been known to spontaneously regress before.
Until you are willing to open your heart to the spiritual world, no evidence will every satisfy you. God can only reveal Himself to those who want to find Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash Actually there is plenty of tangible evidence for love. Why would a parent sacrifice themselves for their children, or a husband for his wife and vice versa?
Tangible doesnt = physical .
Yes & no. In wallflash's examples, you can reach out & touch the object of affection, if you need reassurance about its existence.
In Mr5150's example, you're still left without anything tangible. God is an abstraction - yes, the claim is that He created the universe, predates it, & so on. Even so, you have to fill in the connections between God as the creator of everything & the immanent presence in the World.
The next issue is related - both sets of parties act as if they're in love. That is, they behave in a certain way, their eyes dilate, the blood rushes to their skin, & a whole series of related physiological responses & brain activity. It's still hard to pin down that people are in love, other than by behavior observed over time & the physical/CNS responses noted.
We could simply call that & all phenomena illusions or mistaken perceptions of the outside World, but that leaves us in a solipsistic universe. The more considered response is to take the World as a real place, & that we are in the World & act in it & upon it, & interact with the other people we find here.
I am inclined to part the two examples as too loose an analogy to be anything more than a dictionary reference to "unexplainable"
in fact 'Love' is too loose a term to be helpful in discussion. We usually think of sexual love , and in the post here, and it shows that the causes and effects are well known. But to reduce it to that offends in as almost slighted -religion sense, and mystification through human thought of biological actions and instincts are ignored in favour of some kind of mystical claim which - of course we can't explain and so is considered an example of what we know 'exists' but can't 'prove'.
That somewhat fudged and subjective argument is then applied to the God -claim though it breaks down because the 'well known' things like the Bible and nature are NOT sound evidence for a god, so there is nothing but the mystification -claim. It is claimed to be true in a way beyond mere human knowledge.
But folks, that God - claim like the human thought 'love' is mere humane imagination (for all we know) and the the practical evidence doesn't help as the biology is right and the Bible is (demonstrably) wrong.
In Southwests's post here, he (or she) mentions the disconnect between a creator spirit and a god that intervenes here.
This is often overlooked by theist apologists as they assume that, if a creator is made feasible, a hands -on God is also to be taken for granted, and very often the one they happen to believe in! All without having to establish any relative link.
In fact,that isn't because it's hard to do, (any Creator would want to talk with His Creation; the Bible is the best - looking account of a god talking to His creation) but it's because the question doesn't occur to them. When you talk of the Creator of the universe, OF COURSE it's the god of the Bible under discussion. The Link is taken for granted.
And there lies the paradox of miracle healing. There would never be any marveling even in the extreme examples that you demand. Why? Because such events are occurring in the natural realm for you to observe and therefore your brain would scramble to come up with some natural logical explanation. I don't think you could even define what a miracle would be to you because you can always just say that a natural process was involved that science has not uncovered yet. Like with the cases of stage 4 cancer just disappearing, the atheist will say, so what, cancer has been known to spontaneously regress before.
Until you are willing to open your heart to the spiritual world, no evidence will every satisfy you. God can only reveal Himself to those who want to find Him.
Hold on here! Which one of you two are correct please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
The secret is having your spiritual eyes opened, which only G-d can do for you. Peace
Hold on here! Which one of you two are correct please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
You Christians need to get your stories together. 1rst I'm told that my going to hell is my decision, then you claim it is gods. I'm confused.
Both are correct. It is a Mystery. It may confuse man but it doesn't confuse God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
How about you provide evidence of something, anything that can never be called into question on any level?
I doubt you could find anything that can't have a pinpoint of doubt pricked into it.
Even something like a well-documented event as the landing of the moon has deniers. When an atheist asks me for evidence like you are doing, I know that they are really just wanting to goad me into showing my cards so they can shoot it down immediately and feel better about their atheism.
Nope. You're falling into the Old, Old, theist apologrtics trap of 'believe or not' and ignoring weight of evidence.
As was argued by a believer here- the weight of evidence rather than definite lockdown proof is often what matters as it is often the best you have - but only if iit is used to support Bible, Jesus and Christianity. But, if it is a question of evidence that undermines those theist and religious claims, it no longer works that way. All the weight of evidence is to be dismissed utterly on the basis that one never knows 100% for sure.
Double standards, Jeff. Not to mention appeal to debunked denialists as an element of possible doubt. On the Biblical side the deniers are denying what is pretty much proven - using your 'believe or not' argument with 'who knows for sure' as an excuse and pretext for faith -based denial rather than any legitimate doubt.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-21-2017 at 11:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Half-full, half-empty
we can't explain and so is considered an example of what we know 'exists' but can't 'prove'.