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.
God isn't complicated. He gives us a free will to do as we wish. He will bestow on us His Divine Love, His Essence and Substance, if it's our desire to receive it. This is a gift... a blessing, that changes the hardest of hearts to one of peace, love, and happiness.
God's Divine Love is here now but it will be withdrawn at some point. If you feel a warmth in your heart while praying, it's a good sign that this higher Love is flowing into your soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15
The god you speak of, did he know before I was conceived, before my parents were conceived...... all the way back to "let there be light", that I will not be going to heaven?
?? Just stating a fact... we make the choice. Praying for and receiving God's Divine Love isn't a requirement.
Those who do not accept this free Gift from God will not inhabit the highest Heavens, the Celestial Heavens where Divine Love reigns supreme, but ALL... and that means ALL... will make their way to the Sixth Sphere of the Heavens after their natural love becomes purified and they live in love, peace, harmony and happiness. The difference in happiness in the two Heavens is that in the Celestial Heavens, it's blissful.
The god you speak of, did he know before I was conceived, before my parents were conceived...... all the way back to "let there be light", that I will not be going to heaven?
Shouldn't be a complicated answer
Oh, God knows that you'll be going to Heaven... rest assured. But why would you want to sit in darkness for maybe eons when there is a whole lotta light and love and joyousness above the hells?
What was the evidence that got you believing? Think that same thing would change my views? If not, why not?
Evidence is evidence if it's real evidence
Evidence only comes when humans get to understand something fully. Before that evidence are always in the form of witnessing. It always started with an encounter with a small group of humans. Then these humans recorded down the encounters for later humans to research then get it into the human knowledge base.
That said, 99% humans don't even rely on evidence to get to a truth of any kind. That's 99% humans don't even have the evidence that black holes exist before it becomes a 'fact' to them.
God leaves His evidence to the chosen direct witnesses for the rest to believe with faith such that they can be saved by faith.
Evidence only comes when humans get to understand something fully.
No, evidence comes in even with imperfect understanding. There is no absolute truth, only probabilities. Initially you are neutral about the probability of any one thing, then you gather any available evidence or logical argument in favor or against it, and move toward a belief that the thing is more or less likely to be true. When there is sufficient evidence that it is likely to be true, then you afford it belief. Until then, you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins
99% humans don't even rely on evidence to get to a truth of any kind. That's 99% humans don't even have the evidence that black holes exist before it becomes a 'fact' to them.
No, it becomes more likely than not that black holes exist based on the consensus of the scientific community which has a superb track record of controlling for confirmation bias via peer review. It also comes via the division of labor since obviously it isn't practical for each one of us to get a degree in astrophysics and conduct our own experiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkins
God leaves His evidence to the chosen direct witnesses for the rest to believe with faith such that they can be saved by faith.
You have just denigrated scientific knowledge in that it is directly investigated by a few and thought likely to be true by the many ... and now you are saying that this is a virtue, that god "directly" evidences himself to a few in the distant past and despite that these few used the failed epistemology of religious faith rather than the proven epistemology of scientific inquiry, it is fine to simply decide to credit the assertions of these witnesses as likely to be true.
?? Just stating a fact... we make the choice. Praying for and receiving God's Divine Love isn't a requirement.
Those who do not accept this free Gift from God will not inhabit the highest Heavens, the Celestial Heavens where Divine Love reigns supreme, but ALL... and that means ALL... will make their way to the Sixth Sphere of the Heavens after their natural love becomes purified and they live in love, peace, harmony and happiness. The difference in happiness in the two Heavens is that in the Celestial Heavens, it's blissful.
No, evidence comes in even with imperfect understanding. There is no absolute truth, only probabilities. Initially you are neutral about the probability of any one thing, then you gather any available evidence or logical argument in favor or against it, and move toward a belief that the thing is more or less likely to be true. When there is sufficient evidence that it is likely to be true, then you afford it belief. Until then, you don't.
No, it becomes more likely than not that black holes exist based on the consensus of the scientific community which has a superb track record of controlling for confirmation bias via peer review. It also comes via the division of labor since obviously it isn't practical for each one of us to get a degree in astrophysics and conduct our own experiments.
You have just denigrated scientific knowledge in that it is directly investigated by a few and thought likely to be true by the many ... and now you are saying that this is a virtue, that god "directly" evidences himself to a few in the distant past and despite that these few used the failed epistemology of religious faith rather than the proven epistemology of scientific inquiry, it is fine to simply decide to credit the assertions of these witnesses as likely to be true.
Which is it?
You are mistaken. Science starts with speculation of individuals. Do you yourself have the evidence of the existence of black holes. 99% humans don't even have the evidence that earth is actually evolving around the sun!
Moreover, truths are not limited to science only. To put it another way, scientific truths are just about a small group of truths. History as a whole category of truths mostly are not supported by any evidence. For your reference, famous Jewish historian Josephus ever wrote a serious of books in 1 century. Now show us which sections/chapters/books are actually supported by evidence.
In this very reality, humans in majority rely on witnessing to reach a truth instead of evidence. That is, they rely on putting faith on a source of a small group of humans who are thought to be in direct contact with the said truth.
You are mistaken. Science starts with speculation of individuals. Do you yourself have the evidence of the existence of black holes. 99% humans don't even have the evidence that earth is actually evolving around the sun!
Moreover, truths are not limited to science only. To put it another way, scientific truths are just about a small group of truths. History as a whole category of truths mostly are not supported by any evidence. For your reference, famous Jewish historian Josephus ever wrote a serious of books in 1 century. Now show us which sections/chapters/books are actually supported by evidence.
In this very reality, humans in majority rely on witnessing to reach a truth instead of evidence. That is, they rely on putting faith on a source of a small group of humans who are thought to be in direct contact with the said truth.
What you are describing is hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in court for a reason; it is not reliable. Others will be able to deconstruct your argument against science more eloquently than me, so I'll leave it at that.
What you are describing is hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in court for a reason; it is not reliable. Others will be able to deconstruct your argument against science more eloquently than me, so I'll leave it at that.
People like you are brainwashed to think that everything is a science while in this reality it's not!
What is ironic is that even in the case of science, people rather rely on putting faith in what is said by the scientists instead of acquiring evidence by themselves.
People like you are brainwashed to think that everything is a science while in this reality it's not!
What is ironic is that even in the case of science, people rather rely on putting faith in what is said by the scientists instead of acquiring evidence by themselves.
Can you demonstrate anything that is not in science that can be tested and proven to be real?
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.
