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.
That's one of the most rambling posts I've seen on this forum in a very long time.
O, C'mon, that person dont know from rambling, that wasnt even in the ramble league, too short ya see, now I am the rambling man, I know from rambling.
This is the statement that usually makes the loud scientifically minded anti-theist either A) shrug and say "as long as you aren't forcing that view on me, cool, at least you're honest" or B) (insert circular argument and stream of verbal diarrhea here)
Yes, there is no evidence for GOD. Yes, there is no scientific evidence that GOD created the Universe and yes, there is no evidence that any of my Myths are true.
And I don't care. I believe anyway.
And no, it isn't "brainwashing" as I'm a Gnostic Christian and we aren't exactly indoctrinating the world and I wasn't raised to believe anything at all. I just stumbled upon Gnosticism as an adult, read about it, found others who are into it and here I am. I choose it because it felt right.
That's it. It felt right. No reason, no logic, no science, no evidence. Just pure emotion and intuition. It felt right, so I went with it. An absolutely irrational decision. And?
I do not claim to say I can prove any of my Myths. I do not claim any science will ever prove the existence of Satan, GOD, angels or anything else. All I will say is that once you remove literal understandings of creation Myths there really isn't much there science can test anyway, and I never believed that the Bible literally tells the story of creation anyway.
The thing is, asking for scientific evidence is advocating for a philosophical school of thought: Positivism. I am not a Positivist and hence do not care really what science says or doesn't say. For me, science is not the be all, end all. I'm an existentialist, and I go with myself first and foremost and if ANY external issue gets into my way, including "evidence", I ignore it.
Where is the scientific evidence that a scientific worldview is the best? Can science prove itself? Once you step out of the bubble of scientific thought you see there are indeed other ways of approaching an issue besides "what does the data say?"
And before I get the inevitable "what if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I will give an answer that usually makes the person who asked it very frustrated: A religion based on a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if its believers are sincere, is just as valid as my own or anyone else's.
All I would ask is proof that someone believed fully in a doctrine, as in what have they sacrificed in their life for that belief, to prove if it is valid for them. That's it. No religion, no matter how absurd it may be to some, is invalid because of its age, number of adherents, who founded it, its Myths, etc. As long as there are those who BELIEVE, that is enough.
We all have our own beliefs and systems to live by. As long as they do not hurt anyone, let people find their own path. And as long as a believer does not try to force their belief on anyone else, who cares what they do or do not believe?
So why believe in God? Simple: Because I chose to. It's fun and it works for me. I need no other justification besides that. And THAT is why they call it "FAITH"
(but I guarantee you somebody will reply with a long tirade about "muh scientific evidence", and completely miss the point)
And before I get the inevitable "what if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I will give an answer that usually makes the person who asked it very frustrated: A religion based on a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if its believers are sincere, is just as valid as my own or anyone else's.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster shed his sauce for your sins...you know that don't you?
Walking on the water?
Even if Jesus does that, no where in the scientific academia does it documented that it’s a sign of Jesus.
Show me a scientific law that states that if someone could walk on the water then it must be Jesus?
Again, even if that happens, you have NO WAY to verify and validate that Jesus or God did it.
As I said, even if God comes in front of you “in flesh so to speakâ€, you have NO WAY to verify and validate that indeed it’s God.
Otherwise, if seeing is believing then Hinduism may be the religion for you.
You want to see God?
There it is, a clay statue with 6 arms and 20 legs, right in front of you.
No?
So how about you take the challenge instead?
As per faith, God has created the universe and processes work in such a way that on planet earth, the sun rises rises from the east.
Go ahead, and make the sun rise from the west.
If the question is asked, do you believe in the existence of God based on faith?
My answer is Yes.
Notice, there is no “claim†in it.
And again, even if that happens and the water turns into wine, you have no way to verify and validate that it was actually done by God.
May be Trans can go to David Copperfiled. Even he will turn the water into wine for him.
But notice something funny and very ironic here.
In the name of “evidence of God†what the Atheists actually demand is a “miracleâ€.
And science does not believe in miracles.
Regarding the water to wine, sure it might not on its own be a complete proof but it would be a pretty good start. This could followed by God actually answering prayers. That in itself would be pretty convincing. Another convincing trick would be the starving African children (and people) finding themselves being fed daily with manna from heaven.
Now to the bolded. Yes, you are quite right. We want to see 'miracles'. Absolutely.
Now you went to some length to claim that you were not making a claim - that right after you claimed that God created the universe and made the sun rise in the east.
As for the walking on water, science doesn't have a manual that says anything. Science only studies and discovers. But you are right, just because some dude walks on water does not mean he is Jesus. In fact, you can be pretty sure it would not be Jesus. Even if he survived the crucifixion, two thousand years is pretty good evidence that he no longer walks anywhere, let alone on water.
Regarding the water to wine, sure it might not on its own be a complete proof but it would be a pretty good start. This could followed by God actually answering prayers. That in itself would be pretty convincing. Another convincing trick would be the starving African children (and people) finding themselves being fed daily with manna from heaven.
Now to the bolded. Yes, you are quite right. We want to see 'miracles'. Absolutely.
Now you went to some length to claim that you were not making a claim - that right after you claimed that God created the universe and made the sun rise in the east.
As for the walking on water, science doesn't have a manual that says anything. Science only studies and discovers. But you are right, just because some dude walks on water does not mean he is Jesus. In fact, you can be pretty sure it would not be Jesus. Even if he survived the crucifixion, two thousand years is pretty good evidence that he no longer walks anywhere, let alone on water.
Note again, I SPECIFICALLY said, “as per faithâ€, god created universe...
This is NOT a claim.
A claim would be, “I know that god created universeâ€
See the difference?
Now, coming back to seeing miracles instead of evidence.
Let’s say, you demand to see a few miracles.
This could be, turn water into wine, remove all cancer, or fed the starving Africans with manna or even ask God to raise a dead back to life.
And say, God does it all for you.
Now, we agree that we don’t have a scientific method to verify and validate that it was actually done by God; however it was convincing enough to point that we whole heartedly believe that it is the God (because we have seen the miracles of our choice).
Tell me, what oracle are you going to use to believe that it’s God when there is no scientific evidence?
The answer is: FAITH.
You are going to use FAITH to believe in the existence of God.
And if we acknowledge and agree that indeed faith is the way to believe in God (instead of demanding evidences), then we have only one major difference left.
And that is; what you consider a “miracle�
Perhaps we can also call these miracles as signs of God.
You keep mentioning science as your defensive shelter and your trump card but looks like you don’t have the foggiest of ideas about it.
Drum roll, here is where GoCardinals displays his ignorance about the scientific method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Your oracle to verify and validate Jesus is not scientific.
For example, if you are given a few tissue samples to identify the species, you will take them to lab and use established scientific knowledge to analyze and identify that it’s a horse, a duck and a cow tissue sample.
Science does not have any established rules and knowledge base that tells you that if a person is able to speak Koine Greek, Pig Latin and Aramaic, then it’s an evidence that he is Jesus.
Except that data would be evidence supporting the theory that our man walking on water is Jesus. We would expect (prediction) that the son of God would not forget languages he spoke. If our miracle worker could not speak any of these languages, that would be evidence against our theory. That is how science works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
You will ask his name?
Now that’s funny.
Does science say that if you ask someone their name, and if they reply “Jesusâ€, then it means he is God?
I mean, I had a guy named Jesus in my class during my college years.
Didn’t know I was getting academic education together with God in my class.
Except your Jesus did not walk on water, did he? We are talking about a man who calls himself Jesus walking on water, and we can not explain this any other way than it being a miracle. We are, or rather I am, talking about ALL the evidence together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
If all cancer is eliminated over night, wouldn’t it be a miracle?
If yes, aren’t you asking for a miracle to happen as an evidence, in order to believe in God?
And at the same time, you claim that miracle is not an evidence.
I definitely think it’s funny and ironic.
The exact opposite of my post you quoted. How can I be claiming a miracle is not an evidence by saying it would be evidence if one occurred?
Note again, I SPECIFICALLY said, “as per faithâ€, god created universe...
This is NOT a claim.
A claim would be, “I know that god created universeâ€
See the difference?
Now, coming back to seeing miracles instead of evidence.
Let’s say, you demand to see a few miracles.
This could be, turn water into wine, remove all cancer, or fed the starving Africans with manna or even ask God to raise a dead back to life.
And say, God does it all for you.
Now, we agree that we don’t have a scientific method to verify and validate that it was actually done by God; however it was convincing enough to point that we whole heartedly believe that it is the God (because we have seen the miracles of our choice).
Tell me, what oracle are you going to use to believe that it’s God when there is no scientific evidence?
The answer is: FAITH.
You are going to use FAITH to believe in the existence of God.
And if we acknowledge and agree that indeed faith is the way to believe in God (instead of demanding evidences), then we have only one major difference left.
And that is; what you consider a “miracle�
Perhaps we can also call these miracles as signs of God.
You did indeed say "in faith". My bad.
You do raise a valid point. After all, if my sealed bottle of water were to miraculously turn to deep red wine, it could be put down to someone messing with my head or mental episode in which I did it myself and don't remember, perhaps in my sleep. It would have to be done on a wide scale and under strict scientific scrutiny. By that I mean both.
If I put a sealed bottle of water in my refrigerator and the next morning the bottle was still sealed but now contain what looks like red wine and I open it (wisely in the presence of witnesses) and it turns out to be wine, then I would embark and a serious quest to determine whether God did it. I would want to see a series of undisputable miracles.
God missed a great opportunity to prove his existence when a preacher arranged a mass healing live on TV in the presence of a huge audience. The preacher was convinced God would come through so he did not have a plan B - one in which he could fake it. So there on live national TV, nothing happened. Lucky for the preacher, he didn't try walking on water in a crocodile infested river.
You do raise a valid point. After all, if my sealed bottle of water were to miraculously turn to deep red wine, it could be put down to someone messing with my head or mental episode in which I did it myself and don't remember, perhaps in my sleep. It would have to be done on a wide scale and under strict scientific scrutiny. By that I mean both.
If I put a sealed bottle of water in my refrigerator and the next morning the bottle was still sealed but now contain what looks like red wine and I open it (wisely in the presence of witnesses) and it turns out to be wine, then I would embark and a serious quest to determine whether God did it. I would want to see a series of undisputable miracles.
God missed a great opportunity to prove his existence when a preacher arranged a mass healing live on TV in the presence of a huge audience. The preacher was convinced God would come through so he did not have a plan B - one in which he could fake it. So there on live national TV, nothing happened. Lucky for the preacher, he didn't try walking on water in a crocodile infested river.
yeah, the bold part is a philosophy that is either very complex, or plain stupid. I guess depends on the faith too.
"God's divine intervention (impromptu) in our matters of choice by defying laws of nature", doesn't impress to me, and neither do I rely or or subscribe to this approach
In my theory, whenever anyone attempts to provide the EVIDENCE/PROOF of God, he immediately signs his own failure.
There are 7 Billion people on earth. No matter what kind of a proof/evidence you present, there will always be millions of people who will reject it. So there is no need to take such an endeavor.
So IMO, believing in God is a personal matter that does NOT require any evidence or any effort to provide the evidence to anyone else.
If someone's intelligence, perception and observation gives him the indication that there could be a creator of this organized madness, he can take this personal journey to try to find out more, and form a faith in the God AND his message towards humanity, that talks to researcher's heart.
There quite a few out there, you need to research and see which one talks to your heart.
Faith in God is formed by looking for God's signs and not evidences.
yeah, the bold part is a philosophy that is either very complex, or plain stupid. I guess depends on the faith too.
"God's divine intervention (impromptu) in our matters of choice by defying laws of nature", doesn't impress to me, and neither do I rely or or subscribe to this approach
In my theory, whenever anyone attempts to provide the EVIDENCE/PROOF of God, he immediately signs his own failure.
There are 7 Billion people on earth. No matter what kind of a proof/evidence you present, there will always be millions of people who will reject it. So there is no need to take such an endeavor.
So IMO, believing in God is a personal matter that does NOT require any evidence or any effort to provide the evidence to anyone else.
If someone's intelligence, perception and observation gives him the indication that there could be a creator of this organized madness, he can take this personal journey to try to find out more, and form a faith in the God AND his message towards humanity, that talks to researcher's heart.
There quite a few out there, you need to research and see which one talks to your heart.
Faith in God is formed by looking for God's signs and not evidences.
You kind of misunderstand I think. And its actually many athiest that don't understand either ... like many Christians don't understand Christianity.
probably.
Quote:
Its all about the type of god and the traits you give your god. Its the omni-powered, only loving, and all seeing god that most non Christians don't believe in. So basically it better stated that we do not believe in your type of god.
Yes, to some extent I do agree.
Logically speaking, how can an ONLY loving God create hell and punishment?
So that kinda conflicting attribute that does not impress me.
I think there is a common theme here as most Atheists on this forum come from some form of a Christianity background. So whenever they think about God, the automatically imagine the God of Christianity and the attributes associated to him. However, how do you define God in other faiths and the attributes associated with him, is something that many not even care to explore.
The outright reject The God (of Christianity) and cross the line to go into the camp of non-believers.
Quote:
Yes, "faith" is not a good standard to compare the reliability of claim against. Looking to see how consistent a belief is with observation is a much more sound standard.
Either way, there is no "scientific, repeatable evidence"
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.
