What good father would punish his offspring because his child didn’t get any teaching from it’s father, and if the father knows all things ahead of time, plus the future, why create one that will be held in eternal punishment? Why depend on another child (who could well not know either) to teach in the father’s place, because the child doesn’t know what the father wants1
Sorry I missed the part where it was specified that only sciebtific evidence was to be discussed.
The way I read the OP, it said that the only evidence for God’s existence is hearsay, ii.e. beliievers beliieve because someone (or a book) told them God was so.
So I responded that there is first-hand evidence from those who like me have seen or felt God.
No system of logic allows one to conclude that an eyewitness account is untrue unless there is a factual basis for that conclusion.
However, it is equally obvious that no one is obliged to accept the account as true, either.
I don’t know why you keep arguing with me about things I haven’t said.
In some cultures, at least historically, almost everyone seems to believe in God. So belief or lack thereof usually has to do with what people around you say and do, not your personality type. I’ve read atheists here report growing up in a fundamentalist culture, but, then, maybe a rebellious streak determines their beliefs. Maybe if they grew up in Ethical Culture, now they’d be Bahá’í. I’m not accusing anyone of personality-determined beliefs. I’m saying that no one knows.
Check out historian Perry Miller. Highly rational personality types, in seventeenth century Britain and America tended to be – Puritans.
I believe there are actual original thinkers with ideas generated internally and rejected based on evidence. But there also are people who first decide what they want to believe and then hunt for justifications. It is impossible to know whether you or I are among them. Whether you are religious or otherwise.
I’ve been reading descriptions of what Puritans believed in in John Barry’s latest book. A lot strikes me as unappealing because they felt they had a monopoly on truth. However, it was just as rational an approach to the unknowable as today’s atheism.
- Or Mormons. I instead mentioned a more liberal religion because I think most rebels don’t completely reject childhood teachings. YMMV.
If you can’t tell the difference between “Phil down the street spoke to me. He’s not available so you’ll just have to take my word for it.” and “God spoke to me. He’s not available so you’ll just have to take my word for it.”, if you can’t see that one requires more verification than the other, then you’ve got problems that a thread like can’t address.
No, neither you nor anyone else has ever felt or talked to any gods. Such claims are baseless and worthless. Why should anyone believe you over the billions of people who have claimed to feel or talk to “gods” other than yours, or that disagree with yours?
Your definition of “evidence” renders the term worthless. Everything is evidence, going by your standard.
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy;15963957
I’ve been reading descriptions of what Puritans believed in [in John Barry’s latest book.]
(http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Williams-Creation-American-Soul/dp/0670023051) A lot strikes me as unappealing because they felt they had a monopoly on truth. However, it was just as rational an approach to the unknowable as today’s atheism.
[/QUOTE]
You have an interesting definition of rational.
This argument is from ignorance. What you are saying is that any claim that cannot be proven wrong is valid until proven wrong. Ok how about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you argue for the rationality of his existence? Unicorns? Dragons? Smurfs? All of these have the same validity as any god that anyone ever claimed to be real. I have a former friend of mine who will tell you to your face she has seen auras and leprechauns. Her belief is not what makes these things real anymore than any believers does.
Unlike many atheists, I actually do classify individual revelation in the category of “evidence.” However, I also point out that it is of very, very little value, because it is unverifiable.
One really big problem is that God never reveals something concrete in these personal appearances. He never gives the location of a buried treasure, or the answer to an unsolved math problem, or the winner of the upcoming Preakness.
(There was at least one noteworthy exception…except that the Catholic Church immediately suppressed the content, making it worthless to us for these purposes!)
It is evidence; it is simply, in legal terms, inadmissible evidence.
Incorrect; the science of statistics relies upon the “null hypothesis.” We presume that all concrete declarations are not true until sufficient evidence is presented for us to reject this null hypothesis.
Until someone shows us evidence, the claim “There is life on the sun” is rejected, or, more specifically, considered null.
True. In general, and in science, we simply shrug and ignore it. “Come back with evidence, and we’ll talk.” Untestable propositions are of no interest in an evidence-based world-view.
(Speculative propositions are endlessly fascinating! But they have to be labelled as such, and treated purely as abstract thought-experiments. “What if all the liquid water on earth disappeared…”) This is why even an atheist can enjoy a discussion on theology.
How many times do I have to say that I don’t expect you to take my word for it, or care whether you do?
Nor do I expect this thread to solve any problems for me. My faith (or your beliefs or lack thereof) are not a problem for me.
I know an outsider/newcomer’s observations are likely unwelcome, but for a thread devoted to “debate” some of you seem to descend to the personal on very little provocation.
I will withdraw, but wish y’all the best.
Jsut one more point, an observation is not a hypothesis, and my statement was correct in the world of logic. If I say “there is a God” it is a hypothesis (loosely speaking); if I say “I have seen God” it is an observation.
- If you didn’t care you would get so belligerent about it.
- You can’t bring weak logic to a debate thread and not expect people to, well, debate.
- I’m not seeing anything personal about the responses-attacking your ideas isn’t attacking you.
They have to do with an open-mind and an understanding that a self-assured discussion of what God is and does is a little futile for mortal minds.
When you are paraphrasing my ideas, please don’t put quotation marks around things that are not an exact quote.
My comments are a reflection of what I believe and also what I question. I make no effort to convert anyone. I am also exchanging ideas with someone who is certain that he knows everything about all Christians and what they believe. He is mistaken.
[/quote]
Are you saying that those particular comments don’t add to the conversation for anyone? Do you use questions to denigrate other posters?
Finally, the name of my Sunday School Class is “Who Knows?” It’s called that for a very good reason.
I understand and agree. My “now and then” was exaggeration for effect. I hope my agreement is not boring and dead. You explain things well, but I am well aware of disagreements about the merits of positions in scientific discussions. (Linus Pauling and his vitamins, for example) But I am not generally knowledgeable about current science itself.
No, I somewhat agree with Thomas Paine. I don’t know how the cosmos got its structure without a cause. But I personally think that is unknowable from this side of the Big Bang. Christianity is an Eastern religion.
The OP, I believe, didn’t stipulate scientific evidence and I spoke of my experiences as being evidence (but not proof) to me alone.
I don’t believe that God punishes his children. I don’t believe in hell or eternal punishment. I believe only in a loving God.
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this part. I don’t believe in teaching in the Father’s place. But I do believe that some of God’s children are in touch with what he wants from them.
You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts. You cannot logically know that no one else “has ever felt or talked to any gods.” I’m not certain what you mean by “felt” any gods. Are talking about personal emotions related to feeling a spiritual presence?
Philly Guy, Bahá’ís are just incredible (in a good way). I almost became a Bahai once, but couldn’t make the leap. I admire very much their beliefs and practices. One thing I especially like is their belief that science and the spiritual will converge some day.
What is this exception? I’m racking my brain but can’t come up with anything that would qualify.
I mean he may have heard something from someone who talked of the Bible. read something, or just wanted there to be a supreme being.
I once had a difficult pregnancy, I was given a drug that put me to sleep, I saw a white light and thought I had been near death, the doctor said I was not near death (when I asked him, he said perhaps the lights above me were bright or the drugs acted that way on my brain).
A few years ago I had a test that required being put to sleep. after the test I was in the room and if I closed my eyes I would see beautiful scenes, I was not asleep and when I would open my eyes they were gone. I would see and talk with my husband, then if I closed them again another scene would appear in my mind l(ike a swan floating on a pond; that was until the drug wore off. Just as a person who takes illegal drugs has illusions,or not having the proper diet etc. we are just beginning to know more about the human brain, so I (if I was in a religious mood I may have had visions but I know it was not), the brain is a very complicated thing.
I don’t believe God talks to anyone I believe it is all in ones’s own mind. There would be no way to know if it were from a God, or just ourselves and our desires.
Of course if the Psalmist is correct then all are gods or at the least the people of the OT who the Psalmsit was speaking to.
I wouldn’t say they were crazy or lying, just saw things from a different perspective, There is such a thing as false memories.More than 12 people (years ago) thought the world was flat, that didn’t make it so, and as Augustine wrote in The City of God, it was impossible for the earth to be round…he was wrong, but I can see how from his perspective at the time, he thought it was evidence!
Are you saying that those particular comments don’t add to the conversation for anyone? Do you use questions to denigrate other posters?
Finally, the name of my Sunday School Class is “Who Knows?” It’s called that for a very good reason.
I understand and agree. My “now and then” was exaggeration for effect. I hope my agreement is not boring and dead. You explain things well, but I am well aware of disagreements about the merits of positions in scientific discussions. (Linus Pauling and his vitamins, for example) But I am not generally knowledgeable about current science itself.
No, I somewhat agree with Thomas Paine. I don’t know how the cosmos got its structure without a cause. But I personally think that is unknowable from this side of the Big Bang. Christianity is an Eastern religion.
The OP, I believe, didn’t stipulate scientific evidence and I spoke of my experiences as being evidence (but not proof) to me alone.
I don’t believe that God punishes his children. I don’t believe in hell or eternal punishment. I believe only in a loving God.
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this part. I don’t believe in teaching in the Father’s place. But I do believe that some of God’s children are in touch with what he wants from them.
You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts. You cannot logically know that no one else “has ever felt or talked to any gods.” I’m not certain what you mean by “felt” any gods. Are talking about personal emotions related to feeling a spiritual presence?
Philly Guy, Bahá’ís are just incredible (in a good way). I almost became a Bahai once, but couldn’t make the leap. I admire very much their beliefs and practices. One thing I especially like is their belief that science and the spiritual will converge some day.
[/QUOTE]
I find it strange that a supreme, loving, all knowing being, would just teach one or 2 of his children, and not all of his children. and allow the suffering that goes on in this world, even to innocent babies. Some of the things the Biblical God does, if a human treated their children that way, would be put in jail!
Agreed. I like raspberry soda. Also an observation. Most people here would say, “So what?” to both.
The problem comes when we attempt to go any further. Okay, what did God say? Anything from which we can draw working inferences? In the vast majority of cases, the answer is no. (In, alas, a great many other cases, the answer is yes, and, upon testing, the inferences are shown to be wrong. God has told lots of people, for instance, how to cure their cancer by the power of prayer…and the cure is ineffective.)
I was thinking of the Three Secrets of Fatima, one of the more famous of the apparitions and prophecies supposedly from the Virgin Mary. The prophecies were more than usually concrete, but they were also sealed away from public knowledge, so…why bother?
(“Here is an envelope containing a piece of paper with the date of the End of the World written on it. Oh, by the way, you aren’t allowed to open the envelope.”)
Certainly I can. There’s no room in the laws of physics for “gods”, nor is there any evidence of such things. I can be as confident of denying the existence of gods as I can be of denying Santa Claus and pretty much any other thing known to be false. Religious people don’t get to have their own standard of evidence, despite how often they insist upon on it. People on this forum regularly mock people for believing in ridiculous fringe beliefs that are far more plausible than gods.
The reason I didn’t think of those was because, as your link shows, they’ve been revealed, and turned out to be clear as mud, same as all other prophecies that supposedly come true. The ones that are actually specific enough to clearly judge inevitably turn out to be false. Those three could be stretched to fit just about any event you like.
The Secrets of Fatima neve rcame true, Russia wasn’t converted,the third was to be revealed in the 60’s, but nothing was told, We know the sun didn’t spin,or come closer to earth, as a lot of people claim, it seems more like mass hypnosis! Had the sun been any closer the world would not have been here, and all people on the earth at the time would have seen it…they didn’t!