What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Colter]

"When the Master had so spoken, he looked down into the face of Thomas and said: “And you, Thomas, who said you would not believe unless you could see me and put your finger in the nail marks of my hands, have now beheld me and heard my words; and though you see no nail marks on my hands, since I am raised in the form that you also shall have when you depart from this world, what will you say to your brethren? You will acknowledge the truth, for already in your heart you had begun to believe even when you so stoutly asserted your unbelief. Your doubts, Thomas, always most stubbornly assert themselves just as they are about to crumble. Thomas, I bid you be not faithless but believing — and I know you will believe, even with a whole heart.”

(2043.3) 191:5.5 When Thomas heard these words, he fell on his knees before the morontia Master and exclaimed, “I believe! My Lord and my Master!” Then said Jesus to Thomas: “You have believed, Thomas, because you have really seen and heard me. Blessed are those in the ages to come who will believe even though they have not seen with the eye of flesh nor heard with the mortal ear.”

(2043.4) 191:5.6 And then, as the Master’s form moved over near the head of the table, he addressed them all, saying: “And now go all of you to Galilee, where I will presently appear to you.” After he said this, he vanished from their sight." UB 1955​

Think it no small coincidence that Jesus has come out looking for you Archaeopteryx.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As a movement atheism may continue to grow for a while, but within every sin are the seeds of it's own destruction. The world will return to faith and have no interest in the death reward offered by the atheist philosophy when something better comes along and overwhelms it.

I could see atheism dying out if the message that death is final fails to appeal to people.

However, it would die just as easily whether an eternal afterlife exists or death is final after all. This "seed of destruction" (if it is that) is not dependent on its truth value.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

And you think that rejecting Jesus' gospel is wrong, and the idea that the Messiah hasn't come yet as well?

* Rejecting the original gospel of Jesus is unwise, but you are free to do that.

* The concept of a Jewish Messiah as that evolved in Judaism was erroneous. Jesus knew that but decided to allow his Father in heaven to sort out the tangled mess.

 

[Freodin]

* Rejecting the original gospel of Jesus is unwise, but you are free to do that.

* The concept of a Jewish Messiah as that evolved in Judaism was erroneous. Jesus knew that but decided to allow his Father in heaven to sort out the tangled mess.

So here you are, telling our jewish community members that they are wrong.

 

[Colter]

I could see atheism dying out if the message that death is final fails to appeal to people.

However, it would die just as easily whether an eternal afterlife exists or death is final after all. This "seed of destruction" (if it is that) is not dependent on its truth value.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's true, point conceded.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it's not possible, because it discounts and ignores God who is the first truth and the last fact. Just because your finite, critical intellect has obscured the living God from your vision does not mean that God is not available to others who have found him. You assume that everyone is like you apparently were, religious as opposed to spirit born.

Those who claim to have found him give very different reports of what he is like. Given that, and absent any objective means for reliably determining which reports are genuinely divine, why wouldn't agnosticism be an appropriate response?

Your reply to this seems to be that it is wrong of me to ask this question; that a "spiritual method" provides a superior way to the "material method," whatever that is. You haven't bothered to elucidate what this "spiritual method" entails, beyond merely "self-validating" one's extant faith.

You suggested that one way we can know which reports are genuinely divine is by how the recipients of a previous revelation react to messengers bringing the new revelation or the next stage of enlightenment. Typically, they react with hostility, accusing the bearers of the new enlightenment of heresy and deceit. I pointed out the irony in this, particularly in your own hostile reaction toward the atheists on this board, whom you have accused of various things.

The collapse of fear based superstitions left you without a real true God and therefore vulnerable to the atheist meme. At present you can't see beyond your own reasoning.

Again, this reads as follows: "You're thinking too much! If you stop thinking, it starts to make sense."

For you our failure to provide the proof that only you can find in living faith is proof or your mechanistic contentions. However much it may appear to you to be right, it just isn't. The universe, reality and Gods ways were not designed to suit you.

Mechanistic contentions? What are those?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Think it no small coincidence that Jesus has come out looking for you Archaeopteryx.

When arguments fail, one can always preach.

 

[Colter]

Those who claim to have found him give very different reports of what he is like. Given that, and absent any objective means for reliably determining which reports are genuinely divine, why wouldn't agnosticism be an appropriate response?

Your reply to this seems to be that it is wrong of me to ask this question; that a "spiritual method" provides a superior way to the "material method," whatever that is. You haven't bothered to elucidate what this "spiritual method" entails, beyond merely "self-validating" one's extant faith.

You suggested that one way we can know which reports are genuinely divine is by how the recipients of a previous revelation react to messengers bringing the new revelation or the next stage of enlightenment. Typically, they react with hostility, accusing the bearers of the new enlightenment of heresy and deceit. I pointed out the irony in this, particularly in your own hostile reaction toward the atheists on this board, whom you have accused of various things.



Again, this reads as follows: "You're thinking too much! If you stop thinking, it starts to make sense."



Mechanistic contentions? What are those?

No, using the variation of the reports of others is just an excuse not to find God on your own.

 

[variant]

No, using the variation of the reports of others is just an excuse not to find God on your own.

If God were speaking to me I wouldn't need others reports.

 

[Colter]

So here you are, telling our jewish community members that they are wrong.

No, you are telling me that I'm telling the Jewish community that they are wrong. I would have a difference in theology with them, not generic faith in God.

All atheist don't think alike, you just have a common disbelief in God among you.

 

[Colter]

If God were speaking to me I wouldn't need others reports.

Yes, that's right, If Archaeopteryx truly sought God on his own he could find him without the substantiation of others.

 

[Freodin]

No, you are telling me that I'm telling the Jewish community that they are wrong. I would have a difference in theology with them, not generic faith in God.

All atheist don't think alike, you just have a common disbelief in God among you.

Oooooh... now I get it!

Well, then, why do we debate?

I, as all atheists, have a generic faith in God. All the rest is just a difference in theology.

Yes, that's right, If Archaeopteryx truly sought God on his own he could find him without the substantiation of others.

Already truly sought him... already found him. Just have a difference in theology with you about it.

 

[Colter]

Oooooh... now I get it!

Well, then, why do we debate?

I, as all atheists, have a generic faith in God. All the rest is just a difference in theology.


Already truly sought him... already found him. Just have a difference in theology with you about it.

Because Atheists don't even have non-denominational faith in God, they are devoted to godless ideals.

 

[Freodin]

Because Atheists don't even have non-denominational faith in God, they are devoted to godless ideals.

Not at all... we have a very deep faith in God and are very devoted to godly ideals.

We just have a difference in theology.

 

[variant]

Yes, that's right, If Archaeopteryx truly sought God on his own he could find him without the substantiation of others.

Question begging. You assume that all who seek God are going to find it.

 

[Colter]

Question begging. You assume that all who seek God are going to find it.

If you are truly seeking (not to be confused with daring God to reveal itself to you and on your terms) then you have already found God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because Atheists don't even have non-denominational faith in God, they are devoted to godless ideals.

Why do gods need to be part of ideals?

 

[variant]

If you are truly seeking (not to be confused with daring God to reveal itself to you and on your terms) then you have already found God.

Again, you are just making an unsupported assumption.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are truly seeking (not to be confused with daring God to reveal itself to you and on your terms) then you have already found God.

"If you are doing right, then you will agree with me."

That's not a very convincing argument.

 

[Colter]

Not at all... we have a very deep faith in God and are very devoted to godly ideals.

We just have a difference in theology.

No, you have a deep faith and devotion to Godless ideals.

While it may be said that we both have belief, which is inescapable for everyone, our beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. We have NOTHING in common other than the fact of belief.

But yes, that is why I call the purposive promotion of atheism the "doctrines of doubt." Atheism is a belief, as yet unproven.

Also, within Judaism there have been different schools of though about the Messiah during the ages. During the times of Jesus the Jews did not all think the same way about what a Jewish Messiah would be and do. Today reformed Judaism has evolved away from the idea of the Messiah being a particular individual. Other more orthodox Jews have other ideas. ​