Is the power of Testimony evidence of God?

[createdtoworship]

I understand social psychological manipulation. I understand having deception so deep that you cannot actually detect it within yourself. But as it relates to sheer numbers.....is the power of the Gospel to change people toward the positive, it's own proof?

what I mean is that no one can prove God. You can't stick him in a testube and say, yup there is a God. But when you see the volume of lives changed in history and even today....toward the positive.

How can you deny that this is not a supernatural act?

Here is just one testimony I just saw tonight on a worship video:

"I am a former atheist, a very aggressive one at that.I am in a VERY small group of atheists turned believer, at least from what I've seen. If i may say,, you will never convert an Atheist with words. It didn't work on me, I doubt it will work on others. (Also I dislike using "they" when describing others in regards to other beliefs. Puts a "heathen" vibe to it does it not? We are all brothers and sisters) I had many experiences with the Lord, in extreme desperation and in bliss. But I am well aware I cannot convince you that MY experience is scientific, nor will I claim it to be. I'm aware that my testimony could be chalked up to "delusion" or "brainwashing" and these are not lost upon me. I retain my insatiable need for knowledge.I pray for clarity and I stay up on nights such as this and research BOTH sides of the argument. Atheist and Christian sources. I will humbly admit some questions remain unanswered. But despite MANY hours spent enveloped in research, dialoguing with atheists, agnostic teachers of my near by high school, christian pastors, and even a fair share of Muslims, my faith has yet to be rooted out or proven wrong. I will admit that I've had atheists give very compelling arguments about my experiences and christian leaders of several denominations have given varying answers of varying satisfaction, I still wake up with my heart and mind dead set on Jesus. There is something that happened when I gave my life to Christ. Something inside of me changed. family and friends have noticed it as well. A radical change in my daily life, the very structure of my personality. Call me a fool, ignorant, or indoctrinated, but the gospel of Jesus had a very positive effect on my life and has not been undermined yet. I once again do not attest this as scientific evidence, or as a means to convert people of different or unbelief, but I have to say, nothing has shaken my faith or the feeling I receive in the name of the Lord. I feel my background as an atheist has given me an immeasurable blessing. I am happy to discuss science with both sides, though i do not claim to be knowledgeable in all fields...."

posted by you tube user: Horrid Slayer, in the comments below this video:

in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.


other sites with this alleged change of heart

http://www.iamsecond.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamsecondHQ

http://www.iamsecond.com/struggles/

http://powertochange.com/s/24/tags/changed-lives/

take a 22 day challege by iam second.com

http://www.iamsecond.com/live-second/challenge-thanks/


also familiarize with the whosoevers:

http://www.thewhosoevers.com

again in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.

 

[Moral Orel]

But what about people who receive the same sorts of feelings from other sources, sometimes other religions? People can change their lives for the better in a lot of different ways and they can be influenced by a lot of different things to feel as though they have reached some sort of enlightenment. Is this evidence that something supernatural and positive is in the works for them? Does it mean that simple deism is the true answer to the god(s) question? Or does it mean that people can achieve these feelings by themselves and it just takes different things to set them on the path to their own personal enlightenment. Here's a quote about Scientology:

With him and another guy I got pretty heavy into Dianetics and Scientology. Through this and by other studies, I came out of my state of depression. I was understanding myself better, had a positive outlook on life, and knew how to direct my energies to each day and each task.

-Charles Manson​

I hope it's obvious that I'm not endorsing Scientology. Whereas I may believe that Christianity doesn't have it right, at least, for the most part, it is benign. I recognize that Scientology is dangerous. But here's some testimony that something (that I hope we can all agree is fraudulent) can make a person feel the same way as the born-again Christian. At least to the eyes of any who is hearing the testimony of a believer. A Christian of course will say that there's no way that Charlie Manson felt the same thing a Christian does, but how am I, as the outside observer of two different people, supposed to tell who felt what and to what degree?

And sure, we can judge Charlie's actions to prove that he wasn't headed in the right direction, but he's just one fun example. Look at half of Hollywood. Scientology makes a lot of people happy, and we can hear testimony that it makes them successful too, so how do we determine from testimony whether they are lying or delusional or speaking the truth?

 

[createdtoworship]

But what about people who receive the same sorts of feelings from other sources, sometimes other religions? People can change their lives for the better in a lot of different ways and they can be influenced by a lot of different things to feel as though they have reached some sort of enlightenment. Is this evidence that something supernatural and positive is in the works for them? Does it mean that simple deism is the true answer to the god(s) question? Or does it mean that people can achieve these feelings by themselves and it just takes different things to set them on the path to their own personal enlightenment. Here's a quote about Scientology:

With him and another guy I got pretty heavy into Dianetics and Scientology. Through this and by other studies, I came out of my state of depression. I was understanding myself better, had a positive outlook on life, and knew how to direct my energies to each day and each task.

-Charles Manson​

I hope it's obvious that I'm not endorsing Scientology. Whereas I may believe that Christianity doesn't have it right, at least, for the most part, it is benign. I recognize that Scientology is dangerous. But here's some testimony that something (that I hope we can all agree is fraudulent) can make a person feel the same way as the born-again Christian. At least to the eyes of any who is hearing the testimony of a believer. A Christian of course will say that there's no way that Charlie Manson felt the same thing a Christian does, but how am I, as the outside observer of two different people, supposed to tell who felt what and to what degree?

And sure, we can judge Charlie's actions to prove that he wasn't headed in the right direction, but he's just one fun example. Look at half of Hollywood. Scientology makes a lot of people happy, and we can hear testimony that it makes them successful too, so how do we determine from testimony whether they are lying or delusional or speaking the truth?

Scientology has other errors to it.

that are not related to this thread.

I am sure doing thing you like, any thing, can cause oneself happiness and come out of depression.

but what I was talking about is overall, not happiness but a full on change in ones life for the better.

overcomming addiction, chemical dependancy, etc.

But social psychological manipulation is something the enemy uses, basically He uses some emotional ties to a leader or teacher, and props them up as something more than they are. This trust and openness to be influenced, allows one to become not closer to God, but closer to a person who says He is from God.

I appreciate fundamental Christianity in that, it does not point to another leader or man, but everyone I have encountered for the most part puts the emphasis on Jesus.

But I know of many occasions where people had deception from a christian like cult, where they felt enough of the positive to be attracted to the religions, but upon further analysis the religion ends up having darkness associated with it, in one form or another.

This is where the Bible directs us from fraudulent religions and toward a Jesus religion of Biblical Christianity.

I hope I addressed what you were saying here.

but my point being, in context of athiesm.

God makes people for the most part better,

if you ever hear of people in govenment sponsored AA meetings, you will here something of "a higher power."

while some will fill in the blanks with Jesus, many do not go into the detail.

and leave it as a open ended concept.

for the point of our discussion, what is it about religion that makes morality set better into ones soul, and becomes alive with passion to the point that one can do what He or she would not normally do?

to the point of overcomming addiction, and drugs, and domestic violence, and chemical abuse?

If the government is willing to sponsor drug programs throughout the country that allow for a higher power, then they must be desperate.

they must be at the end of their rope, as far as finding a solution to the problems of addiction, sin etc within the ranks of society in general.

I have found that God has been a source for victory over such things, and more specifically a christian God.

Now if you sift through older AA programs you will see that this concept of a higher power was developed using Christian mindset.

there are many camps groups, and youth centers that focus more specifically on christianity as well, when AA simply cannot do what they need done.

I was curious, if there was not such thing as religion. how the athiest would solve the problems of chemical addiction.

thats all.

 

[Moral Orel]

I hope I addressed what you were saying here.

No, not at all really. You said in the OP that if someone feel's so great from becoming a Christian, we should trust their testimony and recognize it as something supernatural. I pointed out that people claim those same feelings come from other religions as well and even gave you a super-easy target with Scientology. And then asked how I am supposed to know who has those feelings (between the Christian and the Scientologist) and who does not. How do I as an outside observer tell the difference between the feelings of two different people from myself?

We're talking about testimony from people here, not that overall validity of different religions. If I have to study a religion to see if it is right in order to tell that a given testimony is true, then why judge the testimony at all? I could just study the religion and the testimony is meaningless as far as convincing a person goes.

I was curious, if there was not such thing as religion. how the athiest would solve the problems of chemical addiction.

You bringing up AA sort of proves my point. AA tells people to put their problems in the hands of a "higher power", right? Not everyone makes it Jesus specifically, as you have acknowledged. And yet AA still helps people with their addiction, even when people aren't turning to Jesus. So how exactly do you give Jesus credit for helping those people who never gave their lives to him or asked for his help?

That point not withstanding, there are other forms and sources of rehabilitation than AA.

 

[Davian]

I understand social psychological manipulation. I understand having deception so deep that you cannot actually detect it within yourself.

Indeed. Such is the nature of self-deception. It is very convincing.

But as it relates to sheer numbers.....is the power of the Gospel to change people toward the positive, it's own proof?

Proof of what? Proof of how the human brain works, and how we all share that commonality? Okay.

what I mean is that no one can prove God. You can't stick him in a testube and say, yup there is a God.

I don't ask for proof. I do ask, if you are asserting that gods are more than a characters in books, that you provide something to work with, even small, that is testable and falsifiable.

But when you see the volume of lives changed in history and even today....toward the positive.

How can you deny that this is not a supernatural act?

If you mean by "supernatural", something we can imagine to be true, I will grant you that.

Here is just one testimony I just saw tonight on a worship video:

"I am a former atheist, a very aggressive one at that.I am in a VERY small group of atheists turned believer, at least from what I've seen. If i may say,, you will never convert an Atheist with words. It didn't work on me, I doubt it will work on others. (Also I dislike using "they" when describing others in regards to other beliefs. Puts a "heathen" vibe to it does it not? We are all brothers and sisters) I had many experiences with the Lord, in extreme desperation and in bliss. But I am well aware I cannot convince you that MY experience is scientific, nor will I claim it to be. I'm aware that my testimony could be chalked up to "delusion" or "brainwashing" and these are not lost upon me. I retain my insatiable need for knowledge.I pray for clarity and I stay up on nights such as this and research BOTH sides of the argument. Atheist and Christian sources. I will humbly admit some questions remain unanswered. But despite MANY hours spent enveloped in research, dialoguing with atheists, agnostic teachers of my near by high school, christian pastors, and even a fair share of Muslims, my faith has yet to be rooted out or proven wrong.

This begs the question; has he ever presented his god beliefs in a testable, falsifiable fashion? It does not appear so from this extract.

I will admit that I've had atheists give very compelling arguments about my experiences and christian leaders of several denominations have given varying answers of varying satisfaction, I still wake up with my heart and mind dead set on Jesus. There is something that happened when I gave my life to Christ. Something inside of me changed. family and friends have noticed it as well. A radical change in my daily life, the very structure of my personality. Call me a fool, ignorant, or indoctrinated, but the gospel of Jesus had a very positive effect on my life and has not been undermined yet. I once again do not attest this as scientific evidence, or as a means to convert people of different or unbelief, but I have to say, nothing has shaken my faith or the feeling I receive in the name of the Lord. I feel my background as an atheist has given me an immeasurable blessing. I am happy to discuss science with both sides, though i do not claim to be knowledgeable in all fields...."

posted by you tube user: Horrid Slayer, in the comments below this video:

in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.


other sites with this alleged change of heart

http://www.iamsecond.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamsecondHQ

http://www.iamsecond.com/struggles/

http://powertochange.com/s/24/tags/changed-lives/

take a 22 day challege by iam second.com

http://www.iamsecond.com/live-second/challenge-thanks/


also familiarize with the whosoevers:

http://www.thewhosoevers.com

again in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.

If it is something that is outside of yourself, then I would fully expect you to be able to demonstrate it as such.

If what you present here is evidence for your religion *and* for the power of human imagination, the most parsimonious explanation should be applied in the absence of other testable evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, not at all really. You said in the OP that if someone feel's so great from becoming a Christian, we should trust their testimony and recognize it as something supernatural. I pointed out that people claim those same feelings come from other religions as well and even gave you a super-easy target with Scientology. And then asked how I am supposed to know who has those feelings (between the Christian and the Scientologist) and who does not. How do I as an outside observer tell the difference between the feelings of two different people from myself?

We're talking about testimony from people here, not that overall validity of different religions. If I have to study a religion to see if it is right in order to tell that a given testimony is true, then why judge the testimony at all? I could just study the religion and the testimony is meaningless as far as convincing a person goes.



You bringing up AA sort of proves my point. AA tells people to put their problems in the hands of a "higher power", right? Not everyone makes it Jesus specifically, as you have acknowledged. And yet AA still helps people with their addiction, even when people aren't turning to Jesus. So how exactly do you give Jesus credit for helping those people who never gave their lives to him or asked for his help?

That point not withstanding, there are other forms and sources of rehabilitation than AA.

I apologize it is sort of difficult for me to understand your question, let me put it this way.....AA started as the oxford group with twelve steps symbolizing the twelve apostles. Many people come from different religions to AA, so they obviosly allowed other religions in. Does this make sense?

however there is evidence in peer review medical journals that protestant religion as compared to say catholic, and some others.....shows a higher resistance to chemical dependance of say...alcohol for example:


"Analyses of variance revealed that students with no religious affiliation reported significantly higher levels of drinking frequency and quantity, getting drunk, celebratory reasons for drinking and perceived drinking norms than those of either Catholic or Protestant religious affiliation, while no significant differences across groups were found for alcohol use problems. Protestants reported significantly higher levels of perceived drinking control than Catholics. "

peer review found here:

http://www.drugandalcoholdependence.com/article/S0376-8716(97)00142-7/abstract?cc=y=

Now the rest of article is behind a pay wall, but in the abstract it summarizes the conclusions briefly.

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed. Such is the nature of self-deception. It is very convincing.

Proof of what? Proof of how the human brain works, and how we all share that commonality? Okay.

I don't ask for proof. I do ask, if you are asserting that gods are more than a characters in books, that you provide something to work with, even small, that is testable and falsifiable.

If you mean by "supernatural", something we can imagine to be true, I will grant you that.

This begs the question; has he ever presented his god beliefs in a testable, falsifiable fashion? It does not appear so from this extract.

If it is something that is outside of yourself, then I would fully expect you to be able to demonstrate it as such.

If what you present here is evidence for your religion *and* for the power of human imagination, the most parsimonious explanation should be applied in the absence of other testable evidence.

you wish for evidence, well we are trying but you seem to not be open to it.

even facts are not of the nature to be false, and are by nature therefore not falsifiable. As if they were falsified, then they would not in fact, be facts. They would be false.

so you are asking for something, that you yourself, in your views do not provide.

so lets start with you providing any fact that is false, then we can state that it is truly by definition falsifiable.

but a fact, one that cannot be false, cannot be falsifiable.

now if what you mean is verifiable, then I would go a different route slightly.

if you can not.

then to say God is not falsifiable is a moot point.

 

[Moral Orel]

I apologize it is sort of difficult for me to understand your question, let me put it this way.....AA started as the oxford group with twelve steps symbolizing the twelve apostles. Many people come from different religions to AA, so they obviosly allowed other religions in. Does this make sense?

Yes, people used other religions while in AA to help with their drinking problems and received positive results. It doesn't matter how AA was formed or designed, only how people used it and how that use made an impact on their lives.

while no significant differences across groups were found for alcohol use problems.

This is the only part of your quote that has relevance. Alcohol use problems. It's okay to drink alcohol.

 

[Davian]

you wish for evidence, well we are trying but you seem to not be open to it.

I accept your evidence; I do not dispute your experiences, or how real they may seem to you.

even facts are not of the nature to be false, and are by nature therefore not falsifiable. As if they were falsified, then they would not in fact, be facts. They would be false.

Best not to go on about the concept of falsifiability if you are not clear on the concept.

so you are asking for something, that you yourself, in your views do not provide.

What exactly are my views?

so lets start with you providing any fact that is false, then we can state that it is truly by definition falsifiable.

but a fact, one that cannot be false, cannot be falsifiable.

No, this is what I am talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

now if what you mean is verifiable, then I would go a different route slightly.

I do not mean that, as there are already far more parsimonious explanations for such experiences. I suspect that if you could [successfully] go down the verification route, you (or someone else) would have done so already, and we would not be having this exchange.

if you can not.

then to say God is not falsifiable is a moot point.

Indeed, until you are able to define what you mean by "God" in such a [testable, falsifiable] manner.

 

[cloudyday2]

This begs the question; has he ever presented his god beliefs in a testable, falsifiable fashion? It does not appear so from this extract.

Can't we lower the standards a little bit? Imagine a person with a missing leg goes to a faith healing event, and that person grows a new leg. That is not testable or falsifiable, but I think it is useful evidence. The skeptics would need to be able to interview all the witnesses and examine records showing that this person had a missing leg before being healed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, people used other religions while in AA to help with their drinking problems and received positive results. It doesn't matter how AA was formed or designed, only how people used it and how that use made an impact on their lives.



This is the only part of your quote that has relevance. Alcohol use problems. It's okay to drink alcohol.

I don't accept your premise, as you have not added any facts to the equation here.

we all have opinions, some right and many wrong, but that does not mean that everyone should agree with them.

what evidence do you present for your case?

 

[createdtoworship]

I accept your evidence; I do not dispute your experiences, or how real they may seem to you.

Best not to go on about the concept of falsifiability if you are not clear on the concept.

What exactly are my views?

No, this is what I am talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I do not mean that, as there are already far more parsimonious explanations for such experiences. I suspect that if you could [successfully] go down the verification route, you (or someone else) would have done so already, and we would not be having this exchange.

Indeed, until you are able to define what you mean by "God" in such a [testable, falsifiable] manner.

sorry to be short, but you present no evidence for your premise.

I have sufficiently made a very clear point, with supporting documentation.

I recommend google scholar as a free place to start your search.

wikipedia, an open source site with no requirements for degrees or excellence, is not a great source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

if you question my observations and premises please reread posts from several days ago.

 

[createdtoworship]

Can't we lower the standards a little bit? Imagine a person with a missing leg goes to a faith healing event, and that person grows a new leg. That is not testable or falsifiable, but I think it is useful evidence. The skeptics would need to be able to interview all the witnesses and examine records showing that this person had a missing leg before being healed.

again, a great post but you too are missing something.

falsification involves the ability for something to be false.

facts do not have that ability as that would negate their factualness.

a fact cannot be false, it does not have that ability.

so falsification as a test for the scientific method fails miserably.

 

[Davian]

Can't we lower the standards a little bit?

I can't do that, if I have no idea of what standards the person being cited was referring to, if any. If his standard is "it makes me feel good" there is not much lower we can go than that.

Imagine a person with a missing leg goes to a faith healing event, and that person grows a new leg.

Or, appears to grow a new leg. Or be cured of cancer. Or a headache. Usually, what is "cured" is not so visible as a missing leg.

That is not testable or falsifiable, but I think it is useful evidence. The skeptics would need to be able to interview all the witnesses and examine records showing that this person had a missing leg before being healed.

Sure, and these claims are often investigated. I am not aware of any that proved to be anything other than a hoax, exaggeration, or outright fraud.

 

[Davian]

sorry to be short, but you present no evidence for your premise.

Then you have misunderstood my premise. It requires no evidence.

I have sufficiently made a very clear point, with supporting documentation.

I take no issue with your documentation. It supports my position as well as it does yours.

I recommend google scholar as a free place to start your search.

wikipedia, an open source site with no requirements for degrees or excellence, is not a great source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

if you question my observations and premises please reread posts from several days ago.

If I were to present evidence in support of my position, and not yours, it would be your own posts in this thread, where you have tried (and failed) to shift the burden of evidence from yourself onto others. Why would you not go down the verification route if you actually had something of significance?

Everything that you have posted here can be explained - in your own words - by you "having deception so deep that you cannot actually detect it within yourself."

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't accept your premise, as you have not added any facts to the equation here.

we all have opinions, some right and many wrong, but that does not mean that everyone should agree with them.

what evidence do you present for your case?

I presented the evidence that you presented to the case. That not everyone used Jesus and Christianity in their AA. You are saying that AA proves Christianity can have a positive impact on people's lives, and I am using your example, where you stated that they did not need Christianity, only a vague "higher power", to achieve the exact same results.

This, right here:

if you ever hear of people in govenment sponsored AA meetings, you will here something of "a higher power."

while some will fill in the blanks with Jesus, many do not go into the detail.

and leave it as a open ended concept.

So they didn't ask Jesus for help. So where is the unique change that comes only from Christianity? Clearly, any religion and any deity can fill in that blank and still achieve the same results. Not to mention all the people who just think of it as an undefined "higher power" like a cosmic force of the universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what I mean is that no one can prove God. You can't stick him in a testube and say, yup there is a God. But when you see the volume of lives changed in history and even today....toward the positive.

How can you deny that this is not a supernatural act?

Because plenty of people also change there life for the better without any religious factors. If it can be easily accomplished through secular means, why would it then "prove" a religion if it happens through religion.... Clearly, religion is not required to turn your life around (for better or worse).

Having said: you actually need to demonstrate the causal chain instead of simply asserting it...

Here is just one testimony I just saw tonight on a worship video:

"I am a former atheist, a very aggressive one at that.I am in a VERY small group of atheists turned believer, at least from what I've seen. If i may say,, you will never convert an Atheist with words. It didn't work on me, I doubt it will work on others. (Also I dislike using "they" when describing others in regards to other beliefs. Puts a "heathen" vibe to it does it not? We are all brothers and sisters) I had many experiences with the Lord, in extreme desperation and in bliss. But I am well aware I cannot convince you that MY experience is scientific, nor will I claim it to be. I'm aware that my testimony could be chalked up to "delusion" or "brainwashing" and these are not lost upon me. I retain my insatiable need for knowledge.I pray for clarity and I stay up on nights such as this and research BOTH sides of the argument. Atheist and Christian sources. I will humbly admit some questions remain unanswered. But despite MANY hours spent enveloped in research, dialoguing with atheists, agnostic teachers of my near by high school, christian pastors, and even a fair share of Muslims, my faith has yet to be rooted out or proven wrong. I will admit that I've had atheists give very compelling arguments about my experiences and christian leaders of several denominations have given varying answers of varying satisfaction, I still wake up with my heart and mind dead set on Jesus. There is something that happened when I gave my life to Christ. Something inside of me changed. family and friends have noticed it as well. A radical change in my daily life, the very structure of my personality. Call me a fool, ignorant, or indoctrinated, but the gospel of Jesus had a very positive effect on my life and has not been undermined yet. I once again do not attest this as scientific evidence, or as a means to convert people of different or unbelief, but I have to say, nothing has shaken my faith or the feeling I receive in the name of the Lord. I feel my background as an atheist has given me an immeasurable blessing. I am happy to discuss science with both sides, though i do not claim to be knowledgeable in all fields...."

posted by you tube user: Horrid Slayer, in the comments below this video:

in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.


other sites with this alleged change of heart

http://www.iamsecond.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamsecondHQ

http://www.iamsecond.com/struggles/

http://powertochange.com/s/24/tags/changed-lives/

take a 22 day challege by iam second.com

http://www.iamsecond.com/live-second/challenge-thanks/


also familiarize with the whosoevers:

http://www.thewhosoevers.com

again in the OP can be testimony, and other stories that identify with the gospels power to change, and how this is evidence for an act ABOVE ourselves, or outside of ourselves.

There are testimonies like that from any religion.
There are also testimonies like that from people that gave up religion.

All it means is that people can find hope and motivation in just about anything to turn their lives around, for better or worse.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you wish for evidence, well we are trying but you seem to not be open to it.

The problem is that your "evidence" is not actually evidence.

You are submitting X as evidence for Y, but upon closer investigation, it turns out that X is just as valid in support of A, B and C - all of which are mutually exclusive with Y. Therefor, your "evidence" is rather meaningless.

even facts are not of the nature to be false, and are by nature therefore not falsifiable. As if they were falsified, then they would not in fact, be facts. They would be false.

Off course, it's perfectly possible to mistakenly call something a "fact".

so lets start with you providing any fact that is false, then we can state that it is truly by definition falsifiable.

Hmm. The thing that needs to be falsifiable are proposed explanations. Hypothesis. Theories. Ideas.

In this case, your "hypothesis" is "lives are changed through christianity because of supernatural things". How is that hypothesis falsifiable? How can we test if this is true/accurate?

then to say God is not falsifiable is a moot point.

The "god hypothesis" is a proposed "explanation" for observations in reality.
How can we test this hypothesis?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you have misunderstood my premise. It requires no evidence.

I take no issue with your documentation. It supports my position as well as it does yours.

If I were to present evidence in support of my position, and not yours, it would be your own posts in this thread, where you have tried (and failed) to shift the burden of evidence from yourself onto others. Why would you not go down the verification route if you actually had something of significance?

Everything that you have posted here can be explained - in your own words - by you "having deception so deep that you cannot actually detect it within yourself."

I have provided ample support for my position, you simply say something to the affect that, "you disagree."

but then provide no support for why you disagree.

this is what is in question, I am not shifting the burden of proof, as I have already made my case.

now, I ask that if you have something against my case, to use facts to back it up.

It appears at this point you would not have much more to offer, am I correct?

 

[createdtoworship]

I presented the evidence that you presented to the case. That not everyone used Jesus and Christianity in their AA. You are saying that AA proves Christianity can have a positive impact on people's lives, and I am using your example, where you stated that they did not need Christianity, only a vague "higher power", to achieve the exact same results.

This, right here:



So they didn't ask Jesus for help. So where is the unique change that comes only from Christianity? Clearly, any religion and any deity can fill in that blank and still achieve the same results. Not to mention all the people who just think of it as an undefined "higher power" like a cosmic force of the universe.

I modified my original premise after your point,

and counter pointed it with additional peer review.

but you seem to not want to address this, and when asking for validation of your perspective, you don't provide any.

While many do not use Christianity in AA, many do, and the program was originated around the twelve apostles and corresponding 12 steps.

then in addition to this I provided evidence in another post about how Religious principles affect people in a positive way, as it relates to quiting alchoholism specifically and that post was here:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...timony-evidence-of-god.7931326/#post-69228076

" Analyses of variance revealed that students with no religious affiliation reported significantly higher levels of drinking frequency and quantity, getting drunk, celebratory reasons for drinking and perceived drinking norms than those of either Catholic or Protestant religious affiliation, while no significant differences across groups were found for alcohol use problems. Protestants reported significantly higher levels of perceived drinking control than Catholics. "

so while AA is only a circumstantial and perifrial evidence for my premise, in the second submittal of evidence, both are compounded as a great argument for my perspective, that those of religious preference are more successful in moral issues such as alcholism for example.

AA- which was created around christianity, and which would not be as successful if it were created around another religion, even catholicism, as the second evidence shows.

I am sure that many alcoholic groups exist in a host of religious preferences, yet why is it that christianity is the only one to make is as big as AA and gain full federal dollar support, due to it's success.

do you not think that if there were such a group, that needy alcholics bound by addiction would scrape and grawl fifty miles to this other program to be free from their bondage?

they would.

so that shows that there is not really anything out there that deserves the wide spread support that AA has, which again, was created with christian principles.

so my evidences add upon each other and modify each other to build my case.

so far you have provided no evidence, and piggy back only off of my own examples.

I have provided two examples for my evidence.