"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[dlamberth]

Nice distraction, with the provided deepity. Are you going to address post #43 or not?

I've answered a couple of times now. I think the problem here is that I don't fit your preconceived projections so your not understanding what I wrote.

If centered on Love, Both are right.

 

[cvanwey]

I've answered a couple of times now. I think the problem here is that I don't fit your preconceived projections so your not understanding what I wrote.

Both are right.

This is what you last wrote. I have taken the liberty to dissect your response, in red:

"The question raised is: Are they truly preaching Love?" What if the recipient thinks they are? And what if the recipient, whom preaches 'pure love', is claiming it is not from YHWH, but from a differing deity? Then you are again, back to square one

"They talk about Love, but most preach everything else but Love. It's not Love from their God's that I'm pointing towards. Anyone can make God claims. But what I'm pointing towards is something deeper where each person is within themselves. Watch Love within ones self. Watch the change in perspective when seeing through the eye of Love. Love has Soul and Life which is why the Poets find so much to work with when working with Love." Again, how might this distinguish YHWH, verses an opposing God claim? Are you saying that any poem, which demonstrates 'true love', is ultimately provided from YHWH? If so, you are circling back upon yourself, with a blank assertion. "With Love comes Compassion, Empathy and the desire to help those in need." This statement appears to be nothing more than a tautology, or at most, a definition or attributes as a result of love in general. "Love causes a different way of seeing other Human Beings, the Earth and even the Divine itSelf... And than there's Oneness in God that the Mystics point towards." A bunch of baseless and blank assertions. Can't really do anything comprehensible and/or useful with such statements?

Love changes most. This gets us no closer to if the assertion is true. If you are in love, your perception often changes, about external things. So?

Again, I see nothing more than demonstration of a deepity. Care to elaborate now?

In the words of Patty Smyth... "sometimes love just ain't enough."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... you're whole rhetorical set is so farcical, I.A.! I do so hope that folks here realize this ... especially when, in very simple terms, it is inconsistent (contradictory in my mind really) to ask other people to "prove" something to you when you, yourself, think the quality of 'sufficiency' of evidence is relative to your own perceptions about life, the world, and God.

You see, that's one thing I hardly ever do---ask others to prove some "thing" to me that isn't an absolute or objective fixture of this world.

Ah. Another question too hard for you to tackle, eh?

It's a really simple request, but we've gone nineteen pages without any Christians being brave enough to try.

Can you provide evidence for the Christian God's existence?

Nobody has managed it yet, or even seriously attempted the task.

 

[dlamberth]

This is what you last wrote. I have taken the liberty to dissect your response, in red:

"The question raised is: Are they truly preaching Love?" What if the recipient thinks they are? And what if the recipient, whom preaches 'pure love', is claiming it is not from YHWH, but from a differing deity? Then you are again, back to square one

"They talk about Love, but most preach everything else but Love. It's not Love from their God's that I'm pointing towards. Anyone can make God claims. But what I'm pointing towards is something deeper where each person is within themselves. Watch Love within ones self. Watch the change in perspective when seeing through the eye of Love. Love has Soul and Life which is why the Poets find so much to work with when working with Love." Again, how might this distinguish YHWH, verses an opposing God claim? Are you saying that any poem, which demonstrates 'true love', is ultimately provided from YHWH? If so, you are circling back upon yourself, with a blank assertion. "With Love comes Compassion, Empathy and the desire to help those in need." This statement appears to be nothing more than a tautology, or at most, a definition or attributes as a result of love in general. "Love causes a different way of seeing other Human Beings, the Earth and even the Divine itSelf... And than there's Oneness in God that the Mystics point towards." A bunch of baseless and blank assertions. Can't really do anything comprehensible and/or useful with such statements?

Love changes most. This gets us no closer to if the assertion is true. If you are in love, your perception often changes, about external things. So?

Again, I see nothing more than demonstration of a deepity. Care to elaborate now?

In the words of Patty Smyth... "sometimes love just ain't enough."

Your red dissection is NOT about me. Try again. The preconceived projections just don't fit.

Maybe, and I'm back to this, how about exploring Love as a possible Truth. Of all of the creatures on this planet we Human Beings more than any other respond to Love. That in itself seems worth exploring. That is if one truly was a searcher for Truth. Which quite honestly I'm doubting is in your game plan. Love has life, it has Soul. It can have fire and can lead a person beyond themselves.

 

[cvanwey]

how about exploring Love as a possible Truth. Of all of the creatures on this planet we Human Beings more than any other respond to Love. That in itself seems worth exploring. That is if one truly was a searcher for Truth. Which quite honestly I'm doubting is in your game plan. Love has life, it has Soul. It can have fire and can lead a person beyond themselves.

Thanks for the 3 consecutive responses, demonstrating examples of deepity in action.

Got it. God is love, and love is God.

Moving forward, if someone wants to start providing reason/logic/evidence to support and/or distinguish their asserted and claimed god(s), please do. Otherwise, we are essentially ~370 responses deep, with very little.

I was under the impression that if I just eliminated many many many arguments for God's existence, ahead of time, we could focus on the claims for THE God.

Apparently, removing/conceding all such arguments still does not move the conclusion any closer.

 

[dlamberth]

Thanks for the 3 consecutive responses, demonstrating examples of deepity in action.

Got it. God is love, and love is God.

I know it says "skeptic" in your profile but here in this reply I'm approaching you as an "atheist". I hope that's OK.

Your an atheist!
Be an atheist!
I'd not want anything different.
Even atheist they can BE Love.
There seems to be some Truth in that.
God Lovers do not have exclusive ownership of Love.

The God thing isn't for you. I get it. No problem!
It's not for everyone.
But Love sure is!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Maybe, and I'm back to this, how about exploring Love as a possible Truth.

How about we don't? Your New Age musings are off-topic, and it might be better if you started your own thread for them.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's like Love, isn't it?
It's something that exist in the Human experience, yet cannot be defined.

It's my belief/experience that the mystical is an aspect of being a Human Being. And that it's one of the things that repels us above the animals.

We can define it, we cannot define it perfectly, that's the distinction I'd make, the latter unrealistic and absolutist

If we understand "spiritual" as a term in the sense of our experiential/existential aspects of consciousness, then, fine, but mystical tends to be embellished and exaggerated to some communication with a transcendent reality that cannot remotely be verified or shown to have any consistency, as variable as human imagination.

I don't deny we're above non human animals, but to suggest we are distinct from animals is biologically inaccurate and only tends to be in the vernacular based on the notion that we are somehow superior in a broader sense rather than merely in our capacity to make tools, etc (in a way more advanced than other apes demonstrate with tools)

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree in some of this and disagree in others. What I see most though is that your projecting your own stuff into me that do not match up with my spiritual life. For instance, I'd never use the term "higher power". Mainly because that's a duality way of experiencing/looking at things. When you start from that position, everything that comes after that does not fit the spiritual trajectory that I'm on. Love has a way of uniting and bringing things together as One.

So, my inner spiritual experiences are mine and mine alone. They are up to me to question and understand. A true spiritual life is about personal inner growth. I give you permission to challenge and doubt anything about me. That's not going to change a thing. But I also give you permission to do your own spiritual inner inquiry. Because your conclusions are yours and yours alone, I'm not going to challenge or doubt your own conclusions that you come up with.

So more monistic than dualistic, more "immanent" than "transcendent"?

You're reducing this to postmodern relativism, there would be nothing preventing me from outright rejecting any claims you make because they are not relevant to my conclusions about the world. It also borders on hard solipsism, only an individual's perspective mattering as to understanding the world. If you don't care about my challenges, why even engage at all?

What I'm taking from this is that because you have zero clue of my spiritual path, you have projected onto me some wrong conclusions.

The evidence I have, what I look at as Truth is that I'm becoming a better Human Being. That's all that matters. That's where Truth becomes real. And it's all centered around something called Love.

If you'd actually be precise in any sense about your so called spiritual path, I wouldn't have to "project" things in terms of a speculative understanding that you've barely conveyed to even deduce.

I find no need to capitalize truth and love, it needlessly muddies the waters in our pursuit of understanding such things and makes them distinguished by some absolute aspect rather than going to their essence and accident as a dynamic that nonetheless admits to being limited in our understanding of it.

 

[dlamberth]

How about we don't? Your New Age musings are off-topic, and it might be better if you started your own thread for them.

I have to admit to a pretty jaundiced attitude towards New Age stuff.

What's the topic again? Wasn't it around these questions? (or were these cvanwey's)
1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

...to which I reply, 1. They are both right. And explained why so through the avenue of Love. Now how is that not on topic?

Or is the topic to prove God within a narrowly set criteria that you have established that can never be met? I'm unable to put you into my conscious awareness. I can't put you into the sense of Oneness experienced when riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. That's outside of your box as something to even think about let alone try. A wall created. The only way to breach the wall is Love. But we don't want to go there.

Your an Atheist. I wouldn't want you to be anything else. I'm a Lover of God, and can't be anything else but that. And it's all OK on both sides.

 

[dlamberth]

We can define it, we cannot define it perfectly, that's the distinction I'd make, the latter unrealistic and absolutist

I disagree that we can define love, even imperfectly. We can experience it, poets write about it, singers sing about Love, Mystics ride Love, but like consciousness, we can't define it.

If we understand "spiritual" as a term in the sense of our experiential/existential aspects of consciousness, then, fine, but mystical tends to be embellished and exaggerated to some communication with a transcendent reality that cannot remotely be verified or shown to have any consistency, as variable as human imagination.

That' sounds exactly like the Human experience to me.

I don't deny we're above non human animals, but to suggest we are distinct from animals is biologically inaccurate and only tends to be in the vernacular based on the notion that we are somehow superior in a broader sense rather than merely in our capacity to make tools, etc (in a way more advanced than other apes demonstrate with tools)

I'm sorry if it came across that way, but it was not my intention to suggest that human's and animals are not swimming in and a part of the same Life Force that circles the biosphere. Life is One, whole and complete in itself.

As an example a mystical experience, if understood in the way mystics think, that brief "aweness" experience upon first sight of a rainbow is a mystical moment. Your right, there's hardly any consistency in such an inner experiences. Yet it's well within the realm of the human experience.

 

[muichimotsu]

I disagree that we can define love, even imperfectly. We can experience it, poets write about it, singers sing about Love, Mystics ride Love, but like consciousness, we can't define it.


That' sounds exactly like the Human experience to me.


I'm sorry if it came across that way, but it was not my intention to suggest that human's and animals are not swimming in and a part of the same Life Force that circles the biosphere. Life is One, whole and complete in itself.

As an example a mystical experience, if understood in the way mystics think, that brief "aweness" experience upon first sight of a rainbow is a mystical moment. Your right, there's hardly any consistency in such an inner experiences. Yet it's well within the realm of the human experience.

Definitions are not static, methinks you don't understand even that. An attempt to define something is not presented in a way that it is be all end all, but merely an approximation of the meaning that we acknowledge can and likely will change or adjust in some other sense.

The Human experience being subjective is not the same as saying the human experience is relative in that all paths are equally correct, which I swear you've essentially said and would be easily and accurately accused of postmodernism.

Being within human experience does not mean we should take it as authoritative or representative of reality in a general sense rather than some subjective notion little different than what I might see if I took mushrooms or LSD.

 

[dlamberth]

So more monistic than dualistic, more "immanent" than "transcendent"?

I tend towards non-dualistic.

You're reducing this to postmodern relativism, there would be nothing preventing me from outright rejecting any claims you make because they are not relevant to my conclusions about the world. It also borders on hard solipsism, only an individual's perspective mattering as to understanding the world. If you don't care about my challenges, why even engage at all?

With out further examination, I think you should reject what I wrote. But I can't help but think that Love is pretty relevant to the world and ought not be rejected. There's a challenge we all should take.

If you'd actually be precise in any sense about your so called spiritual path, I wouldn't have to "project" things in terms of a speculative understanding that you've barely conveyed to even deduce.

My spiritual path is really simple, It's called "The Religion of Love".
Love is something experienced. It's hardly precise in any sense of the word.
Yet it touches us in many ways and in many forms. Sometimes deeply and sometimes no so much.
If you were to project anything in terms of understanding, I'd suggest that it be Love.
Pretty simple, really.

I find no need to capitalize truth and love, it needlessly muddies the waters in our pursuit of understanding such things and makes them distinguished by some absolute aspect rather than going to their essence and accident as a dynamic that nonetheless admits to being limited in our understanding of it.

I capitalize Love because it's alive, vibrant and with Soul".
I capitalize Truth for the same reasons.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I have to admit to a pretty jaundiced attitude towards New Age stuff.

What's the topic again? Wasn't it around these questions? (or were these cvanwey's)
1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

...to which I reply, 1. They are both right. And explained why so through the avenue of Love. Now how is that not on topic?

Or is the topic to prove God within a narrowly set criteria that you have established that can never be met? I'm unable to put you into my conscious awareness. I can't put you into the sense of Oneness experienced when riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God. That's outside of your box as something to even think about let alone try. A wall created. The only way to breach the wall is Love. But we don't want to go there.

Your an Atheist. I wouldn't want you to be anything else. I'm a Lover of God, and can't be anything else but that. And it's all OK on both sides.

Well, dlamberth, let me be frank.
The topic of this thread is simple: the existence of some higher power has already been conceded. Now, can Christians provide evidence that their God is real?

Given that, I personally think it's rather bad manners for you to come on here and start arguing about the existence of something other than the Christian God, when it has been made clear that this thread is specifically for discussion of Him. I've reminded you often enough of this, but these reminders have apparently had no effect on you.

Therefore, I will not be responding to you any further. I would ask that you please not respond to this message, or to any other post I make on this thread.

 

[dlamberth]

Definitions are not static, methinks you don't understand even that. An attempt to define something is not presented in a way that it is be all end all, but merely an approximation of the meaning that we acknowledge can and likely will change or adjust in some other sense.

The subject is Love. It can't be defined even a little bit. It's different than defining a car.
Go ahead, try it. Define Love.
Love is one of those things that can only be known by experiencing it.
Yet it's something all Human Beings can experience and exchange with each other.
Interesting stuff, Love is.

The Human experience being subjective is not the same as saying the human experience is relative in that all paths are equally correct,

I'd say that your experience as a human, as subjective as it is, is every bit equal to mine, as subjective as it is.

...which I swear you've essentially said and would be easily and accurately accused of postmodernism.

If you consider Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service as postmodernism, than so be it. I consider these things as what helps to make us a more human, Human Being. Other than that, I don't know what else to say.

Being within human experience does not mean we should take it as authoritative or representative of reality in a general sense rather than some subjective notion little different than what I might see if I took mushrooms or LSD.

Being a child of the 60's, I know acid. With in the Human experience is consciousness. At what point should I drop out of what I experience as a Human Being?...even if it's not what you experience? What authority other than my own conscious awareness would you suggest should represent my reality in life?

Seeing your Buddhist label, have you experienced the level of consciousness and understanding as the Buddha? We are all different with but equally correct paths.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1 Personal contact is not my sole reason for belief.
2 Feeling is irrelevant.
3 Ability to verify depends on the other person.
4 Objective verification of a world view is not possible.

So your maybe amounts to nothing.

You raise some interesting points. Unfortunately, none of them are to do with providing evidence for your God's existence. Nineteen pages and counting, and you still haven't managed it. Delightful!

 

[muichimotsu]

With out further examination, I think you should reject what I wrote. But I can't help but think that Love is pretty relevant to the world and ought not be rejected. There's a challenge we all should take

.

I don't reject love, I reject the reification of it to a point of absolutism, as if there cannot be some attempt to characterize it

My spiritual path is really simple, It's called "The Religion of Love".
Love is something experienced. It's hardly precise in any sense of the word.
Yet it touches us in many ways and in many forms. Sometimes deeply and sometimes no so much.
If you were to project anything in terms of understanding, I'd suggest that it be Love.
Pretty simple, really.

I didn't say precision in some measured manner, more that we can try to get more analytical on the concept to better understand

I capitalize Love because it's alive, vibrant and with Soul".
I capitalize Truth for the same reasons

Love has that emotional impact, sure, but the sentiment should not be the primary focus, but balanced, the same with truth, because if you just focus on how you feel, it devolves to postmodernism, which I've failed to see a reasonable defense of so far by anyone

 

[muichimotsu]

The subject is Love. It can't be defined even a little bit. It's different than defining a car.
Go ahead, try it. Define Love.
Love is one of those things that can only be known by experiencing it.
Yet it's something all Human Beings can experience and exchange with each other.
Interesting stuff, Love is.

Love is a connection of affection between individuals if I had to define it in a rough sense, but I don't claim some absolute understanding, while you basically make it so nebulous it may as well mean nothing

I'd say that your experience as a human, as subjective as it is, is every bit equal to mine, as subjective as it is.

Subjectivity does not follow to relativity, you keep insinuating such a thing, but fail to defend it except by using selective meanings of a word in your argumentation

If you consider Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service as postmodernism, than so be it. I consider these things as what helps to make us a more human, Human Being. Other than that, I don't know what else to say.

I consider your interpretation as postmodern, your reading comprehension is sorely lacking if you remotely thought I claimed such virtues are postmodern themselves rather than your understanding of them in some mystical New Age manner that renders them null, practicaly

Being a child of the 60's, I know acid. With in the Human experience is consciousness. At what point should I drop out of what I experience as a Human Being?...even if it's not what you experience? What authority other than my own conscious awareness would you suggest should represent my reality in life?

I'm not claiming any such cutting youtrself off from humanity, I'm saying that you should try taking a step back and consider that you may be engaging in solipsism, by reducing reality to your awareness, which is ludicrous if you remotely acknowledge the existence of other minds. Engaging in metaphysical idealism renders any kind of rational discussion nearly impossible unless you have the intellectual humility to acknowledge that your awareness and perception can and is sometimes mistaken

Reality is represented best by understanding things in a way that is open to new information, but no so credulous that you just try to make a syncretic system in spite of demonstrable contradictions in it

Seeing your Buddhist label, have you experienced the level of consciousness and understanding as the Buddha? We are all different with but equally correct paths.

I've been contemplating changing it, but CF's faith labels seem grossly insufficient. I never claimed to be on some path in the way you're likely intending it and I don't claim enlightenment or such anyway, so you're projecting particular assumptions about Buddhism onto me merely because I use that label.

Our paths cannot all be equally correct when they are reaching fundamentally antithetical conclusions about metaphysics and epistemology

 

[MrsFoundit]

Moving forward, if someone wants to start providing reason/logic/evidence to support and/or distinguish their asserted and claimed god(s), please do.

The lack of evidence reason and logic is with you positing yourself as adjudicator of evidence reason and logic.

I was under the impression that if I just eliminated many many many arguments for God's existence, ahead of time, we could focus on the claims for THE God.

As soon as they were presented you asked for evidence of God's existence.

Apparently, removing/conceding all such arguments still does not move the conclusion any closer.

They were not removed.

 

[Silmarien]

My point here was that I do not agree that Lewis's rendition for evaluation, is deemed a useful tool, especially for 'historicity'. If the authors instead wrote from a legendary standpoint, (where it counts anyways), then what you stated prior would be of little use to evaluate His 'historicity'.

I'm beginning to suspect that the problem here is lack of familiarity with historicity concerns in general. When I use the term, I'm referring broadly to the question of how much in the New Testament is grounded in history, not merely about whether Jesus existed and if specific events occurred.

I'm getting increasingly frustrated because you are interpreting everything I say in ways that don't make much sense. For example, I never implied that Lewis's trilemma is a useful tool for determining historicity--I'm suggesting the reverse, that the historical question of what statements from the Gospels Jesus actually made are important if you want to take the trilemma seriously. My whole point is that we would need to rule out the possibility that the divinity claim was part of a growing legend, so claiming that historicity doesn't matter because it might be a legend makes absolutely no sense.

The canon was developed by the 'church', or whom/whoever deemed such verse important enough to be part of the canon. If it's in the Bible, then sorry, it's <deemed> to reflect God's direct nature.

Now, do you have to agree? No. However, again, the authors implicate that if 'He did not rise, your faith is in vain.'

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Your interpretation is wrong. The logic is flat out flawed. Paul doesn't say "If the Resurrection happened, Christianity is true" (R → X). He says, paraphrased, "If the Resurrection didn't happen, Christianity is false." (~R → ~X)

These are not equivalent statements, logically speaking. [~R → ~X] gives us no logical consequences if we are given "R" as a premise. Christianity can still be either true or false given if we formalize Paul's statement. It does, however, mean that if we are given "X" as a premise, it follows that "R" is true also.

Being interested in the Incarnation rather than the Resurrection means that I'm focusing on the claim X rather than the claim R. This leads to a much stronger logical position.