Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

Anything can be evidence, the problem is to discern if it is good enough or not for a belief. Rationality plays a role of course. The substantive evaluation depends on the claim. What I would call good evidence is based on the claim. I don't evaluate all evidence the same and the same evidence may be sufficient for one claim and not for another. I have said this many times.

I don't avoid the problem of hard solipsism. I do not have sufficient evidence to say it is not an option, in fact I don't think there ever can be. So I practically dismiss it and believe this reality I perceive is real, otherwise I cannot go forward with anything.

I learned a lot of things from a lot of different sources. I would rather have you discuss my beliefs instead of other peoples beliefs. Because there is not one source that I agree with 100%.

As ironic as it may sound, I "believe" that "beliefs" have to be at least partially accounted for and come by through a synergy with other people. So, with this being the case, and you having said what you've said, then in Wittgensteinian fashion, it sounds to me like you and I are playing on two completely different epistemological fields: you have your 'game,' and I have mine. Ok. I can't say that I really respect your 'game,' but nevertheless......................so be it, then.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's like asking, "Do you think you must actually repair cars to be a mechanic"? Like, yeah, of course you must follow Jesus' teachings (or at least genuinely try to) to be considered a Christian. That's why he asked, "Why do you call me 'Lord', but do not obey me"?

Why not answer the question? Now you say "try to". What does that mean?

Based on your response it sounds like even when you were a Christian you never really considered what it means to actually obey Jesus, which is not surprising as that's essentially where most of the church world today is at. They've got a whole host of religious rituals, they attend religious services, they excel at praise and worship services, they spend a lot of time making long, public, special prayers and all such things, but what they will not do is to obey Jesus.

For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? Did you know he said we should keep our charity-giving, fasting, and praying secret? Did you know he said we should not use special titles like father, Mr, or Sir for one another? Did you know he said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full-time job is to seek his kingdom, first? Did you know he said we cannot be his disciple unless we forsake all we have and that the followers in his day, (and thousands in the book of Acts) practiced this teaching by selling all they had and sharing all things in common?

If you did not at least try to practice these teachings then you weren't practicing Christianity even if you really, really believed you were a Christian.

This is just your interpretation of what a christian is. Every christian has their own definition of what constitutes a Christian based on the bible.

This happens a lot when Christians find out atheists were once Christians. Instead of listening to their reasons for unbelief they probe to find out why they were not a "real" Christian so they can dismiss the unbelievers once sincere belief. Losing a belief in God for many, including myself, is not a fun process but an emotional, anguishing and scary process. I begged God for a long time to show me the evidence so I could keep my belief yet that never came and since there is not a consensus among Christians as to what a christian is or even how to be saved I don't think it is my fault as you claim. It seems to be Gods fault in His lack of communication skills.

Do you think writing a book in languages that will die out is a good way for God to communicate with humans about the most important things of life?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

As ironic as it may sound, I "believe" that "beliefs" have to be at least partially accounted for and come by through a synergy with other people. So, with this being the case, and you having said what you've said, then in Wittgensteinian fashion, it sounds to me like you and I are playing on two completely different epistemological fields: you have your 'game,' and I have mine. Ok. I can't say that I really respect your 'game,' but nevertheless......................so be it, then.

Why do you avoid responding to what I actually say? I have tried to talk about the criteria for evidence that you have never engaged in then you claim to know what I believe. Whatever, have a good day.

 

[John Helpher]

This is just your interpretation of what a christian is.

Nope.
"It is he who obeys my commands who shows his love for me" (John 14:21).
"Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom, but only those who obey my father". (Matthew 7:21)
"Whosoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33)

There's tons of factual evidence like this.

This happens a lot when Christians find out atheists were once Christians. Instead of listening to their reasons for unbelief they probe to find out why they were not a "real" Christian so they can dismiss the unbelievers once sincere belief.

I realize it hurts to have people question our sincerity, but that's just your pride speaking. I look at the evidence; if your behavior is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus, if you weren't at least trying to obey him, if you're actually arguing that there's no need to obey him, then you were not sincere.

Think of it like a wife who says, "Oh, you mean you were serious about me being faithful to you?" You would know she was not sincere even though she went through the motions of the marriage ceremony and probably said a lot of nice, sweet things at the time.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not saying this principle applies to you because you are now Atheist, as that would make no sense. No, this principle applies equally to all people in any circumstance. If you rented a large garage and bought a whole heap of tools, but never used them to repair cars then you would not be a sincere mechanic even if you liked to believe the best about yourself. You might argue that it's just my opinion that you should actually repair cars if you want to claim to be a mechanic, but you'd be factually wrong. A mechanic repairs cars; that's what makes him a mechanic. If you refuse to repair cars then you're stealing a title for yourself that does not actually belong to you.

I begged God for a long time to show me the evidence so I could keep my belief yet that never came and since there is not a consensus among Christians as to what a christian is or even how to be saved I don't think it is my fault as you claim.

Well, it's certainly not God's fault. You make this emotional claim about how you begged God for the evidence, but when I point out to you what God expects from his followers, you dismiss it as just my opinion even though it clearly is not just my opinion that Jesus conditioned membership in his Kingdom on obedience to the principles of that Kingdom. You are not nearly as sincere as your comments about begging God seem to imply. It's an emotional tactic I've seen a lot of people use when all you're really saying is, "God didn't jump through the hoops for me even though I begged him to"!

What are you doing with the teachings of Jesus? You're dismissing them as just opinion, and then you have the nerve to suggest that God is at fault for not giving you some kind of mind blowing, miraculous experience to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nope.
"It is he who obeys my commands who shows his love for me" (John 14:21).
"Not all who say to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom, but only those who obey my father". (Matthew 7:21)
"Whosoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33)

There's tons of factual evidence like this.

Ok, How much must a person obey to be a christian? All, 70%, 30% what?

I realize it hurts to have people question our sincerity, but that's just your pride speaking. I look at the evidence; if your behavior is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus, if you weren't at least trying to obey him, if you're actually arguing that there's no need to obey him, then you were not sincere.

Show me where I said Christians don't need to obey Jesus? No christian has obeyed Jesus 100% all the time. My point is I was sincere in obeying Jesus but I was not perfect.

Think of it like a wife who says, "Oh, you mean you were serious about me being faithful to you?" You would know she was not sincere even though she went through the motions of the marriage ceremony and probably said a lot of nice, sweet things at the time.

Will you define what a christian is by how much they must obey Jesus teachings? How does someone know they are doing enough?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not saying this principle applies to you because you are now Atheist, as that would make no sense. No, this principle applies equally to all people in any circumstance. If you rented a large garage and bought a whole heap of tools, but never used them to repair cars then you would not be a sincere mechanic even if you liked to believe the best about yourself. You might argue that it's just my opinion that you should actually repair cars if you want to claim to be a mechanic, but you'd be factually wrong. A mechanic repairs cars; that's what makes him a mechanic. If you refuse to repair cars then you're stealing a title for yourself that does not actually belong to you.

What if a mechanic fails to fix a car? Is he still a mechanic? The answer is yes.

And then there are not tens of thousands of different mechanics saying their version of what a mechanic is is the "true" one as Christianity has.

Well, it's certainly not God's fault. You make this emotional claim about how you begged God for the evidence, but when I point out to you what God expects from his followers, you dismiss it as just my opinion even though it clearly is not just my opinion that Jesus conditioned membership in his Kingdom on obedience to the principles of that Kingdom. You are not nearly as sincere as your comments about begging God seem to imply. It's an emotional tactic I've seen a lot of people use when all you're really saying is, "God didn't jump through the hoops for me even though I begged him to"!

You seem to be one of those christian mind readers huh. You seem to know that my deconversion was some tactic instead of a hard emotional experience. You don't have to believe me so you can maintain your smug attitude. Talk about dismissing others. The thing is I know you are wrong because I lived it.

What are you doing with the teachings of Jesus? You're dismissing them as just opinion, and then you have the nerve to suggest that God is at fault for not giving you some kind of mind blowing, miraculous experience to make you feel better about yourself.

What an arrogant thing to say. And no I was making a point about the bible as a bad communication method which you ignored, not about an experience. You did not try to understand what I said because that is not what I said at all. All I wanted was evidence not a mind blowing experience. So yeah, it is Gods fault at this point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not claiming to know. But I have no reason to suspect that it began ex nihilo, from a state of 'absolute nothing'. I have no reason to suspect there was ever a state of 'absolute nothing' in the first place.

You have no reason to suspect it began ex nihilo...why? Why do you have no reason to suspect there was a state of absolute nothing?

Once again, I am going to come back to the same equivocation fallacy that bubbles up over and over again in these exchanges - you are not merely looking to establish a case for a beginning to the observable universe. You are looking to establish a case for a creation ex nihilo event of the totality of existence, from 'absolute nothing'.

Big Bang cosmology does not establish that.

First of all, the Bible doesn't actually claim the universe came from absolute nothing. I know that many read it that way but it really doesn't make that claim. It claims our universe was created and it began to exist. Secondly, the BB does exactly claim that the universe...space, time, matter and energy didn't exist prior to about one-hundredth of a second from the BB or thereabouts.

I don't know if it did or not.

In fact, I have no reason to suspect there was any 'cause' in the traditional sense. There is no such thing as a 'law of causality' in physics. We know, in fact, that our classical understanding of causality starts to break down at the quantum level.

Classical yes, causality no. We still have the underlying causality even if it isn't deterministic.

What I do know is that at no point in any of this is it necessary, nor even remotely helpful, to invoke a god, because all that does is pile on a myriad of other questions.

Modern Science at its earliest foundations was to understand how God did things. God was foundational in that it supplied a rational universe, an accessible universe, cause and effect, the universe as unified and objective.

There are no theories about anything we've been talking about, since science is currently incapable of addressing it. There are a few hypotheses, and lots of speculation.

That's a problem for you and your apologetics. It's not a problem for me

. No problem for me.

Interchangeable, not inseparable.

Source?

We know they didn't exist in the same form they currently occupy in the observable universe.

We do not know whether they came into being ex nihilo from a state of 'absolute nothing', or that they represent the totality of existence itself. That, whether you like it or not, is what you have tasked yourself with demonstrating.

Not really.

Careful not to pull a muscle with all that stretching.

Plant life created before the stars - wrong by billions of years. Earth created before the stars - wrong by billions of years. Moon and stars created together - wrong by billions of years.

The creation order of flowering plants, insects, and whales - wrong by hundreds of millions of years.

I would not invoke Genesis to make your point, if I were you.

Actually, I have to much to say about this and not enough time right now.

 

[Tolworth John]

God of the gaps.

Actually you are proposing science of the gaps and blind faith where science has nothing to say.

To answer, 'What caused the big bang?' by saying God of the gaps is nonsense. It only makes sense if you have a rational explaination for the cause of the big bang.

So do you?
Or is the cause a Supernatural being, out side of time and space a reasonable explanation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, from scientific sources, biologists, universities etc. or apologists?

All of the above, and by apologists I mean those in the scientific field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just like everyone else.

So what makes for good and what makes for bad since everyone does it?

 

[cvanwey]

The problem with an eternal universe which is inescapable has two factors, one being change. Something eternal can't change; the second factor is that we know that at the earliest point in our universe there was no time, space, matter or energy and if it were eternal it would be in a cyclic state then all possible arrangements and states of that prior universe would have been obtained at some time during this past. Most theories don't have multiple inflation events in their models, at least that I am aware of anyway.

Did you happen to watch the 9:38 minute video I offered a few posts back? I sent it for a reason. The people in there are not concerned with whether "god did it" or not. The point of the video, is that no one really knows. And I'm sure all your 'points' have already been taken into advisement as well.

We already know that this specific universe did have a beginning. The very most we know is that there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter and most importantly no laws of nature.

Please see above

To claim that scientist sees no difference either way is false for many scientists. Many scientists have an agenda to quash God as an explanation.

I'm sure some do. But as I stated, IF it happens to turn out that the universe is eternal, like theists assert God is eternal, then the assertion for a creator would seem to possibly nullify itself. Hence, the theists have a bunch to loose, if it should happen to prove true, that the universe is eternal. Whereas, we still have other 'conclusions' available, outside of... "welp, God did it", if this universe should happen to have had a true beginning.

Another plausibility...? What about an infinite regress of universe formations? You come across an interesting quote, when you 'google' the following "is infinite regress possible?"

Obviously, if we assume that there cannot be infinite regresses, we will conclude that infinite regresses are impossible; and if we assume that everything must have a cause, then infinite regress is necessary. ... So we must try to avoid doing so if we wish to consider logical possibility or necessity.

 

[John Helpher]

You seem to be one of those christian mind readers huh.

No, I'm just paying attention to what you say and analyzing the motivation behind why you say it. When people do this properly is can sometimes sound like mind reading, bit it is not. Here is an example:

Show me where I said Christians don't need to obey Jesus?

You did not use those exact words, but you did say:

This is just your interpretation of what a christian is. Every christian has their own definition of what constitutes a Christian based on the bible.

Do you think you have to follow all Jesus teachings to be a Christian?

The obvious implication of the second comment is that one does not need to obey Jesus to be a Christian. The implication of the first comment is that the individual can make up whatever criteria they want regarding what it means to be a Christian. Putting those two thoughts together presents a picture that you can be a Christian simply by claiming to be Christian without any need to do what Jesus said it means to be a Christian. Interestingly enough, although you are Atheist, this is essentially the same argument that most of the church world uses, too and is consistent with the factual evidence of Jesus, even in his own day, complaining that people claimed to be his follower but would not obey him.

No mind reading necessary.

Ok, How much must a person obey to be a christian? All, 70%, 30% what?

This is more evidence that you did not think it was important to obey Jesus even way back when you claimed to be Christian. The reasoning is that if you can't be 100% obedient then there's no point in even trying to be %30 or %70 obedient. You would not apply this logic in other areas of life like the rules on this forum, where you say that there's not even any point in trying to obey the rules here if you can't obey them perfectly, or in society where you say there's no point in expecting anyone to obey any of the laws of the land since they won't obey them perfectly.

No mind reading necessary.

Will you define what a christian is by how much they must obey Jesus teachings?

Christianity is already defined by Jesus. If you're not interested in his definition then you can make up whatever you want which is consistent with your argument that the failure of Christianity in your life is what convinced you that there is no God, but if you did not apply the standards Jesus told his followers to apply, you cannot say that Christianity failed you.

What you can say is that you're not interested in what Christianity has to offer. That would be the more honest approach. No mind reading necessary to see that.

What if a mechanic fails to fix a car? Is he still a mechanic? The answer is yes.

You're misrepresenting the scenario. I did not say people will not fail along the way. If fact, I already addressed this by saying, "or at least try to obey". You even commented on it by retorting, "Now you say "try to". What does that mean?"

Remember that? Obviously, if a mechanic fails to fix the problem, he's still a mechanic for at least trying. My point was that you are suggesting one does not even need to try to repair cars and could still claim to be a mechanic. No mind reading is necessary to see that your willingness to deliberately misrepresent this point indicates you're not being honest with me or yourself about this.

And then there are not tens of thousands of different mechanics saying their version of what a mechanic is is the "true" one as Christianity has.

If you want the analogies to be comparable in this context you'd need to say there is a chief mechanic who's defined what the standards are for what it means to be a mechanic. In that context, you could point to all those professing mechanics who either do not even try to fix cars, or try to fix cars in a way contrary to what the chief said and rightly say they are not real mechanics.

The fact that there are so many people making various claims is precisely why it is so important to look carefully at what the boss said and yet when I ask you to do that, you suggest such a thing isn't important because doing so is just my opinion. That is irrational and strongly indicates your argument is based more on an emotional reaction rather than a genuine willingness to look at the facts.

And no I was making a point about the bible as a bad communication method which you ignored,

What's bad about it? Do you feel this way about other books which have recorded history in them? Do you just not like reading or do you think reading in general is a bad way to communicate information? Do you make this argument about children in schools reading books? Nah, I don't think so, because that would be a foolish argument to make, and yet, for some reason you've singled the Bible out as having some kind of special problem in this area. Why?

You did not try to understand what I said because that is not what I said at all. All I wanted was evidence not a mind blowing experience.

No, I did not misunderstand you. I understand exactly what you're saying. All you want is evidence; you just don't want historical documentation because you think such evidence is bad for some reason. So, what other evidence are you expecting? The collection of testimonies and historical documents we commonly refer to as the Bible isn't good enough, the teachings of Jesus are just an opinion which you seem to think is optional for Christians, and you're not expecting some kind of mind-blowing experience like a miracle, so what evidence would be enough for you?

I think the truth is that you really were referring to some kind of spectacle, much like the people in Jesus' day demanding "signs" to prove himself to them. But, Jesus knew better. The people who experienced his miracles one day were the same people calling for him to be crucified the next day.

If you're not prepared to act on Jesus' teachings, to apply the standards of his kingdom to your life (or at least actively try to) then believing in his existence would be pointless and since you've already essentially said you're not interested in practicing his teachings, all this hoopla from you is just so much game-playing, probably because you're still carrying around some resentment from your churchy days.

 

[the iconoclast]

Heh, most people spend their whole lives trying to give it another shot, but hey, if God doesn't jump through hoops for you on the first go-round it must be because he doesn't exist.

Hey brother you are cool and I like your style. God bless you saint

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @Clizby WampusCat

Wow @John Helpher is on point

 

[Kylie]

I did have a look in the link you posted, but I didn't see that information there. Of course I realize that personal details of any person's life is not my business (in the sense that I'm owed such information), but to be fair neither was I the one who mentioned that business in the first place. I was just curious to know how he interpreted your experiment since he was the one who asked you to try it in the first place.

He appreciated that I tried it, and he has no problem with me being an atheist just as I have no problem with him being a Christian. We both respect each other's right to hold whatever beliefs suit us best.

I'm guessing neither of you were particularly satisfied with the results so I can understand your sensitivity in this area. It sometimes feels a little awkward trying to explain that I have a lot of respect for marriage (and the effort it takes to make a marriage work) so I'm hoping the two of you will manage to find a way through whatever difficulties you may be having in this area.

Nope. There was no hard feelings or anything, we are both very happy with our relationship. Our differing religious beliefs don't cause any problems at all.

I hope you won't mind if I add a bit more to the general topic of your experiment, (though I'll understand if you feel like you've had enough of this topic). You said the "ask Jesus into your heart" experiment failed, but you may be interested to know that this isn't something Jesus asked his followers to do. Yes, it's become common in church circles these days to believe that the sinner's prayer is all it takes, but that's a bit like asking someone to test the temperature at which water boils by talking nicely to the water. When the water fails to boil you can say, "welp, that didn't work; I guess water doesn't actually boil".

Still, that's what so many of his followers have asked me to do.

A rational person would note that the procedure used was not correct regarding what it takes to boil the water. If you want the water boiled you must heat the water. It's like that with testing God's existence; if you want to perform the test properly, you must follow the proper procedure. In the case of understanding that there is an intelligent creator who made us, Jesus' instruction was to apply his teachings if we want proof of this intelligent being.

In other words, a formulaic ritual (like eating bread and drinking special wine, or getting baptized in water, or saying a special prayer, or going to a particular building) will produce a negative result much like talking nicely to water will not make it boil.

And what would this consist of? Being nice to people, helping out those who suffer? Treating people with respect? I certainly try to do that. There are lots of people who do it other than me and aren't Christian. Are you suggesting that living a particular lifestyle will turn someone into a believer?

 

[Kylie]

Remember that h2o battery experiment, to get a result you must follow a certain criteria.

How did you come to Christ or what criteria did you follow?

What method or methods did you use?

I have not come to Christ. In my 40 odd years never once have I been a Christian, and never once have a ever had any kind of religious belief.

Are you willing to do what is needed or are you not going to be systematic?

If you can give me a method I have not tried, then I'd be happy to give it a go. But so far, everything believers have told me amounts to little more than, "This is what got me really convinced of the belief I already believed, so it must work the same for you too!"

I challenge you. What harm is there for you to give it another shot - maybe one or two - and do things His way, not your way?

I see no reason to waste my time on something that I know from experience is unlikely to produce results.

If God is imaginary then you have nothing to lose, correct?

Do you remember me telling you about the dragon? Do you believe in the Dragon? If not, why not? I mean, if the Dragon is imaginary, then you have nothing to lose, right?

Or do you understand that the lack of a significant down side does not warrant the weasting of time?

 

[the iconoclast]

I have not come to Christ. In my 40 odd years never once have I been a Christian, and never once have a ever had any kind of religious belief.

Hey hey kylie


So when you decided to give it a shot - to please your husband - what did you do to try and come to Christ?

If you can give me a method I have not tried, then I'd be happy to give it a go. But so far, everything believers have told me amounts to little more than, "This is what got me really convinced of the belief I already believed, so it must work the same for you too!"

1. I asked first my dear . What methods have you tried?

Dont be shy.

I see no reason to waste my time on something that I know from experience is unlikely to produce results

2. So its doomed to fail regardless? What experience justifies this position?

Do you remember me telling you about the dragon? Do you believe in the Dragon? If not, why not? I mean, if the Dragon is imaginary, then you have nothing to lose, right?

I will never forget you preaching a dragon to me. It was obvious that you made up this dragon who is invisible, blessed you and lives in your backyard. I tested your explanation and decided it was not true. I went through your history and found this dragon to be at odds with your belief system.

Anyways it's called a category error. When a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have the property my proud atheist who defeats illogic yet somehow tries to use an illogical argument.

Or do you understand that the lack of a significant down side does not warrant the weasting of time?

What does mean?

Please dont ignore the subject and become distracted. I will repeat the section you seem to be unable to answer.



Here it is below.

I was honestly open to God and would have accepted it if He chose to speak to me.

Remember that h2o battery experiment, to get a result you must follow a certain criteria.

3. How did you come to Christ or what criteria did you follow?

What method or methods did you use?

I always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know.

4. Are you willing to do what is needed or are you not going to be systematic?

5. I challenge you. What harm is there for you to give it another shot - maybe one or two - and do things His way, not your way?

6. If God is imaginary then you have nothing to lose, correct?

Answer the questions with an answer that addresses the subject matter.

There are 6 questions. Let's see if you have the courage to answer them or if you will answer them with criticism or distraction.

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie


So when you decided to give it a shot - to please your husband - what did you do to try and come to Christ?



1. I asked first my dear . What methods have you tried?

Dont be shy.



2. So its doomed to fail regardless? What experience justifies this position?



I will never forget you preaching a dragon to me. It was obvious that you made up this dragon who is invisible, blessed you and lives in your backyard. I tested your explanation and decided it was not true. I went through your history and found this dragon to be at odds with your belief system.

Anyways it's called a category error. When a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have the property my proud atheist who defeats illogic yet somehow tries to use an illogical argument.



What does mean?

Please dont ignore the subject and become distracted. I will repeat the section you seem to be unable to answer.



Here it is below.





Remember that h2o battery experiment, to get a result you must follow a certain criteria.

3. How did you come to Christ or what criteria did you follow?

What method or methods did you use?



4. Are you willing to do what is needed or are you not going to be systematic?

5. I challenge you. What harm is there for you to give it another shot - maybe one or two - and do things His way, not your way?

6. If God is imaginary then you have nothing to lose, correct?

Answer the questions with an answer that addresses the subject matter.

There are 6 questions. Let's see if you have the courage to answer them or if you will answer them with criticism or distraction.

Cheers

Yeah, I've given you all the answers about my own personal experience that I'm going to. If you're not happy with it, too bad. You don't seem to understand that:

1. It's none of your business what I did.
2. I don't have to justify my non-belief to you, particularly when you suggest that I lack courage for not answering them to your satisfaction.
3. I've already answered several of these questions.

 

[John Helpher]

Nope. There was no hard feelings or anything, we are both very happy with our relationship. Our differing religious beliefs don't cause any problems at all.

Thanks, Kylie.

And what would this consist of? Being nice to people, helping out those who suffer? Treating people with respect? I certainly try to do that. There are lots of people who do it other than me and aren't Christian. Are you suggesting that living a particular lifestyle will turn someone into a believer?

It may be helpful to get it clear what the exercise is meant to achieve. On the thread you linked to, you said this:

You tell me I have to accept Jesus into my heart and then I will get the proof of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Did you not once stop to think that maybe I have already done that?
And that I got nothing?

From this I understand the goal was to get some kind of evidence which satisfied you that there really is a creator behind your existence and that this creator is the Christian God, who sent Jesus as the ultimate demonstration of himself to humanity. The idea was that if you say the ritual prayer you will get a feeling, or a vision which you could not deny as coming from outside yourself and this would equate to proof.

I suppose the first thing to recognize is that this essentially equates to asking God to jump through hoops. From the way you explained it, it sounds like you made what you understood to be a sincere attempt, but I'm not questioning the sincerity behind your willingness to get proof. Rather, I'm saying that from God's perspective, what good would that proof be to him or you? I don't think God is opposed to revealing himself to us; in fact, I believe that's what he wants. The question is always whether there would be any purpose in him doing so.

For example, lets say a friend calls you over to her house in the middle of the night; it sounds urgent. You rush over, but when you arrive, there's no emergency or any issue at all; your friend just wanted to know if you really were willing to go through the inconvenience. You might not feel bothered by that because hey, she's your friend. But, what if you have millions of friends who all want to know the same thing. You would very quickly recognize a need to sort out who's worth your time and who's just playing around. If you recognize the person is genuine then you'd go over to help them, but if you believed they just wanted, out of curiosity, to see if you'd show up as proof of your friendship, then you'd probably not bother.

The same principle applies to God and people asking him for proof. Rather than becoming a party trick who shows up every time someone looks in the mirror and says his name three times, he's said that people should practice his teachings. If you practice his teachings, then you will come to know that he's real. This is what it means to "accept Jesus into your heart". It's not a ritual or a special prayer, but rather a way of life which is what makes it all the more compelling as evidence.

Remember your comment about getting proof of the Holy Spirit by asking Jesus into your heart? That almost always means getting a feeling. This is problematic because feelings come and go and "visions" can easily be explained away as hallucinations or some kind of episode. They are often arbitrary and highly subjective.

But principles and standards are not. When Jesus says that we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other, he's referring to a logical fact; we cannot say that we're working for love if we're only doing the work because we expect payment. That's not a feeling or an opinion.

If you were to try to practice this teaching you would very quickly see just how alien it is to the way the world works. You would immediately notice that there is something unique about this teaching; something which no other religion, government, group or organization in the world teaches and consequently separates those who practice it from all those who don't.

It represents a significant answer to the argument that Atheists love their families, obey the laws of the land, watch sports, go to the movies, pay their bills, and go to work for their daily bread just like Christians, with the only differences being rather shallow distinctions like not using "bad words" and attending religious meetings once (and sometimes twice) per week. The average Atheist can recognize that the differences are pretty minor, bordering on pedantic; they are not significant in meaning or purpose and yet the average Christian likes to pretend they really are quite separate.

But Jesus' teachings really are radically different; where is the Atheist who is prepared to quit his job working for money to go and work for love full time? For that matter, where is the Christian willing to do so? Anyone willing to make the effort would come to understand that it really is God who is behind such a radical teaching. That's what it takes; all or nothing.

 

[the iconoclast]

Yeah, I've given you all the answers about my own personal experience that I'm going to. If you're not happy with it, too bad. You don't seem to understand that:

1. It's none of your business what I did.
2. I don't have to justify my non-belief to you, particularly when you suggest that I lack courage for not answering them to your satisfaction.
3. I've already answered several of these questions.

Hey hey kylie

Please excuse me if I have over stepped. I have found flaws in what you say and i wanted to put your approach under a microscope. If you answered the questions I would not repeat in asking the them.

It would appear that you are not systematic in your approach and desire not to seek the proof following the correct criteria. Your unbelief is not systematic but based on incorrect assumptions and failure to comply with the criteria that will get you a result.

You can come here as regularly as you like and act like your the most logic person on earth. I will forever have this one over you.

Kylie - "i always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know."

Icon - "are you willing to do what is necessary and come to God on His terms"

Kylie - "no!"

Until the next time, cheers my proud atheist.

 

[Kylie]

From this I understand the goal was to get some kind of evidence which satisfied you that there really is a creator behind your existence and that this creator is the Christian God, who sent Jesus as the ultimate demonstration of himself to humanity. The idea was that if you say the ritual prayer you will get a feeling, or a vision which you could not deny as coming from outside yourself and this would equate to proof.

I suppose the first thing to recognize is that this essentially equates to asking God to jump through hoops. From the way you explained it, it sounds like you made what you understood to be a sincere attempt, but I'm not questioning the sincerity behind your willingness to get proof. Rather, I'm saying that from God's perspective, what good would that proof be to him or you? I don't think God is opposed to revealing himself to us; in fact, I believe that's what he wants. The question is always whether there would be any purpose in him doing so.

For example, lets say a friend calls you over to her house in the middle of the night; it sounds urgent. You rush over, but when you arrive, there's no emergency or any issue at all; your friend just wanted to know if you really were willing to go through the inconvenience. You might not feel bothered by that because hey, she's your friend. But, what if you have millions of friends who all want to know the same thing. You would very quickly recognize a need to sort out who's worth your time and who's just playing around. If you recognize the person is genuine then you'd go over to help them, but if you believed they just wanted, out of curiosity, to see if you'd show up as proof of your friendship, then you'd probably not bother.

The same principle applies to God and people asking him for proof. Rather than becoming a party trick who shows up every time someone looks in the mirror and says his name three times, he's said that people should practice his teachings. If you practice his teachings, then you will come to know that he's real. This is what it means to "accept Jesus into your heart". It's not a ritual or a special prayer, but rather a way of life which is what makes it all the more compelling as evidence.

Remember your comment about getting proof of the Holy Spirit by asking Jesus into your heart? That almost always means getting a feeling. This is problematic because feelings come and go and "visions" can easily be explained away as hallucinations or some kind of episode. They are often arbitrary and highly subjective.

But principles and standards are not. When Jesus says that we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other, he's referring to a logical fact; we cannot say that we're working for love if we're only doing the work because we expect payment. That's not a feeling or an opinion.

If you were to try to practice this teaching you would very quickly see just how alien it is to the way the world works. You would immediately notice that there is something unique about this teaching; something which no other religion, government, group or organization in the world teaches and consequently separates those who practice it from all those who don't.

It represents a significant answer to the argument that Atheists love their families, obey the laws of the land, watch sports, go to the movies, pay their bills, and go to work for their daily bread just like Christians, with the only differences being rather shallow distinctions like not using "bad words" and attending religious meetings once (and sometimes twice) per week. The average Atheist can recognize that the differences are pretty minor, bordering on pedantic; they are not significant in meaning or purpose and yet the average Christian likes to pretend they really are quite separate.

But Jesus' teachings really are radically different; where is the Atheist who is prepared to quit his job working for money to go and work for love full time? For that matter, where is the Christian willing to do so? Anyone willing to make the effort would come to understand that it really is God who is behind such a radical teaching. That's what it takes; all or nothing.

I'd say your analogy is flawed. My friend already knows I exist, so they would not need to test me existence like that.

If however, you said that there was a person who would help me if I needed such help and you gave me the number, I'd want to make sure that there was indeed a person at the other end who could provide such help BEFORE I was putting my life on the line. I mean, if I wait until I'm bleeding to death and then call a number when I didn't know if they could actually help me, then I'd be silly, wouldn't I? In short - ya don't test essential things in situations when you can't afford for it to fail. Look what happened to Franz Reichelt.

In any case, It's not just to satisfy my curiosity. If I get the evidence, I'd become a believer, as I've said many times. By giving me said evidence, God would get what he wants - me to believe in him.