Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
you're not allowed to prove God's existence by pointing to Jesus, because you haven't yet proved that Jesus was God).
What is your best argument for the existence of God?
Oh dear. "Not necessarily on the physical plane," eh? Maybe He appeared to you in a dream? Or in a warm feeling in your heart? Or a voice in your head?
And can I suggest you reread the opening post? The point of it is to examine your beliefs and see if you defend them logically or dogmatically.
You met Jesus personally? What, while you were conscious? This is amazing!
You didn't happen to capture this historic meeting on camera or video, did you?
But I do know Him.So the story goes. Have you ever seen Jesus? Have you ever seen God? No? So, yes, "hidden".
If you are going to mention the bad things that happen to us and attribute them to God then all the good should also be attributed.Sorry, got lost a little here. How did I mention "the bad"?
So if someone wants to curse someone else and see them dead, God should honor this.Of course, of course. I quite understand that God does now always answer prayers with a yes. Despite His saying that He would.
Actually the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ proves “Immanuel” God with us. Did they cover the Gospels at Atheist seminary?I've already pointed out why @redleghunter is mistaken. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness is a serious argument against Christianity, and saying "God isn't hidden because Jesus appeared to us" is begging the question (that is to say, you're not allowed to prove God's existence by pointing to Jesus, because you haven't yet proved that Jesus was God).
That's very good. I hope you practise what you preach.
Obviously? Why obviously?
No, what I would like is evidence of a good quality. Wouldn't we all?
Because the book was inspired by God. As such, we would expect it to contain wisdom beyond that which could be produced by normal people. But it doesn't. It's not special in any way.
Come now - if you went into a bookshop and someone said, "Hey, there's a new book here, and it was written by God's chosen people!" you'd expect it to be pretty amazing, wouldn't you? you'd expect it to have a unified and wondrous message. You'd expect it to change your life. You'd expect it to be marvellous and convincing to all. But the Bible has none of that.
Of course it wouldn't. The logical way to proceed would be to follow where the evidence leads, as you yourself said.
Actually, massive intellectual advancements do happen virtually overnight, yes, in a historical sense. So yes, I would expect a book written at the direction of God Himself to contain something more spectacular than it does.
No, you don't. Nobody does. Because God is very hard to find, isn't He? Almost as if He doesn't exist. And "follow your own path" is a red herring. Let's see if God exists or not first, then we can have a debate about how we ought to relate to Him.
But have you found God? Do you actually have evidence that He exists?
Presumably you had good reason to believe that God exists. If it was sound reasoning, you should be able to share it with the rest of us, so that we too can be in full possession of the facts.
I had made up my mind not to worry about what other people thought
This I don't know.I don't want to put words in your mouth so before I continue to assume that you agree that no index is divinely inspired, could you settle that issue for me? In your opinion, is there any index which is divinely inspired?
I see the Bible as perfect art. It counts on the collaboration of man, I think. The interaction between man and the word is part of the performance, as I see it.Firstly, if something [such as an index, added mine] is required [to know things in detail, added mine], then something is lacking - so it is not complete, and hence not perfect.
Jesus never said this (your "*" added to verse 21) and he didn't intend this to be meant. It could be that the message out of that passage was for this person only, though... and for other people that value money too high.*Don't actually do this.
My point was Santa isn't relevant.Hahah. Very funny. Let's see you disprove Santa, then.
That's a good point.you should consider whether or not you really know it after all.
Thank you. That's very good of you.I will follow your rules.....
They are, actually. Think about it a bit. If God commands something because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness which God knows, but did not create. Therefore, we do not require God to be able to act morally, since an independent standard exists which God Himself is subject to.- Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
They are not mutually exclusive.
Sure it is. "There is no elephant in this room". Disproving negatives can be very easy.- Can you prove that Santa does not exist?
It is not possible to prove, or for that matter, disprove a negative.
Sure it is. Elijah did it, remember? He challenged the priests of Baal to a pray-off, and he beat them.- Why don't prayers ever have any effect?
Once more, it is not possible to prove, or for that matter, disprove a negative.
Sure! I want you to disagree with me. And then I want you to give sound reasons for why you disagree.Now, before your protestations start remember I played by your rules. No where did you say you had to agree with the answers I gave.
It would, yes. It would also not be good evidence, since "I can feel that X is true" can be used to defend any proposition, no matter how absurd.The indwelling of the Holy Spirit.....something that can only be understood by personal experience.....so that would necessarily exclude you.
Okay.I think, first, you need to prove/define what existence is.
Oh, don't worry about what I think. Just worry about what you think, and whether or not you have evidence to show it is true.I already told you...Person to person. This is the most real existence--realer than thinking and touching, which you seem to elevate above the rest of your existence.
I see. So how exactly did this "meeting" with God take place?Yes and yes! "Amazing", yes,now you know why we believe! The spiritual birth is not like your physical birth, where you may have recorded it with man made devices.
You think you do. I think you're mistaken, because I don't think a God exists for you to know.But I do know Him.
Can you remind me - when did I make this argument? I may have lost track of it. What post did I make it in?If you are going to mention the bad things that happen to us and attribute them to God then all the good should also be attributed.
Stating evil present in the world is proof against God’s existence is like the clover calling the grass green.
Sure they did. The lesson was quite short. It just went "Just because the Bible says something happened, that's not evidence of anything. Saying "the Bible says this is true" doesn't mean that it is.Actually the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ proves “Immanuel” God with us. Did they cover the Gospels at Atheist seminary?
As I pointed out they are not mutually exclusive your predicted disagreement notwithstanding.They are, actually. Think about it a bit. If God commands something because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness which God knows, but did not create. Therefore, we do not require God to be able to act morally, since an independent standard exists which God Himself is subject to.
On the other hand, if you choose the second option (something is good because God commands it) then morality is created entirely by God. Therefore, whatever God says is good. Therefore, God could say that anything is good - including anything which we might consider evil, such as theft, rape or torture - and it would be good, because God Himself has commanded it.
These are mutually exclusive. Either God consults an independent authority to find out what goodness is, or He creates it Himself.
Can I suggest you read this short article to make sure you understand what the Euthyphro Dilemma is, how it applies to God, and why it's a problem for Christians? The article suggests a way out of the dilemma which I would argue is invalid, but it does do a good job of summarising what Euthyphro's Dilemma is.
But i can't see the room so you have not disproved that there is no elephant in the room....see, 2 can play that game......"There is no elephant in this room".
So you admit that prayer is effective.....thank you.Sure it is. Elijah did it, remember? He challenged the priests of Baal to a pray-off, and he beat them.
What someone feels is very different than what someone experiences. Do you just love your family as a feeling or do you experience that love for them? Don't confuse the 2, they are very different.It would, yes. It would also not be good evidence, since "I can feel that X is true" can be used to defend any proposition, no matter how absurd.
Would it be fair of me to say that you should give me all your money, because I just have a really stronginward feeling that I just know to be true, that your money actually belongs to me?
No need to go too fast. Because, you see, there are lots of people who are quite confident that arguments or writing could prove (at least, as in "provide good reason to think") that God exists. I am quite open to a logical argument for God's existence, although the ones I have seen so far have not been very convincing.I'm doubtful that any argument or writing can prove such a thing as the existence of God. If you are going to limit evidence to such things, then I will grant that you have won your argument.
That's not my premise, and I'm not sure why you think it is. My point is that if you are going to argue that God exists - which is the purpose of this forum - you need to have good reason to think so.Your premise seems to be that since God's existence can't be proven with words, why pursue such a question. This circular logic is not logic at all.
I'm happy for you and I to explore those. I simply disagree with the idea of starting by assuming them. The beginning of the enquiry should not be "God exists; how can I prove it?" but rather, "Does God exist? Let's examine the evidence."You have dismissed my own method of exploring this question. I repeat here--establish what needs to be proved by exploring the premise: (1) God exists. (2) That Jesus came to our world to reveal God's nature.
Okay. Interesting from a socio-historical point of view.I then sought to prove or disprove the premise and my search began. The Bible is one resource that I explored to evaluate the merits of the premise. While I did not find God by studying the Bible, I did find substantial evidence and concluded that scripture did reflect how humans who lived thousands of years ago would perceive such an individual as Jesus.
I'm sure they did. But were they correct to believe it?While the scriptures don't prove that God exists, I'm satisfied that the most of the people who wrote what they did believed what they wrote.
Good! What were these events you witnessed that convinced you that God exists?Since I didn't prove or disprove the premise, what did my study get me? I don't view my study of the Bible as a waste of time. But my personal search did not end with the Bible and it was not until several years later in my life that events I witnessed gave me the conviction I hold today.
Um. Not necessarily a problem, but not a healthy sign. Your focus should be "Do I have sound reasons for believing the things I believe," not "is it important for others to agree with me or not?"My big "breakthrough" came about once I had made up my mind not to worry about what other people thought.
And...?This decision took my search into other directions that I had not considered before.
No offence, Thomas, but surely as evidence for "is there an all-powerful, all-knowing, universe-creating deity in existence" the fact that your tooth got better is pretty small evidence. Don't you think?actually, the prayer for my tooth problem did work at that time.
I saw black spots on my tooth that didn't went away using the tooth brush, then I prayed and, according to what I saw... they went away.
Santa isn't relevant? A curious thing to say. If I thought that a word-travelling, present-giving demigod who gave presents every December the 24th might exist, I'd say that's pretty relevant.My point was Santa isn't relevant.
The creator is. I mean the possible existence of a creator from an agnostic pint of view.
Your knowledge of science and geology is deficient. What on earth do you mean evolution couldn't have produced that beautiful island? Of course evolution and other natural forces could have.This thread is much about evidence, so I give you the sort of evidence I like. Consider the beauty of a landscape. No evolutionary pressure could explain this, as far as I know. I explain this by a loving God:
I think you don't understand the Euthyphro Dilemma.As I pointed out they are not mutually exclusive your predicted disagreement notwithstanding.
But if you could see the room, then we could establish that no elephant existed in it. Therefore, it would be possible to prove a negative. Especially is we add that it is a full-sized, adult, real-life elephant.But i can't see the room so you have not disproved that there is no elephant in the room....see, 2 can play that game......
The story says that prayer is effective. Got an example of prayer being effective outside of a story, have you?So you admit that prayer is effective.....thank you.
Sure they are. And "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is nothing but a feeling that the Holy Spirit is inside of you.What someone feels is very different than what someone experiences. Do you just love your family as a feeling or do you experience that love for them? Don't confuse the 2, they are very different.
My boldingI think you don't understand the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I don't like setting homework, and avoid it wherever possible. But if you're not going to do a little background research it's really not worth our time discussing it.
And there is the flaw; when confronted with contradictory evidence of that 'I can't see the room' (which is true) you switch to the 'but if' scenario to construct a 'winning' argument.But if you could see the room, then we could establish that no elephant existed in it. Therefore, it would be possible to prove a negative. Especially is we add that it is a full-sized, adult, real-life elephant.
And you demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between feelings and experiences...not surprising.Sure they are. And "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is nothing but a feeling that the Holy Spirit is inside of you.
If you are going to say that "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is a certainty that God exists, then I will say: and I have a complete and total certainty that your money is rightfully mine. In short, what evidence do you have that this indwelling of the Holy Spirit is in fact real?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?