Knowledge can also change the trajectory of one's faith, sometimes in a completely different direction all together.
Upvote
0
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.
Knowledge can also change the trajectory of one's faith, sometimes in a completely different direction all together.Knowledge does not "destroy" faith, since after you extend just a little faith, knowledge can be used to help grow that faith. Knowledge without faith, will quench the desire for faith.
1. YesIs he able to implement it what it takes? If so, why hasn't he.
It's simple:
1) Does your god know what it would take to convince me without violating my will? Is he omniscient?
2) If yes, can he carry it out? Is he omnipotent?
3) If yes, why doesn't he? Is he willing that any should perish? Is he benevolent?
Why not be a deist then? I wonder what so many people have against deism.I don't need any. I am not claiming God does not exist, I just don't believe He does based on the evidence so far.
... I could be wrong, but it almost seems like you're saying that, if there is a God, and if that God is 'timeless,' He "can't create" anything, since ....... well, do DO SO would imply His somehow pushing through and beyond timelessness, or somehow inverting or making 'implode' a state of timelessness in order to enable the act of creation to transpire (which requires 'time').
Or am I incorrect in 'how' I've understood what you've said (and in what I've attempted to understand what you've said by my application of hermeneutics to what you've said)?
... I mean, I'm willing to allow you to push this further through the Hermeneutic Circle so that I might gain a more coherent, and thereby, more substantial understanding of what you're really saying.
What if it isn't an an extra dimension in which some form of 'time' still exists in an exterior presence outside of our present universe in which we live?
What if there is something inherent within the nature of timeless being that can can still rip open the logical barrier between timeless existence and an 'act' of creation?
Maybe another way to think about it is to contemplate, perhaps, what Frank Close states in the last of 10 points in the following, very short video? And I'd ask you, is this something that Lawrence Krauss would agree with? If not, then which of them is the 'more' rational and logical, NV?
So an investigative journalist talks with experts on the history and accuracy of the Bible, to medical experts, to historians etc etc and the conclusions of these experts is that the NT account is accurate and you say he has not presented enough evidence.have read a Case for Christ. It was hardly a complete review of the available evidence
Isn't that what Christians want?
I would know more of what is true. That is a good thing.
If I don't believe, your god failed. He's either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not benevolent, or not.1. Yes
2. Yes.
3. Yes He does it everyday but you refuse to believe.
Sort of. I don't know all the evidence that could be out there that I have not seen that might convince me. But in the end I will either be convinced or not.Only you know what is sufficient to convince you.
Why would I become a deist when I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to believe a God exists?Why not be a deist then? I wonder what so many people have against deism.
I’m not being a wise guy. I am just curious why almost every ex-Christian storms out saying “This is ridiculous, I’m now an atheist” instead of storming out saying “This is ridiculous, the Bible doesn’t describe God, God could care less about humanity!”
Yes. Each person gets to evaluate the evidence and see if they are convinced. You don't get to tell me if I should be convinced or not.So an investigative journalist talks with experts on the history and accuracy of the Bible, to medical experts, to historians etc etc and the conclusions of these experts is that the NT account is accurate and you say he has not presented enough evidence.
Now you are calling me a liar. Again, no one an decide to believe something they are not convinced of by the evidence. You don't get to be so arrogant to "know" my motivations. What if I told you there is sufficient evidence to believe that Alah is the true God and you just don't want to believe it.Sorry but you are making excuses not to believe.
I don't have to, but if you want to discuss that book you can make another thread and I would.If Lee Stones book was inaccurate or insufficient then you need to provide information to show where.
How is that possible? Where are you getting this information? The fact is the first written account was written decades after the events, we don't have the originals, the earliest manuscript we have is around 130 and the earliest manuscripts we have of all four gospels is around 180. If you are getting your information from only christian sources maybe you should look at information from non believers and see why they do not believe.For me I had very little information, I knew that even liberal skeptical Christians, who doubted the biblical accounts of miracles had also shown that the NT was written by eyewitneses.
That archeologists had demonstrated the historical accuracy of the NT.
No, that is bad epistemology. Just becasue a person is accurate with one thing does not mean they are accurate with all things. Also, the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence that is needed to be convinced. If you told me you had a dog named Fred i would believe you without any further evidence, if you claimed that big foot existed I would need more evidence to convince me. Claiming a dog is a mundane claim claiming big foot exists is an extraordinary claim.If someone can be shown to be accurate and reliable then it is reasonable to believe them when they report something one finds unbelievable.
Maybe I will. I have done a lot of study and research and that is why I became unconvinced.See John Robinson treating the new testament
And
Sir William Michael Ramsay work on digging up the middle East.
So you want me to go to hell?In a word, no.
Yes, it is surprising to me that theists here are telling me knowing the truth is a bad thing. Do you want to know what is true over what is false?Why is it a good thing? Are you sure it is a good thing?
Wow, I don't deny god exists or the supernatural. I am unconvinced of they are real. I have done nothing on this site but to state honestly why I don't believe and few people actually engage in that, a lot more engage in what you have done here. Accusations of dishonesty, why?Because of your exuberance to deny anything and everything, I don't believe that as well. A searcher your not.
Not knowing will send me to hell if it is real. At least knowing the truth I would have the chance to make that choice.Be careful, knowledge of the Christian God's existence, can be truly depressing for some and up setting since they do not like the Christian God, as they read of Him in scripture. If you really believed you were hell bound would that be comforting to you? You might be better off not knowing?
When was the last time a Christian was stoned in the US?That is not the way it works. Some will believe you, but others will pick up stones to stone you.
So you believe in the change Gospel. Not convincing, Muslims have changed lives as well as secular people.Your "witness" is not: "Everyone look how much God Loves me over the rest of you since he came to me and not you", but your witness has to be "I was this big time sinning atheist and God made a huge change in my life the same kind of change He can make in your life so join me in seeing the change He has made in me." (Like God did with Paul)
Knowledge and faith are incompatible. Faith as defined in the bible is (Heb 11):Knowledge does not "destroy" faith, since after you extend just a little faith, knowledge can be used to help grow that faith. Knowledge without faith, will quench the desire for faith.
For what it's worth, you're wrong. Our faith isn't a blind faith without evidence. It, as William Lane Craig puts it, is a reasonable faith.1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Assurance of things hoped for and conviction of tings not seen is believing without evidence. I can believe in anything with faith.
Also, notice all the following stories of great faith as described in the rest of the chapter tell of stories where people believed without evidence ans were commended for it.
I disagree that we should believe in something without sufficient evidence.For what it's worth, you're wrong. Our faith isn't a blind faith without evidence. It, as William Lane Craig puts it, is a reasonable faith.
It says we have assurance of what we hope for. If hope is the criteria then I can have assurance of anything. I hope that big foot is real, should I believe he is based on hope?Assurance of things hoped for, and conviction of things not seen... There is assurance, and there is conviction - there is evidence. Can any of us "know" in the technical sense that God is real? No. There is an element of faith to it.
No I don't, I ask people for evidence that will convince me.You keep asking for people to convince you, but obviously that can't and won't happen.
I was a christian despite your arrogant claim that you can somehow know I was not. I believe your experiences happened I don't believe your reason for them because you have not provided sufficient evidence for belief.You claim to have been a Christian for many years - yet if you don't even believe your own experiences, why would you believe any of ours?
You provided no evidence except a story. I believe the story, I don't believe God had anything to do with it becasue you have insufficient evidence to believe that he did.I provided examples of God providing money miraculously to my family. That's evidence, but you reject it.
Again, all you provided was a story of healing which I believe. You provided no evidence that God healed you.I provided example of God miraculously healing me. That's evidence, but you reject it.
That is a lie. You tell me two stories of supernatural events and expect me to believe you and be convinced that god exists. Your standard for belief is ridiculously low.There's honestly nothing anyone can say here to convince you. You don't/won't accept anything anyone says.
Why not instead pray to God to tell you what to say to convince me. Something you are unwilling to do.I'll pray that someone invents a time machine so you can literally travel back in time and meet Jesus. I suspect that's the only thing you would be willing to accept.
Look, does God know what would convince me or not?But even then, you would test Him and make him perform some miracle. But then I wonder if He even did that if you would somehow try and create some test to prove that it was true and not faked.
You are admitting here that the evidence for gods existence (which I agree exists) is insufficient for belief on its own (Which I agree also). You believe God exists without sufficient evidence for belief.There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God, but in the end, it will always be faith. Not a blind faith without evidence, but faith nevertheless.
Well, actually you believe you don't have a choice in what you believe. I find that interesting as again, there are more educated and intelligent people than you who have looked at the evidence and believe that God exists. So what does that mean? if people are incapable of deciding what they believe but are forced into their beliefs based upon evidence, why do people who see the same evidence walk away with different beliefs?I disagree that we should believe in something without sufficient evidence.
I don't recall claiming that you weren't ever a Christian. You'll need to quote me on that. What I do think that actually matters is what you believe yourself, today, about your Christianity. At the moment, you are an atheist. At the moment, you do not believe that God exists. Therefore, if you do not believe that God exists, then you do not believe any experiences you had as a Christian were actually genuine. If you are an atheist, then you cannot believe that God heard or answered your prayers, you cannot believe that you were convicted of sin, and you cannot believe that the Spirit led you in anything you did. That's the reality of today. And that's what matters to me.I was a christian despite your arrogant claim that you can somehow know I was not
Well I'm not entirely sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you. My wife and I had 4 to 5 bills that were coming due that totaled $2,037. We didn't tell anyone about this. We prayed about it, and we were looking for ways to come up with the money.You provided no evidence except a story. I believe the story, I don't believe God had anything to do with it becasue you have insufficient evidence to believe that he did.
Well, as far as I know, 6 fractured bones in a person's foot don't miraculously heal over night. If you actually believe the story, then what explanation can you provide other than God? I think the more likely reality is that you don't believe the story, because there is no natural explanation. Or at least, there is no likely natural explanation.Again, all you provided was a story of healing which I believe. You provided no evidence that God healed you.
Well, He's actually already provided everything you need to believe.Look, does God know what would convince me or not?
Well, according to you, I don't have a choice in what I believe, so at least for the moment, the evidence I have IS sufficient for me to believe that God exists. If it wasn't sufficient, then I wouldn't believe.You believe God exists without sufficient evidence for belief.
Why do you avoid my questions to you? People are convinced or remain unconvinced by the evidence and their standards of belief which are different for each person.Well, actually you believe you don't have a choice in what you believe. I find that interesting as again, there are more educated and intelligent people than you who have looked at the evidence and believe that God exists. So what does that mean? if people are incapable of deciding what they believe but are forced into their beliefs based upon evidence, why do people who see the same evidence walk away with different beliefs?
Do you believe I was?I don't recall claiming that you weren't ever a Christian. You'll need to quote me on that.
I agree.What I do think that actually matters is what you believe yourself, today, about your Christianity. At the moment, you are an atheist. At the moment, you do not believe that God exists. Therefore, if you do not believe that God exists, then you do not believe any experiences you had as a Christian were actually genuine. If you are an atheist, then you cannot believe that God heard or answered your prayers, you cannot believe that you were convicted of sin, and you cannot believe that the Spirit led you in anything you did. That's the reality of today. And that's what matters to me.
I believe the story. Now give me evidence that the god of the bible provided that.Well I'm not entirely sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you. My wife and I had 4 to 5 bills that were coming due that totaled $2,037. We didn't tell anyone about this. We prayed about it, and we were looking for ways to come up with the money.
Someone we didn't know well from Church, knocked on our door the day before the first bill was due, and said that they were praying and felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to write us a check for $2,037.
Now sure, it's possible that God doesn't exist, and that He didn't hear our prayer, and that He didn't prompt someone we didn't know that well to give us money. It's possible that the person just liked the number 2,037 and randomly (and wrongly) thought that the Spirit was telling them to give it to us.
You are making an extraordinary claim and want me to believe on mundane evidence. The honest answer is I don't know until sufficient evidence is found. Why is it more likely that God provided the money over a coincidence or this person could read minds? You think it is more likely because you believe God exists, that is confirmation bias.Sure, it's possible. But if we're honest here, I think the most rational explanation is that God exists, He saw our need, and He used someone else to help provide for us.
I know you do, my standard of evidence is different.I'm not sure what you need to be convinced that was God, but whatever it is, I'm sure I can't provide it. You would probably need me to find some written list of the bills I had, confirming that they added up to $2,037, then somehow provide recorded evidence from the moment I found out how much we needed until the moment we received it that proves we didn't disclose that amount to anyone. Then you would also need that person to somehow (I don't know how they could) demonstrate to you that the Spirit, during their prayer time laid that idea on their heart.
Sorry, but you either accept it or don't. The evidence, I think though, lends itself towards God.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. I believe this happened to you. I am unconvinced it was the God of the bible that healed you. Why not another supernatural explanation or a natural explanation that we don't understand yet. The best answer is "I don't know".Well, as far as I know, 6 fractured bones in a person's foot don't miraculously heal over night. If you actually believe the story, then what explanation can you provide other than God? I think the more likely reality is that you don't believe the story, because there is no natural explanation. Or at least, there is no likely natural explanation.
This is demonstrably false. I am unconvinced.Well, He's actually already provided everything you need to believe.
Ok, so what. A book says something, why should I believe this is from God?Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
I know you believe. Our standards of evidence are different.Well, according to you, I don't have a choice in what I believe, so at least for the moment, the evidence I have IS sufficient for me to believe that God exists. If it wasn't sufficient, then I wouldn't believe.
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?