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.
Sure, if he were approachable and available to everyone that wanted to talk to him then there would be very little debate about his existence.
This is what I struggle with, too. Through prayer, I have asked God to speak to me and to allow me to believe in him but nothing ever happens. Over many years of prayer.
How and when does God decide who he talks to?
Do you know why you doubt that He is talking to you?
I would not have any idea why He would choose to not speak to you. I would rather say He was waiting for you to listen. But having said this, I will say that you shouldn't take it personally.Because I don't hear him talking to me. I don't feel as though he has answered me in any way, I don't feel his presence or hear any words from him. If I'd been praying to him to ask him to help me feel his presence, wouldn't he answer my prayers?
1. Thematic unity.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Archaeological and historical accuracy.
4. Its survivability and popularity.
5. Its enormous impact upon individuals and societies.
6. Its correspondence to reality/explanatory power.
7. The uniqueness of its redemption message.
And so on. As you can see, there is nothing circular in my reasoning here. None of these points standing alone (except maybe point #2) is a knock-out punch in favour of the divine nature of Scripture. But taken together, the cumulative weight of these points makes my belief quite reasonable.
Couldn't all these elements still be found in a man-made religion?
Okay. So whether or not the New Testament was written long ago and whether or not the gospel writers might have been religious fanatics really has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the New Testament. Thanks for clearing that up.I never said that age or fanaticism had anything to do with it.
You're referring to effects which exist contemporaneously with the causes. The situation I was describing is where the cause existed without the effect (the universe), in which the situation leads to the suggestion of the cause being personal. But as I said, I can understand why you might have a hard time agreeing to that one because it took me a while myself before I grasped the idea.There are plenty of causes and effects that happen without conscious decision.
The "personal" trait is not really new to the argument, but even if we withdrew the "personal" trait from our discussion, we are still left with the cause of the beginning of the universe having the following characteristics:I don't agree with the new argument that you are now trying to insert into the old one.
What in the world makes you think effects would exist before a cause?You're referring to effects which exist contemporaneously with the causes. The situation I was describing is where the cause existed without the effect (the universe), in which the situation leads to the suggestion of the cause being personal. But as I said, I can understand why you might have a hard time agreeing to that one because it took me a while myself before I grasped the idea.
These traits could be applied to any god or first cause and does not narrow down for us what the cause could be. Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial. You're using very broad terms here.The "personal" trait is not really new to the argument, but even if we withdrew the "personal" trait from our discussion, we are still left with the cause of the beginning of the universe having the following characteristics:
1. timeless
2. immaterial
3. extremely powerful
4. uncaused
These are traits that we commonly attribute to God, and that's why the KCA leads to this implication.
You could do that with historical accuracy alone. Next?
No. Other religions can be historically accurate and still be completely wrong.
Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist? That you might be wrong? If so, why do you insist on telling other people that they are following the wrong god if yours is just as much of an uncertainty as theirs is?
I don't think this is true. I think you might have meant to say they could be applied to any claimed representation of God. If that is what you meant to say (which would be clearer with correct spelling) then OK. Otherwise, can you verify that you think every god (small g) is causeless? I know that some gods are said to be caused.These traits could be applied to any god
Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial.
I don't think I said that.What in the world makes you think effects would exist before a cause?
Well, although the KCA does not point directly to the Christian god all by itself, it does narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, Thor or Zeus would not apply, nor would many of the other pagan gods because the cause would have had to exist without the universe and would thus have been much more powerful than Thor or Zeus who are both said to exist within space-time. The cause also could not have been the infamous "spaghetti monster" because he was made of spaghetti, and as you point out, the cause would have to have been immaterial. It turns out that the KCA narrows down the list to gods such as the Muslim, Jewish , or Christian god.These traits could be applied to any god or first cause and does not narrow down for us what the cause could be. Of course anything that was the first cause would already by definition have to be uncaused, timeless, and immaterial. You're using very broad terms here.
I challenge you to name one that comes even close to being as historically accurate as the Bible.
Oops. Well, I still can't quite understand what you said. You seem to think that effects and causes exist during the same time? That doesn't make sense. They are two separate events?I don't think I said that.
Well, although the KCA does not point directly to the Christian god all by itself, it does narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, Thor or Zeus would not apply, nor would many of the other pagan gods because the cause would have had to exist without the universe and would thus have been much more powerful than Thor or Zeus who are both said to exist within space-time. The cause also could not have been the infamous "spaghetti monster" because he was made of spaghetti, and as you point out, the cause would have to have been immaterial. It turns out that the KCA narrows down the list to gods such as the Muslim, Jewish , or Christian god.
Timeless and uncaused are basically the same thing. Joshua defined immaterial as existing outside the universe (which is something a first cause would have to do because the universe wasn't around at that time). These are broad terms which could be applied to any first cause.I am not convinced this is true for timelessnees or immateriality, fwiw. I am able to imagine that God can experience time without the universe, for example.
Prayer is not a conversation with him. It is a conversation with your imagination... Why have you said this then:
"He is completely against talking to me right now"
.. when in actual fact you are now saying that you will not consider having a conversation with Him?
It doesn't matter if they want to approach him or not, he is not approachable period.I really don't know why I need to remind you that not everyone does want to approach and talk to Him. What do you like to say about that?
Here's a classic example of what Joshua260 is talking about: freezing water. Why does water freeze? Because the temperature has dropped below 0 degrees Celsius. And as long as the temperature remains at least this low the water will remain frozen. Thus, the cause of the freezing water and the frozen water are concurrent with each other. I'm sure Joshua260 has other examples he could offer.Oops. Well, I still can't quite understand what you said. You seem to think that effects and causes exist during the same time? That doesn't make sense. They are two separate events?
Actually, Joshua260 explained very well that the KCA limits the field of possible First Causes. The argument does not bring us to the conclusion that just any old first cause we might imagine will do. Re-read his comments.So the argument specifically has nothing to do with your God and can easily be used to argue any first cause.
Any history textbook you can find is more historically accurate than the bible is. Half the Bible was written as fiction after all.
I've asked you to provide me with something that another man-made religion can't replicate and it seems you have failed to do so after a few frivolous attempts.
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?