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

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Sufficient for what?

Is your belief justified? Or, do you have to resort to faith alone? And if you have to resort to faith alone, is this a justified or sufficient reason to validate 'truth'? If so, how so? And if not, then why do you use faith to justify your beliefs?


If you feel it is instead justified somehow, this might mean you have evidence to back it up. But thus far, all 'evidence' provided, seems to lead to 'anecdotal' stories of God's contact. And again, if we also have anecdotal stories of God's contact, by Muslims, then we are back to square one, aren't we?

Because again, we do not know if all their stories are similar, exactly the same, different, or other? And even if we did, how does that resolve anything? -- Because you can even address two Christians alone, and their anecdotal stories for God's contact could also differ quite extensively.


So, is your belief merely faith based, or can you furnish reason; which distinguishes your beliefs apart from another, for which you reject?
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hence, you ultimately have to turn to the Bible to state your 'objective standards'.


Were did you get the words "objective standards" from?

So again, why is knowing what works for you any 'better' or 'worse' than what works for your neighbor, whom is religion X? Again, we are trying to figure out how one jumps from deism/theism to Christianity?


No one is going to "jump" to Christianity unless they are willing to, that would require dissatisfaction with their existing world view on their part.

Seems, all we are left with, might be 'faith'? And do we really want to examine this trait in depth, when trying to evaluate what is true?

I do. You probably do not. So I guess "we" do not.
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is your belief justified? Or, do you have to resort to faith alone? And if you have to resort to faith alone, is this a justified or sufficient reason to validate 'truth'? If so, how so? And if not, then why do you use faith to justify your beliefs?

So, is your belief merely faith based, or can you furnish reason; which distinguishes your beliefs apart from another, for which you reject?

This post apparently involves so many assumptions your point is incomprehensible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because again, we do not know if all their stories are similar, exactly the same, different, or other? And even if we did, how does that resolve anything? -- Because you can even address two Christians alone, and their anecdotal stories for God's contact could also differ quite extensively.

We have individual experiences because we are individual people, but we say "We believe in ONE God" not "I believe in my own god". We believe the myriad of different individual experiences verify our conviction in CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,378.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
I chopped the rest, because I'm not going to follow the red herring.

Many Muslims will say the exact same thing as you. Why are they incorrect?
One of the truths about any journey to God is that it's always an unusually personal venture. It's something where none other than God and ones self is involved. It's the same for any spiritual trajectory. So when MrsFoundit says that she knows what works for her, that's truth spoken. That's all one needs to know. Why question her heart? That makes no sense to me.

I'm having a lot of issues with the red herring comment. It seems so totally misplaced in this instance.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Were did you get the words "objective standards" from?

Again, the rest of your statement ultimately leads us down to the 'moral argument', or some adjacent argument, in an attempt to demonstrate or necessitate God's existence. Otherwise, there can be no 'true standard' ;) And again, like I stated in the OP, I have already conceded all such 'arguments'. All you must do now, is present a basis for THE CORRECT 'objective' standard. You keep asking here, in this thread, as well. (i.e) 'according to what standard'. In the end, you must appeal to the Bible to account for this, which loops us right back to the beginning. (i.e.) How do we know the Bible is 'God inspired'? How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? So, once again, can you tell me how we know God inspired the Bible, but not some opposing claimed and asserted holy texts?

No one is going to "jump" to Christianity unless they are willing to, that would require dissatisfaction with their existing world view on their part.

You skipped the proceeding part. Let me refresh your memory :)


'So again, why is knowing what works for you any 'better' or 'worse' than what works for your neighbor, whom is religion X?'

I do. You probably do not. So I guess "we" do not.

Do you then agree that the only true measure one can use, to determine the 'correct' God, is by way of faith? If so, I would be more than happy to explore the topic of faith.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This post apparently involves so many assumptions your point is incomprehensible.

Negative.

1. You either provide the evidence, whatever evidence you deem fit, necessary to demonstrate your God is real, while the others are mistaken?

Or...

2. You reconcile that it all boils down to faith, and faith alone. Which essentially means that anyone can assert their God is real; just the same as you, with the same amount of 'validation'.

Let me know?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Fallacious reasoning according to who? According to what standard?

"what standard"... Again, already conceded all arguments for God necessary existence. Now all you need to do, is tell me why [your] God's standard even exists?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
We have individual experiences because we are individual people, but we say "We believe in ONE God" not "I believe in my own god". We believe the myriad of different individual experiences verify our conviction in CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums.

So again, if many people, whom claim contact from an opposing God, are all earnest in their anecdotal stories as well, then how can we distinguish truth from fiction? Saying they all banded together, and all joined a club together does not do it, does it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
One of the truths about any journey to God is that it's always an unusually personal venture. It's something where none other than God and ones self is involved. It's the same for any spiritual trajectory.

Agree. Now see below...

So when MrsFoundit says that she knows what works for her, that's truth spoken. That's all one needs to know. Why question her heart? That makes no sense to me.

I don't doubt her sincerity. Just like I don't doubt other's sincerity. But we have a conflict here. They cannot BOTH be right, can they??? But they could certainly both be wrong ;) Please address post #43: (i.e.)

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken


I'm having a lot of issues with the red herring comment. It seems so totally misplaced in this instance.

I addressed this already, in multiple posts....
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
demonstrate the Bible specifically.
Do you mean give evidence that proves the Bible is true?

You see that ^ to start with you ask the wrong question. 'Proof' belongs to science, not the Bible. Asking for proof is like you asking for proof that one well-cooked meal tastes better than another well-cooked meal, it be can't be proved and neither can God or the Bible. Proof is the big thing these days, people always want proof. God doesn't want to be proven he wants faith. Faith is personal the same way enjoyment of food is personal. How do I explain my enjoyment of this meal to a person who dislikes the main ingredient? Christianity is about a relationship with God, you can't prove the relationship. We believe the Bible because of the relationship. Proof may give you head knowledge but it won't give you heart knowledge.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Faith comes first and then from faith in God you will have faith in his word -not proof.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
No one can give this to you, you have to seek it from your heart rather than your mind.

Here is some 'proof' 3 Evidences That Confirm the Bible Is Not Made Up if this helps.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Do you mean give evidence that proves the Bible is true?


No. Give evidence that demonstrates that your is true, and all others are false. See below.

You see that ^ to start with you ask the wrong question. 'Proof' belongs to science, not the Bible.

If you cannot substantiate your claims, with specific evidence, above any other's opposing claims to their gods, then your assertion(s) are absolutely no better than theirs. See below...

Asking for proof is like you asking for proof that one well-cooked meal tastes better than another well-cooked meal, it be can't be proved and neither can God or the Bible.

Flavor is subjective, agreed. But you are now entering the realm of an argument which ultimately ties us right back to the necessity for a God's existence; and I already conceded all of them :)

The Bible claims objective findings. I.E. 'Jesus resurrected from the dead'. This is an objective statement. Heck, as I told others,
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Thus, your above statement does not apply. Sorry. See below...

Proof is the big thing these days, people always want proof. God doesn't want to be proven he wants faith.

You assert this because you read it from a Book which states it came from the God you already believe in. But opposing holy books also claim faith, like the Qur'an. So, we have at least two books, which claim to use faith to verify their message as 'truth.' How do I determine which one is true, if I use the exact same mechanism to determine truth (i.e.) faith? See below...


Faith is personal the same way enjoyment of food is personal.

If this is the case, then we have absolutely no way to use faith as a reliable mechanism, now do we?

How do I explain my enjoyment of this meal to a person who dislikes the main ingredient? Christianity is about a relationship with God, you can't prove the relationship.

I'll lower the criteria even further, just for you... Can you demonstrate His mere existence in general? I can't seem to find Him. And I looked pretty hard, for over 30 years. If you can, please kindly demonstrate accordingly? See below...

We believe the Bible because of the relationship. Proof may give you head knowledge but it won't give you heart knowledge.

Well, we are no closer to getting to the truth then. Because, as I told others:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As I'm sure you are also aware --- "What we want, and what is, have no correlation, unless proven." - The unfamous 'Cvanwey'

Which has literally nothing to do with your insinuation that people just pick the parts of a religion that they already agree with and ignore anything else.

You understood correctly :) If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

I am not interested in second hand accounts of mystical experiences one way or the other. I would, however, say that any individual is justified in believing that their own experience is correct and that anything that doesn't match with it is incorrect, given that their own is the only one they have access to.

I am personally somewhat suspicious of mysticism, but this is powerful stuff, so if someone has an experience that feels more "real" to them than reality, I don't think discarding it is justified, unless they want to discard all subjective knowledge and embrace a form of solipsism.

Maybe a 'better' question to address/ask might be... Even if the Bible was internally consistent, from beginning to end, does this, in ANY way, 'prove' it was God inspired? If not, then lets move it along I guess :)

I am not an inerrantist, so I don't believe that the Bible is fully internally consistent in the first place. When people talk about theological doctrines, they are usually referring to concepts like Trinitarianism, the Incarnation, etc.

I had a feeling you might, that's why I stated as such, in that way, preemptively :)

It almost sounds to me, that without some 'ultimate purpose', you cannot bare to instead imagine the 'reality' of the possibility that when you die, 'that's all folks.' Am I close?

Nice mind reading attempt, but no. I struggle with depression, so you actually have it completely backwards. The prospect of eternal life really freaked me out at first, since it made me face the fact that I didn't really want to exist at all, much less forever.

My problem with all of this "all that matters is our subjective feelings" nonsense is that it means nothing to anyone whose subjective experience is actually negative. Believing that existence is ultimately good is an act of faith for me, and a pretty important one, because I do not have the luxury of being able to subjectively feel that it's meaningful if I believe that it's objectively pointless.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,378.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Agree. Now see below...



I don't doubt her sincerity. Just like I don't doubt other's sincerity. But we have a conflict here. They cannot BOTH be right, can they??? But they could certainly both be wrong ;) Please address post #43: (i.e.)

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken




I addressed this already, in multiple posts....
This is how I see it, and I'm sure in this particular forum we'll see a lot of disagreement.

They both can be right.

God is not a theology or a claim, though I admit that's as far as many get. But when a person gets to a place where they actually open their heart to God, they tend to find something else going on aside theology or claims. It's seeming to me that your arguing theology based on claims and not looking at what goes on inside of a person. It's taken a while to get this far, but I've learned to look past what people claim and look a bit deeper into how they actually make God a reality in their lives. Perhaps something to look at is the question: Is God a reality for that person, or a claim? I think you'll find different answers based by how a person approaches the Divine. If I see God just as alive and vibrant with in the Heart of someone of a different spiritual path than I follow, who am I to make claims otherwise? I don't know how to limit God in that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Which has literally nothing to do with your insinuation that people just pick the parts of a religion that they already agree with and ignore anything else.

Huh? My only point here was that just because we want something to be true, no closer validates it as being actually true, without proper justification. I suspect that this statement may resonate with some here? Maybe not you so much? Who knows?

I am not interested in second hand accounts of mystical experiences one way or the other. I would, however, say that any individual is justified in believing that their own experience is correct and that anything that doesn't match with it is incorrect, given that their own is the only one they have access to.

I am personally somewhat suspicious of mysticism, but this is powerful stuff, so if someone has an experience that feels more "real" to them than reality, I don't think discarding it is justified, unless they want to discard all subjective knowledge and embrace a form of solipsism.

Your answer is confusing. But regardless, care to take a wack at the given scenario:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken


I am not an inerrantist, so I don't believe that the Bible is fully internally consistent in the first place. When people talk about theological doctrines, they are usually referring to concepts like Trinitarianism, the Incarnation, etc.

Just trying to establishing 'rule-outs.'... My only point here, was that we could agree to put a specific claim to bed...? Even if it is demonstrated that the 'Bible is consistent', still gets us absolutely no closer to determining that the Bible IS the Word of God. Right?

Nice mind reading attempt, but no. I struggle with depression, so you actually have it completely backwards. The prospect of eternal life really freaked me out at first, since it made me face the fact that I didn't really want to exist at all, much less forever.

My problem with all of this "all that matters is our subjective feelings" nonsense is that it means nothing to anyone whose subjective experience is actually negative. Believing that existence is ultimately good is an act of faith for me, and a pretty important one, because I do not have the luxury of being able to subjectively feel that it's meaningful if I believe that it's objectively pointless.

Kinda confused again? But thank you for your answer here :)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This is how I see it, and I'm sure in this particular forum we'll see a lot of disagreement.

They both can be right.<---?????

God is not a theology or a claim, though I admit that's as far as many get. But when a person gets to a place where they actually open their heart to God, they tend to find something else going on aside theology or claims. It's seeming to me that your arguing theology based on claims and not looking at what goes on inside of a person. It's taken a while to get this far, but I've learned to look past what people claim and look a bit deeper into how they actually make God a reality in their lives. Perhaps something to look at is the question: Is God a reality for that person, or a claim? I think you'll find different answers based by how a person approaches the Divine. If I see God just as alive and vibrant with in the Heart of someone of a different spiritual path than I follow, who am I to make claims otherwise? I don't know how to limit God in that way.

Sounds like you judge someone, based upon their actions, and not just theirs claims. But how would you distinguish a true-blue Muslim against a true-blue Christian? If they are both stead-fast in their faith, and truly believe, at least one of them has to be incorrect, don't they? Or are you saying these claimed mutually exclusive god versions BOTH exist? I'm confused?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hello all! If @cvanwey doesn't mind, I'd like to join the discussion.

I would like to announce that I too have been convinced by the arguments for theism (just for the purposes of this thread, as an intellectual exercise).

Let us then pretend that I become convinced by the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument (that is, the Argument from Design) and the Moral Argument, the Fine-Tuning argument, and other logical proofs of theism.

I now believe that this universe and the human race as they are could not possibly have come into being by themselves, and I am now ready to admit that there is sound evidence that a god or gods exist.

Having conceded this, I too would like to hear what evidence there is that the god I now believe exists is in fact the God of the Bible, as believed in by Christians.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You see that ^ to start with you ask the wrong question. 'Proof' belongs to science, not the Bible. Asking for proof is like you asking for proof that one well-cooked meal tastes better than another well-cooked meal, it be can't be proved and neither can God or the Bible. Proof is the big thing these days, people always want proof.
But we're not asking for proof. We're well aware that, in science, nothing can be "proven," only in mathematics. All we're asking for is convincing evidence.
Remember, we are in the Christian Apologetics Forum. Here, you are expected to use rational discussion and arguments to make your case. As it says in MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose :
"Christian Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with the rational defense of the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints. The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."
God doesn't want to be proven he wants faith. Faith is personal the same way enjoyment of food is personal. How do I explain my enjoyment of this meal to a person who dislikes the main ingredient? Christianity is about a relationship with God, you can't prove the relationship. We believe the Bible because of the relationship. Proof may give you head knowledge but it won't give you heart knowledge.
What the Christian God wants is not relevant until we have evidence that He exists. Please remember, in this thread @cvanwey and I have accepted that a god of some kind exists, but we are waiting for reasons to think that it is the Christian God.
Look at it from our point of view. There are thousands of gods throughout history. Literally, thousands. So, now that I have accepted that one of them is real, I need some way to distinguish between the many which are not true and the single one that is true.
So, how do we choose? All of their followers say that their god or gods are the real ones. They can't all be right, as just about all religions claim to be the one true religion, and all others false.
You say that Christianity is about a relationship with God. But what if other religions say the same thing? Muslims do, for example. So how do I know that your religion, Christianity, is the true one?
You are in the debating forum. What reasoned evidence have you?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Huh? My only point here was that just because we want something to be true, no closer validates it as being actually true, without proper justification. I suspect that this statement may resonate with some here? Maybe not you so much? Who knows?

No, I was replying to this post, which had nothing to do with justification at all. If you insinuate that people only pay attention to the parts of a religion that they agree with, you are going to get called on it.

But in case it's not blindingly obvious, I do not agree with your notion of proper justification at all. I think refusing to trust that reality is good because you're afraid that it's not could actually be a damnable offense.

Your answer is confusing. But regardless, care to take a wack at the given scenario:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

You are not listening to what I'm saying. I do not think that any individual's personal experience is particularly relevant to anyone else, because it's a second-hand account. Each of these two people is justified in assuming that their own experience is correct, but a third person cannot be expected to adjudicate between the two.

Just trying to establishing 'rule-outs.'... My only point here, was that we could agree to put a specific claim to bed...? Even if it is demonstrated that the 'Bible is consistent', still gets us absolutely no closer to determining that the Bible IS the Word of God. Right?

Ehh, honestly, I think certain consistent theological themes that run throughout Scripture actually are what points to divine inspiration, so I would not agree with this.
 
Upvote 0