MrsFoundit
Well-Known Member
I'm counting two mistakes there.
You are counting two things you do not understand.
One of which is as simple as "We believe in One God."
Another spirit is not another God, even if it exists.
Upvote
0
I'm counting two mistakes there.
You think it's nonsensical to be able to show that God exists? Okay. No argument there. If you can't, you can't.
Yes. All perfectly valid. The fact that you refuse to accept them is irrelevant, unless you can offer justifications.
that the word proof has more than one meaning.
So, here we are on page 14, and Christians still have no evidence for their God.
There are those who only know about God.
And than there are those who actually know God.
For those who know God, they know Love.
Love unites. Love finds Oneness.
Those who only know about God, they tend to find separation and division.
A very influential person in my life is a medieval women mystic by the name of Marguerite Porete. Porete wrote about Divine Love in "The Mirror of Simple Souls" where she drew a vision of Human Beings uniting with God through Love.
She also wrote that there are two kinds of churches. The first she called the "High Holy Church". That church preaches Love. The other church she called the "Little Holy Church". That church preaches rules, laws and order. It's the church that preaches Love is where both of your options can be correct. That's because Love unites. The church that preaches rules, laws and order on the other hand will always divide and find separation.
No surprise, Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the church that preaches rules, laws and order.
The moral? it's through Love that humanity finds unity in God, even coming from different religions.
I know in my spirit in my heart. Which is no proof to you, but it is to me.
I can't give you some incantation and have God appear to you in a burning bush.
This is why people go to seances because things do happen. Like I said, demons prey upon people looking for signs.
The proof is in your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. I can't explain it more than that. These things are intangible.
My answers remain the same. The Bible says that creation alone is enough physical proof.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Only you know what you did or how you went about seeking God. Were you trying to make God show himself in the way that you wanted him to or in how he chose to?
I don't know if this was how you were but there is a story about a drowning man.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
Most times it isn't that God isn't there, it's we can't see him because he doesn't meet our expectations.
This is not circular reasoning, its the fact that neither one of you believe the answer.
I don't think it can be verified historically that the Resurrection actually occurred. I've been very upfront about this, so I don't understand why you keep on insisting that I respond to this particular question.
Do you want to know how a generic theist (or panentheist, in my case) can zero in on any particular religion, or don't you? You're assuming that we ask the same types of questions that atheists ask, but that isn't necessarily true.
I don't disagree with Paul. I disagree with you.
So you refuse to answer the question?
Defence of the trust in a Christian philosophy/world view is not a commitment to producing "evidence", particularly not when there is an outright refusal to specify what might be appropriate evidence.
Adopt a philosophy, apply a philosophy, develop faith/trust in said philosophy, as I said on the first page of this thread.
Are you going to give me your evidence? Or, are you going to continue to perpetually 'need further criteria'?
You already told me your position - (paraphrased) "Your more interested in the incarnation." But the Bible/Paul is pretty darn clear...
If the resurrection cannot be affirmed 'historically', than I have absolutely no idea, still, why you insist on referring to the 'historicity' of the Bible? It would be like reading and verifying claims of people, places, and physical events, from another claimed holy texts, and lending further credence to their claims of the divine. It really doesn't. You have also admitted that as well, as above (i.e.) "I don't think it can be verified historically that the Resurrection actually occurred."
Negative. Paul's presented dichotomy:
1.) Christ rose from the dead.
2.) Christ did not rise from the dead.
If option 1.), Christianity is true.
If option 2.), Christianity is not true.
There is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.
I was an earnest follower in Christ for over 3 decades. If had ever received some type of sign, I would likely be on your side right now. But I never did.
Set your own criteria, go ahead.
I need none of your generous concessions.
See my post 306.
Right, but if you believe people are not lying, why would you ask for "evidence" from us, knowing none of us actually acquired appropriate evidence by asking another human being to hand it over?
What difference would you seeing a description of the details of peoples own experiences make? it is not appropriate evidence for you unless you have the experience yourself is it?
Wait a minute..? Now you are asserting the existence of 'demons' too? Okay, let's go with this assertion as well, as if it is already true.
How would you be able to tell the difference between the contact from a demon, verses your claimed God? How do you know a demon is not contacting you, while in earnest prayer? If a demon is deceptive, and knows [your] assumed criteria for contact, how could you distinguish the different between [the] God, and a deceptive and clever demon?
But this still gets us absolutely no closer. Opposing and mutually exclusive 'faiths' claim the exact same things. i.e.
'your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. These things are intangible'.
As the OP thread states, I have already conceded the necessity for God's existence. The above gets us no closer to your specific claimed God. How do I know your claimed God is the God? Maybe your answers, to the inquiries above, will have already distinguished as such, moving forward?
I was an earnest follower in Christ for over 3 decades. If had ever received some type of sign, I would likely be on your side right now. But I never did. Hence, I'm now where I am, asking how (you) know your contact was from [the] God, and not some opposing God, some demon, your own imagination, feelings and/or 'goose bumps', other, other, other? Again, please look to post #43.
I'm no stranger to this story. Heard it many times, from many Christians.
- If God does not meet our expectations, then how are we to discern it was from God?
- If God is only using other people, and/or items already known to man, like boats/etc, then isn't it quite possible such deeds could have been granted, without God's interaction?
- It is a joke, hence, the punchline eludes to an unfalsifiable notion. No one has come back to tell humans that God was there listening/answering.
I didn't say you would 'receive a sign' only this is how you meet God. You believe that he is and diligently seek him. You are not seeking a sign, you can't grasp hold of God like that. God is spirit you know him in spirit. There is no other way that I can explain it, which is why I said its like love.Pardon me, but stating to try in earnest, keep reading the Word, and maybe you'll receive a sign, could not be more classic, in circular reasoning. If not, please state why it is any different than these assertions below?:
You have no idea why I am interested in the historicity of the New Testament, despite not thinking that the Resurrection can be verified historically, because you have never once bothered to ask.
What I'm interested in is Lewis's trilemma and the question of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God. That requires addressing the issue of whether anything that is actually attributed to him can be considered historical.
If Christ is actually the avatar of the Hebrew aspect of Brahman, then no, Christ rising from the dead would coincide with Hinduism being true.
Other claims matter, and it's insane that you're arguing that they don't. Atheists usually like to point out that even the Resurrection doesn't prove Christianity, and they're right. You are wrong.
The question raised is: Are they truly preaching Love?Other claims to other God's also preach love, and claim to feel love from their 'god(s)'. If 'love' is some how [the] standard, then we are no closer to answering the exact same question, posed in #43. Can you please try again, maybe provide more detail?:
If person A and person B both make the exact same claims above, how do we distinguish which one is false? Again, go back to post #43
1. Both correct
2. One correct, one incorrect
3. Both incorrect
The way I think about your question is that you would have to be inside of and riding in my consciousness awareness for you to personally "experience" what I experience to understanding for why I believe the way I do. And because you would be unable to do that I would be unable to give you the evidence that has affected and changed me.Are you going to give me your evidence? Or, are you going to continue to perpetually 'need further criteria'?
I view Lewis's account instead as a 'false trilemma'.
Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Legend
When you read the accounts, from Mark to John for instance, you can almost smell the legend growing, IMHO. Heck, read Mark 16:8, then read Mark 16:9-20, just for starters.
My only point here is to direct you to what 'Paul' says in Scripture. He presents a true dichotomy, as presented in my last response.
It's not whether or not (I) agree or you agree/disagree. It's about what 'Paul' states
And yes, atheists reject many things in regards to the Bible, just like the Orthodox Jews for instance. So?
Prove it.Of course I am. Angel and demons are fully apart of the Bible.
Yes, there is indeed a book that tells a story about that.You can see them at work in Genesis when Pharaoh calls his magicians and they turn water into blood. Exodus 7.
Prove it.We are told Satan and by extension, all demons masquerade as gods or angels of light and that they have powers to deceive.
Prove it.A demon isn't going to contact you if you are reading your Bible and praying to God
Prove that.People who want to see 'proof' are especially open for it.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.Only Christianity has a saviour who died for you who you put your faith in. Only Christianity will have you repent of your sins and only Christianity says that God puts his laws on your heart. Only Christianity is a relationship.
You missed where cvanwey said he was an earnest believer.So earnest you now say he doesn't exist?
He doesn't have to. But if He refuses to show up, He can't blame us for thinking He doesn't exist.Why should God meet your expectations?
No, He didn't. The Bible said God said that.Look around you at the details of creation, God said that is enough physical proof.
I know. You responded to a question asked of someone else.There was no question addressed to me.
Of course I understand them. It's simple. We are not interested in whether you acknowledge anything, only what you can justify, so what you said is irrelevant. As is the CF Statement of Faith, which is also not evidence of anything, and so it was a mistake for you to cite it.You are counting two things you do not understand.
Yes. I see it on the sixteenth page of a thread in which you have been unable to provide any. It's getting quite funny at this point."Actually you nonsensically kept asking for evidence to support a philosophical position."
Can you see my word "evidence" there?
Oh, you've already shown you're not capable of, or interested in, understanding. If you were, you would either have presented evidence for your God's existence, or conceded that you can't.The fact that you claim they are valid is irrelevant, unless you can offer justifications. Especially for telling me what my opinion is.
Yes. Proof can mean either mathematical certainty, or just good reason to believe. You've failed to provide either of these for the whole thread.You "But we're not asking for proof.", (not maths)
Also you ""A logical argument of some kind that proves the existence specifically of the Christian God?" (not maths).
Well, it may not be sixteen pages, but you have still managed to misunderstand this rather simple point for an impressive amount of time.In your own words..."If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me."
Any Christian here who has had an encounter as you describe does indeed have your own standard of sufficient evidence. You are the one who does not.