Proof that God exists?

[Elioenai26]

I told you, I reevaluated them.

I'm looking for something surer, something not subject to subjective feelings.

Nothing wrong with that, as evidenced by the Bible.

So you move from that which you claim is subject to subjective feeling, to being completely subjective in your view of reality?

Is this not a contradiction?

 

[Gadarene]

So you move from that which you claim is subject to subjective feeling, to being completely subjective in your view of reality?

Is this not a contradiction?

Where did I ever say my view of reality was subjective? Again, deal with what I actually say, not what you imagine.

 

[Gadarene]

...and the simple message of Jesus Christ gets lost in the process. I think your on the right track in your thinking process. You may know Christ better than a lot of Christians do. I honestly mean that.

What IS the Heart of Jesus Christ? I don't think many Christians actually ask that question even in their claim that Christians are Christ like. Though...I will say that many of my spiritual hero's are Christians. But they tend to be the mystics and saints...the people who go beyond all of the rules and beliefs.

.

That's nice of you to say, but it is simply extraneous to me. I don't see that he is any kind of author of feelings like that, nor is he necessary to feel such things.

 

[Elioenai26]

Where did I ever say my view of reality was subjective? Again, deal with what I actually say, not what you imagine.

what is it then?

 

[Gadarene]

what is it then?

There aren't really many other options if the one thing you do know about it is "not subjective". -_-

 

[dlamberth]

That's nice of you to say, but it is simply extraneous to me. I don't see that he is any kind of author of feelings like that, nor is he necessary to feel such things.

Nope, you don't need to either. What I'm pointing towards has to do with the God ideal that many of us hold. I didn't say anything about Christ being the author of those "experiences" (I'm going beyond "feelings") There is something more, something deeper in the Human Psyche going on here. And that’s what I’m looking at. What’s it mean to be a more human, Human Being? The way I answer that question is to say that Love, Compassion and Service to others plays a big part of it. But even if you don't have that God ideal in your own awareness, I bet you still know it anyway because we all know the importance of Love. A “belief” in God is not required with that.

.

 

[Gadarene]

Nope, you don't need to either. What I'm pointing towards has to do with the God ideal that many of us hold. I didn't say anything about Christ being the author of those "experiences" (I'm going beyond "feelings") There is something more, something deeper in the Human Psyche going on here. And that’s what I’m looking at. What’s it mean to be a more human, Human Being? The way I answer that question is to say that Love, Compassion and Service to others plays a big part of it. But even if you don't have that God ideal in your own awareness, I bet you still know it anyway because we all know the importance of Love. A “belief” in God is not required with that.

.

Can't fault that.

 

[dlamberth]

Can't fault that.

it's simple, isn't it. And Universal. I have no idea why we make it so complicated or why we cause division and even make war upon each other based upon our "beliefs" when the answer is right in front of us in the form of Love.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dlamberth Nope, you don't need to either. What I'm pointing towards has to do with the God ideal that many of us hold. I didn't say anything about Christ being the author of those "experiences" (I'm going beyond "feelings") There is something more, something deeper in the Human Psyche going on here.

But Christianity's problem is how specific it is - it isn't enough to simply live a good life, or try and mimic Jesus - you have to follow their rules exactly, or die.

What rules did Jesus say Christians, Jews and all mankind should follow?

Adam and Eve were given 1 rule to follow and they couldn't even do that.

Genesis 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it,
for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'
Genesis 5:5 And all the days of Adam which he lived are nine hundred and thirty years, and he dieth.

1 Corinthians 15:22 for even as in Adam all are dying,
so also in the Christ all shall be being made alive

 

[Tiberius]

I'm fully aware of the chemical changes that goes on in the body. So if you want to describe us as just a biological entity then OK. Like the guy who said that abortion is OK cause the fetus is just a blob of protoplasm and isn't worth anything. That people are just biological machines so they aren't worth much. Describing humans purely based on science makes a person one dementional. Deliberate deception? Please explain that.

Ah, in other words, science is wrong because it makes you feel sad and not special.

Alrighty then.

 

[Tiberius]

Disrespect and hypocrisy? Exactly the same as you do to us. Ridiculing? exactly the same thing atheists do to us. Calling our God an "it" for example. Often times on this site we end up going round and round accomplishing nothing but to insult and ridicule.

This is a Christian based site and you're making yourself out to be the victimized ones?

 

[Tiberius]

Jesus is the truth. If you truely desire the truth, Jesus is the one that guides us into it. He resurrected from the dead! You have to admit that is awesome.

Thor promised to get rid of all the ice giants, and I don't see any ice giants around. That is pretty awesome too.

Star Trek has holodecks and replicators. That's REALLY awesome!

Now do you see that reality is not determined by how awesome we want things to be.

Besides, study science and you'll realise that nothing in the Bible can even come CLOSE to being as awesome as reality.

 

[Tiberius]

Ever hear of the term "blind faith"?

Yes, and I can't for the life of me think of a single example in the Bible where someone believes in God without having something more than blind faith.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by trientje
Disrespect and hypocrisy? Exactly the same as you do to us. Ridiculing? exactly the same thing atheists do to us. Calling our God an "it" for example.
Often times on this site we end up going round and round accomplishing nothing but to insult and ridicule.

This is a Christian based site and you're making yourself out to be the victimized ones?

Kinda like a hoola hoop

Hudsucker Proxy, The (1994) Scene - YouTube

 

[Tiberius]

Your response is no to my question.

Therefore, you maintain that p2 could be interested in (x) and at the same time, refuse (x) if presented by p1.

It follows then, that the determining factor in the decision to refuse (x) lies in p2's impetus for rejecting (x) from p1.

What could possibly be p2's impetus or motive for being interested in (x), and at the same time refusing (x)?

A good case could be made that the refusal of (x) by p2 is because (x) is contradictory to p2's idea of what (x) should be.

No.

P2 is interested in Y. P2 refuses P1's offer of X because it has no established relationship to Y.

For example...

You are interested in booking a rocket flight to the moon. I ask if you want to see my collection of belly button lint. Since it has nothing to do with booking a flight to the moon, you refuse.

Gadarene was saying that I cannot conclude that you are uninterested in booking a flight to the moon on the basis of your refusal to look at my belly button lint collection.

Similarly, I can't conclude that you don't like cats on the basis of you being a fan of Lady Gaga. Nor can I conclude that you prefer baths to showers because your favorite food is pie.

Now, if I establish a relationship between the two, then yes, I can draw the conclusion. "If you look at my collection of belly button lint, I'll give you a ticket to the moon." If you refuse then, I can conclude you aren't interested in a ticket to the moon. Similarly, if it can be established that only cat people are fans of Lady Gaga, or that all pie eaters prefers baths, then I can draw those other conclusions as well.

 

[Elioenai26]

This is a Christian based site and you're making yourself out to be the victimized ones?

Whether or not this is a Christian site has no bearing on the veracity of one's claim that one is being victimized.

If I go to an atheist forum and ridicule and degrade atheists there, atheists would consider it to be ridicule and degrading even if it is done on an atheist forum. Why? Because they accuse us of doing the aforementioned here on a Christian forum! How much more would they consider it to be ridicule if done in their own forum?

The locale of degradation has no bearing on the veracity of the degaradation or the ridicule. Ridicule and degradation is ridicule and degradation whether it is done in a forum (Christian or atheist) or in person.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, and I can't for the life of me think of a single example in the Bible where someone believes in God without having something more than blind faith.

You are not familiar with the account of Didymus who is called Thomas then.

Or the apostle Paul

Or the ten other apostles of Christ for that fact.

All of them believed in God, and I assure you, it was quite more than blind faith.

 

[Elioenai26]

No.

P2 is interested in Y. P2 refuses P1's offer of X because it has no established relationship to Y.

For example...

You are interested in booking a rocket flight to the moon. I ask if you want to see my collection of belly button lint. Since it has nothing to do with booking a flight to the moon, you refuse.

Gadarene was saying that I cannot conclude that you are uninterested in booking a flight to the moon on the basis of your refusal to look at my belly button lint collection.

Similarly, I can't conclude that you don't like cats on the basis of you being a fan of Lady Gaga. Nor can I conclude that you prefer baths to showers because your favorite food is pie.

Now, if I establish a relationship between the two, then yes, I can draw the conclusion. "If you look at my collection of belly button lint, I'll give you a ticket to the moon." If you refuse then, I can conclude you aren't interested in a ticket to the moon. Similarly, if it can be established that only cat people are fans of Lady Gaga, or that all pie eaters prefers baths, then I can draw those other conclusions as well.

My post was addressed to Gadarene, so I would appreciate it if you allowed him to respond.

Secondly, the use of (y) is unsubstantiated and in fact is immaterial to the discussion.

We are concerned with (x) which is truth and (x) alone.

You coming up with all of these spurious analogical scenarios was an exercise in futility because you jumped into the middle of a discussion which was between two people speaking on one specific thing.

Your analogies by the way are rather inept at conveying any semblance of logical cohesiveness and meaning.

 

[Elioenai26]

Kinda like a hoola hoop

Hudsucker Proxy, The (1994) Scene - YouTube

The only problem with your hoola hoop analogy is that in order for a hoola hoop to be used or even exist, it must have an ontic referrent.

Where is the ontic referrent in your diagram?

 

[dlamberth]

The only problem with your hoola hoop analogy is that in order for a hoola hoop to be used or even exist, it must have an ontic referrent.

Where is the ontic referrent in your diagram?

It's the people who stand in the middle.

.