Receiving Messages....

[“Paisios”]

No worries. I fully understand the word 'faith' means many things to many people. I just wanted to get your barometer reading of the term. But at the end of the day, I cannot help but to provide a quote or two:

'Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.' - Bertrand Russell

Also

'When it comes to the shape of the earth, or two plus two equals four, no one speaks of faith in these terms.' - Paraphrased again from the same author



How has God's existence been established?

And if so, this also means that I'm either in the dark completely, uneducated, or in denial. So which one is it?



That's great. But do you actually care if it's true? Many things make me feel good, or may even make my outlook on life better. But it would matter more to know if it were true, verses to deceive myself.



You are doing just fine!

I have read some of Bertrand Russell, though it has been awhile.

God’s existence has not been established to your satisfaction (or that of many others), but for those of us who have encountered Him, there really isn’t much doubt - I know that doesn’t really answer your question, since I am basically saying “I know because I know”. I see it kind of like a coworker of mine, who is on the schedule, apparently works for the same company, and I’ve seen some documentation that shows she works for us - but I’ve never met her (and work for a very small company), so I keep telling other colleagues that she doesn’t actually exist and that they are all playing an elaborate joke on me.

Of course I care if it’s true, and I am fairly certain it is, but I don’t have evidence that you would accept. It is hard to believe someone who says that a person you met doesn’t exist when you have just spoken with him - and my encounters with God are as concrete and real as any meetings with people I have met. Of course, I can’t prove that any of this is real in any tangible way, and the philosophy of reality is beyond my education. But if the people I encounter in day to day life are real, then because of a similarity in perception, it makes sense for me to believe my encounters with God were also real.

 

[cvanwey]

You are again bantering semantics, labels, and words. And yet, it is you, who are accusing (me), of wanting to argue I guess you are not done 'fighting.'

Okay....

You basically told her, "It's logical to want what I would want and illogical for you to want what you want". You see how that doesn't work, right?

Of course. I'm aware of how 'logic' works. You do understand this is a forum arena, not an academic arena, and that we often use words to associate ideas accordingly. You, whom may or may not be a believer in some holy text, should be absolutely no stranger to reading between the lines when gathering insight on a stated holy passage(s)

Furthermore, w/o necessity, I also laid out the plausible differences between your rape analogy, vs a demon analogy...

- A rape victim may not report for many reasons (embarrassment, guilt, shame, fear of retaliation, not wanting to relive it in court, etc...)

- A person claiming to be contacted by demons might more closely be associated instead with a home invasion, (unless they were also raped, which she never indicated).

- When a person receives a home invasion, repetitively, you would think the 'logical' step would be to report it?.?.?. If they don't, you would wonder why? Not reporting as such would not parallel many of the reasons they may not report rape.

But go ahead and milk this association. I know this is ALL you've got in this thread

You already agree with me that there really exists no tangible proof to the supernatural. And why is that? Because we have no evidence like we do for the many other assertions in which is peer reviewed, justified, and can possibly BE falsified if alternative evidence came to light. If something is not falsifiable, like Big Foot sightings, then anyone can make any claim, at any time... But it would be ludicrous, again 'logically' to state, 'well, so-and-so said they saw it, so it's 50/50 true or false No, all claims must meet their burden, or can reasonably or 'logically' rejected. Right?

I never said it was illogical to seek help. I said it would be counterproductive to prioritize documenting an experience by an unbiased source over seeking help. And I said it is illogical to expect highly emotionally charged people to act rationally. You see how that's different from what you are trying to argue against, right?

Sure. And I even offered you a full carte blanche as such.... BUT then stated how it is interesting how such stories seem to always fall short of anything tangible, when pressed for evidence.

You also understand that to be invaded by demons might more-so be associated with home invasion, (instead) of rape, right? And most people report their home invasions, in (most) cases

 

[cvanwey]

I told people what God had told me at the time He told me. The verification is that these things came to pass just as He said they would. If I had not had absolute confidence in what God told me I would have never revealed it to people prior to it materializing

What things came to pass?

You are also aware that people assert that ~50% of Nostradamus' claims 'came to pass'.

So the first point to address would be...

1) Were these predictions very specific, and not left to interpretation?

2) Then, the next point would be, how do you know these messages were given from the agent you think they came from?

This would be for starters...

 

[cvanwey]

I have read some of Bertrand Russell, though it has been awhile.

Do you then agree that faith may not be a very good tool to assess truth?

God’s existence has not been established to your satisfaction (or that of many others), but for those of us who have encountered Him, there really isn’t much doubt - I know that doesn’t really answer your question, since I am basically saying “I know because I know”.

I have no doubt you believe or feel it's true. I do not question that at all. And I do understand what you are saying, in this context.

But below is when it may start getting a little messy

I see it kind of like a coworker of mine, who is on the schedule, apparently works for the same company, and I’ve seen some documentation that shows she works for us - but I’ve never met her (and work for a very small company), so I keep telling other colleagues that she doesn’t actually exist and that they are all playing an elaborate joke on me.

But we all know humans at least exist. We are not so sure any god actually exists. And yet, we know millions, if not billions, assert/claim/profess speaking to their god(s), which may not be Yahweh.

Of course I care if it’s true, and I am fairly certain it is, but I don’t have evidence that you would accept.

Don't be so sure. What do you got?

my encounters with God are as concrete and real as any meetings with people I have met. Of course, I can’t prove that any of this is real in any tangible way, and the philosophy of reality is beyond my education.

Maybe not fully, but you could at least prove you are receiving contact from someone or something, other than speaking or communicating with yourself. How? You could ask them to reveal something to you that no one here yet knows, in a very concrete and specific way, not left to interpretation. That would be a nice start...

If you truly speak to God, would it be too much to ask for you to request He proves Himself to me right now? Or does God 'not work that way?'

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course. I'm aware of how 'logic' works. You do understand this is a forum arena, not an academic arena, and that we often use words to associate ideas accordingly. You, whom may or may not be a believer in some holy text, should be absolutely no stranger to reading between the lines when gathering insight on a stated holy passage(s)

Pointing out your inappropriate use of the word "logic" isn't semantics. If you invoke that word, you should be able to deduce something with it. You cannot, so it's incorrect to use the word. All you've stated is opinion, which you can deduce squat from.

Furthermore, w/o necessity, I also laid out the plausible differences between your rape analogy, vs a demon analogy...

- A rape victim may not report for many reasons (embarrassment, guilt, shame, fear of retaliation, not wanting to relive it in court, etc...)

- A person claiming to be contacted by demons might more closely be associated instead with a home invasion, (unless they were also raped, which she never indicated).

- When a person receives a home invasion, repetitively, you would think the 'logical' step would be to report it?.?.?. If they don't, you would wonder why? Not reporting as such would not parallel many of the reasons they may not report rape.

But go ahead and milk this association. I know this is ALL you've got in this thread

I only skimmed her story but I know she ticks off at least three of those reasons you listed that people don't report rape. And although there wasn't anything sexual about it, it was repeated physical assault, so unless the "spirit" was stealing things, I don't see how it's more comparable to a home invasion. In fact, your last reason there, "not wanting to relive it" is the exact reason she gave for not talking with a therapist about it.

But that's not all I've got. So what if someone in an emotionally charged situation doesn't act rationally? Even if you were right that there is a logical process for dealing with the unknown, there is still no reason to expect someone to act logically in that situation. If you were right about the logical way to deal with this, which you're not, but even if you were, you still can't deduce squat from the fact that she didn't act in that manner.

The whole point of the rape analogy is to point out that the rational thing to do after being raped is to report it, and go to the hospital and have evidence taken. But people don't do that quite often. And the only pertinent similarities are in that she was psychologically traumatized. So your attempt to conclude that she didn't do what you expect her to do, that you shouldn't expect her to do, is because her story is bologna falls flat.

You already agree with me that there really exists no tangible proof to the supernatural. And why is that? Because we have no evidence like we do for the many other assertions in which is peer reviewed, justified, and can possibly BE falsified if alternative evidence came to light. If something is not falsifiable, like Big Foot sightings, then anyone can make any claim, at any time... But it would be ludicrous, again 'logically' to state, 'well, so-and-so said they saw it, so it's 50/50 true or false No, all claims must meet their burden, or can reasonably or 'logically' rejected. Right?

Nope. I didn't give odds on whether her story is true or not. Sometimes probabilities are incalculable. That doesn't mean that they're 50/50 odds, that would mean we can calculate the odds. If I flip a coin, you know that the odds are 50/50. If I roll a die and ask you to tell me the odds that it will roll a 3, but I don't tell you how many sides the die has, you can't calculate those odds. Unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims can be ignored. They cannot be rejected because that would mean I have some evidence they are false which I don't.

Sure. And I even offered you a full carte blanche as such.... BUT then stated how it is interesting how such stories seem to always fall short of anything tangible, when pressed for evidence.

Not sure how that follows from me pointing out a straw man, but okay...

You also understand that to be invaded by demons might more-so be associated with home invasion, (instead) of rape, right? And most people report their home invasions, in (most) cases

Except it's not. She wasn't being robbed, she was being assaulted. She was frightened, she felt responsible, and she didn't want to relive it. Sounds like assault to me.

 

[cvanwey]

Pointing out your inappropriate use of the word "logic" isn't semantics. If you invoke that word, you should be able to deduce something with it. You cannot, so it's incorrect to use the word. All you've stated is opinion, which you can deduce squat from.

You are funny sir. You keep harping on the one thing you feel you can play 'gotcha' with. And from what I can tell, you did it because you felt, in the beginning, that you needed to 'come to her rescue'. I use the word 'logic' all the time, and all other words, all the time, in the context in which they seem appropriate for in the confines and the context of that specific conversation. The fact you are, again, harping on the hard definition of the word 'logic', is rather comical, and again, is going over minutiae.

If you wish to claim 'victory' instead for it, be my guest.

I only skimmed her story.

I would imagine you would get rather perturbed by someone whom 'skims' passages from the Bible, and then professes to know the entire context, relation, and meaning of the story, so please do not do so here....

And although there wasn't anything sexual about it, it was repeated physical assault, so unless the "spirit" was stealing things, I don't see how it's more comparable to a home invasion. In fact, your last reason there, "not wanting to relive it" is the exact reason she gave for not talking with a therapist about it.

Again, you are harping on minutiae. Again, when I state it seems logical, yes, it means 'common sense might tell you.' And yes, this means my opinion. And yes, I conceded long ago, that her react differed from what I might do.

My prior response, to her, was that at no point in the 12 months, did she think to receive help? She said no. Okay....

So please put this trivial topic to bed already... You made your point, I acknowledged it, you keep asking for something I already gave you.

But that's not all I've got.

Oh goody.

So what if someone in an emotionally charged situation doesn't act rationally? Even if you were right that there is a logical process for dealing with the unknown, there is still no reason to expect someone to act logically in that situation. If you were right about the logical way to deal with this, which you're not, but even if you were, you still can't deduce squat from the fact that she didn't act in that manner.

So no one ever reports rape, assault, theft, other? Yes, they do, thousands of times per year. We ALSO receive reports of the supernatural, and their contact. And yet, such reports never pan out, with evidence, where-as the rape, assaults, and thefts do Go figure.

The whole point of the rape analogy is to point out that the rational thing to do after being raped is to report it, and go to the hospital and have evidence taken. But people don't do that quite often. And the only pertinent similarities are in that she was psychologically traumatized. So your attempt to conclude that she didn't do what you expect her to do, that you shouldn't expect her to do, is because her story is bologna falls flat.

No, the story is bologna, and falls flat, for the very same reason of my mentioning of Big Foot Also, due to the fact that (you) don't believe her (for whatever reason(s) that may be).

Nope. I didn't give odds on whether her story is true or not. Sometimes probabilities are incalculable. That doesn't mean that they're 50/50 odds, that would mean we can calculate the odds. If I flip a coin, you know that the odds are 50/50. If I roll a die and ask you to tell me the odds that it will roll a 3, but I don't tell you how many sides the die has, you can't calculate those odds. Unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims can be ignored. They cannot be rejected because that would mean I have some evidence they are false which I don't.

So the next time someone tells you they speak to witches, was probed by an alien on the way to work, or speaks to Allah in church daily, you will grant them a mustard seed of belief I guess

 

[Lost4words]

I wish i could hear God. Or see Him etc. I believe that people actually do experience God like that.

 

[cvanwey]

I wish i could hear God. Or see Him etc. I believe that people actually do experience God like that.

A good question one may ask would be... Why does God speak to some, and not others? He apparently reveals His presence to many. So revealing His presence does not appear to be a hindrance.

Why would God reveal Himself to some whom ask, with immediate response, where I, asked for decades, and nothing? Why would God reveal Himself to some whom don't even ask, like Saul of Tarsus?

What if your validation process for belief is to receive contact, and you die without it? This might mean God knew what your validation process might be, and refused it, so you could instead reside in Hell, for not initiating a relationship.

Makes one think....

 

[Lost4words]

Maybe i am either not worthy, not ready or just in the wrong place in my walk with God / life.

 

[cvanwey]

Maybe i am either not worthy, not ready or just in the wrong place in my walk with God / life.

Okay, but this does not address my main concern.

Many reject the assertion to a God, because they have never experienced direct contact. (i.e.) skeptics, atheists, agnostics, deists, etc.... God would know this. And yet, God is reported to contact many. So we know contact is possible, 'apparently'. In such a case, God would knowingly allow many to go to hell, as God chose to never contact such individuals prior to their natural death (according to the Bible).

How might you reconcile such a claimed 'loving' and 'interactive' God?

 

[Lost4words]

God never sends anyone to hell. Its the person themselves that books that ticket!

 

[cvanwey]

God never sends anyone to hell. Its the person themselves that books that ticket!

Let's explore this assertion.

God creates the rule book.

God has the ability to communicate with humans.

Many claim to receive God's interaction.

I asked for it in prayer for decades, in accordance with scripture (
Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23)

I state I need tangible proof; proof in which people claim to receive daily. Otherwise, I will continue to doubt.

God knows this, and refuses to act, in accordance to the very book He wrote.

I continue to doubt and die without contact.

According to Holy stated scripture, due to the fact I did not receive prior contact, I will die with doubt.

And since the asserted rules, not created by me, are that all non-believers burn in hell, how did I send myself?.?.?.?

 

[Lost4words]

Faith is all you need. Not proof. A true Christian does not need 'proof'.

 

[cvanwey]

Faith is all you need. Not proof. A true Christian does not need 'proof'.

Doesn't such a method also work, equally as well, for any opposing religion; or even a belief for that matter?

 

[Lost4words]

Doesn't such a method also work, equally as well, for any opposing religion; or even a belief for that matter?

No.

 

[cvanwey]

No.

How is faith different for Christianity, verses the use of faith in any other application?

 

[Lost4words]

How is faith different for Christianity, verses the use of faith in any other application?

We have the Bible. We have the church. We have Saints. We have Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

We have the Bible. We have the church. We have Saints. We have Jesus.

This has nothing to do with my question. Would you mind addressing the actual question?

How is faith different for Christianity, verses the use of faith in any other application?

Would you mind please addressing post #72 as well? I felt that was rather important, and you appear to have completely avoided it.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are funny sir. You keep harping on the one thing you feel you can play 'gotcha' with. And from what I can tell, you did it because you felt, in the beginning, that you needed to 'come to her rescue'.

You shouldn't waste your time trying to discern my motivations for posting. You should really invest more energy in trying to keep up with the argument, because you're falling behind pretty quickly. You've already thrown your entire argument out as just an opinion. What do you think it's worth now?

I use the word 'logic' all the time, and all other words, all the time, in the context in which they seem appropriate for in the confines and the context of that specific conversation. The fact you are, again, harping on the hard definition of the word 'logic', is rather comical, and again, is going over minutiae.

If you wish to claim 'victory' instead for it, be my guest.

Okay, so we've established that all you've stated is your opinion. Now we just need you to understand what your opinion is worth when it comes to ascertaining the truth: nothing. You still think your opinion is worth something when trying to prove her story is bologna. Show me evidence that her story is false. Her lack of evidence is not evidence in your favor. You don't seem to get that.

I would imagine you would get rather perturbed by someone whom 'skims' passages from the Bible, and then professes to know the entire context, relation, and meaning of the story, so please do not do so here....

That would be an excellent point... If you hadn't made your argument before you even heard her story. So I guess we can just go ahead and discard this.

Again, you are harping on minutiae. Again, when I state it seems logical, yes, it means 'common sense might tell you.' And yes, this means my opinion. And yes, I conceded long ago, that her react differed from what I might do.

My prior response, to her, was that at no point in the 12 months, did she think to receive help? She said no. Okay....

So please put this trivial topic to bed already... You made your point, I acknowledged it, you keep asking for something I already gave you.

It's not minutiae. The different between a logical argument and an opinion is astronomical. Logical arguments are evidence. Opinions are nothing. No one is convinced by what you feel about things, people are convinced by what you can demonstrate. I'm not harping on you for not formatting your argument in a formal fashion or anything of the sort. I'm pointing that if "it's just like, your opinion, man", we can discard that just as easily as her story. It isn't in evidence that your opinion is true, it's just how you feel about it.

So no one ever reports rape, assault, theft, other? Yes, they do, thousands of times per year. We ALSO receive reports of the supernatural, and their contact. And yet, such reports never pan out, with evidence, where-as the rape, assaults, and thefts do Go figure.

So what? This is still just you arguing that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence, and that's wrong.

No, the story is bologna, and falls flat, for the very same reason of my mentioning of Big Foot Also, due to the fact that (you) don't believe her (for whatever reason(s) that may be).

Show me evidence that her story is false. If you have no evidence, you have no reason to make that claim. "She didn't show me any evidence" isn't evidence that something didn't happen. I think you should really look into what it means to have evidence, honestly.

So the next time someone tells you they speak to witches, was probed by an alien on the way to work, or speaks to Allah in church daily, you will grant them a mustard seed of belief I guess

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not going to hold a belief that her story is true, but that doesn't mean I start holding a belief that her story is false either. That's what your problem is here. You think that for every claim made you need to generate a new belief. Either you believe the claim is true, or you believe the claim is false. You can do neither.

 

[cvanwey]

You still think your opinion is worth something when trying to prove her story is bologna. Show me evidence that her story is false. Her lack of evidence is not evidence in your favor. You don't seem to get that.

Yer still funny...

That which can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence. I am discarding it, just like you. Claims are a dime a dozen. (i.e.) "I speak to dead people every Thursday".

(I get what you are saying. Let me demonstrate. 500 years ago, people thought the world was flat. Was the world ever flat? No. The opinion of the day did not matter. The world is a sphere. It was and is always a sphere.)

She claims she was haunted by demons. Will demons ever be demonstrated? Well, you said it YOURSELF, it's not falsifiable. Claims that are not falsifiable, can be made about anything. "I see ghosts, my house is haunted, my skin is purple only when people are not watching." Lets give credence to all these claims, and place them in the same bucket of probability to 'life on other planets', 'is there a cure for cancer', or some other unknown discovery, sure

So yes, if demons are ever demonstrated to be real, then maybe she was right all along. If houses are proven to be haunted, then maybe I was right all along. Yeah?

But to ask me 'Show me evidence that her story is false.' means the same thing as....

Show me evidence I didn't get abducted by aliens last year?

You stating, 'Her lack of evidence is not evidence in your favor.' tells me it is you whom needs to disprove my haunted house claim, or any other claim I choose to make at any time.

Show me evidence that her story is false.

Show me evidence that my house is not haunted? Since you can't, then maybe there's a *chance* it's true. :0

Listen, I get your position. My point is we have yet to substantiate such anecdotal claims, and there are thousands!!!!!

If you have no evidence, you have no reason to make that claim. "She didn't show me any evidence" isn't evidence that something didn't happen. I think you should really look into what it means to have evidence, honestly.

It must be exhausting lending credence to any and every claim of the supernatural.

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not going to hold a belief that her story is true, but that doesn't mean I start holding a belief that her story is false either. That's what your problem is here. You think that for every claim made you need to generate a new belief. Either you believe the claim is true, or you believe the claim is false. You can do neither.

How about this... Just flat out not believe any claim unless demonstrated positive.

Based upon your rationale, my house could be haunted