What if you KNEW there was a God.

[ether-ore]

As long as a collusion, or a reinforcing follow up, is possible than this should stilt be rationally preferred to an actual testimony about a God. A supernatural event should be considered such only when all other alternatives are more supernatural than the event they try to describe. A collusion is less supernatural than a God, and should be, therefore, be rationally preferred.

Ciao

- viole

Christians are variously accused of believing because that is what they want to believe. To someone who wants to make that accusation there is no good rebuttal they will accept. I will say that from my perspective, that hey are rejecting because that is what they want to do and not out of some rational decision.

 

[Donmax]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments.

I think if video evidence was found it would have a negative affect on the progress of human existence because the law according to the ten commandments would cause rebellion the likes that no god no power no beliefs could ever
imagine, if you read from history the only proof that it happen was words written in books and look at all the wars and madness that cause.

So im thinking if god has plans to come and judge us Humans im thinking he better have a powerful army with him, but then religion says its all part of gods plan so maybe we're his powerful army.

 

[JustWondering]

Which is fine.

But that is not what I am discussing. I am suggesting that Plato used reason to essentially justify that the soul exists. Something I believe you suggested cannot be done.


Logical arguments are quite enjoyable, but do not necessarily lead to truth. My point is that people can certainly use logic and reason to justify the soul. Assuming they cannot, well that is just not logical.

People can use flawed logic and reasoning to justify to themselves that any invisible, unverifiable thing exists. If that is what you are saying than I agree with you.

 

[Curious George]

People can use flawed logic and reasoning to justify to themselves that any invisible, unverifiable thing exists. If that is what you are saying than I agree with you.

No, I am saying people can use sound logic to do just that as well. It does not mean it is true. Because someone uses reasoning and logic flawlessly, does not mean they are right.

 

[JustWondering]

Christians are variously accused of believing because that is what they want to believe. To someone who wants to make that accusation there is no good rebuttal they will accept. I will say that from my perspective, that hey are rejecting because that is what they want to do and not out of some rational decision.

I reject your claims because I personally value honesty. That includes being honest to myself as well as to others. I also came to reject Christianity because I have a tendency to question the why and how of things. After HONESTLY evaluating Christianity's claims I could not sustain my faith in it. It doesn't stand up under critical examination from an unbiased position with personal interests removed anymore than ANY OTHER religion. So accepting Christianity and rejecting all other religions would not be honest. So I reject Christianity both out of rational thought AND desire. You can claim you have no desire for Christianity to be true but believe it anyway if you want, and I will believe you are not being honest with yourself.

 

[JustWondering]

No, I am saying people can use sound logic to do just that as well. It does not mean it is true. Because someone uses reasoning and logic flawlessly, does not mean they are right.

I am not interested in arguing semantics with you. Either something exists or it does not. Someone claiming the existence of invisible things whose existence cannot be verified by any means is not using logic, reason, common sense. They are using their imagination.

 

[Donmax]

semantics

Semantics is a invitation of conversation in other words ancient greek never had a dictionary, but that was then.

 

[Curious George]

I am not interested in arguing semantics with you. Either something exists or it does not. Someone claiming the existence of invisible things whose existence cannot be verified by any means is not using logic, reason, common sense. They are using their imagination.

Perhaps you better brush up on your logic and philosophy.

 

[Pudding]

A fair question, but not so easy to answer. The OP asked if one was totally convinced this god is God and given all I know or believe about Jesus Christ and Christianity it would take much more than a bevy of miracles and apparitions of some spirit or deity to change my mind about who is God.

I do not even see how it’s possible? (for me)

So given that, I suppose I can understand some Hindu or Muslim not allowing themselves to change their mind about the heavens even if Jesus returns to earth in glory and thunder. They may simply tell themselves it is of the Evil One.

But if Jesus does return in such a manner, I have a feeling God will put it upon men’s hearts some frightening realities along with enthralling ones.

Thanks for answer.

Do the op have any relevance to prove the religion being a right/correct/true religion?

This is more specifically aimed at atheists and the Luke-warm Christians. But those of other religions are welcome to replace the Jesus and so forth with another deity or prophet. The point is, do you believe your lack of commitment to living the way you believe the God of Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism etc etc.) is a result of uncertainty or whether it is a case of not wanting to live your life any differently.

I see no convincing evidence of religion's god's existence, so i don't make any commitment to living religion's way.

And an assumption to say that i don't make any commitment to living religion's way is a result of me not wanting to live my life any differently?
What does "me not wanting to live my life any differently" means?

 

[JoStories]

Conviction is a verb?

Ciao

- viole

Oops. I was tired when I wrote that. Mea Culpa.

 

[JoStories]

Evidence is a noun?

yes, as in evidence seen and witnessed.

 

[JoStories]

I
I find it interesting that you refer to the evidence I cite as merely anecdotal. As a contrast, I'd like to point out that the words of scientists are accepted as objective because what they say is presented for "peer review". In other words, it is corroborated by others. The various prophets have a kind of peer review as well. It just has the shape of each one individually presenting the same information. People who subscribe to what scientists say will claim that what is presented is objective because it has been peer reviewed. I likewise accept what the prophets say as objective because of the agreement they have among themselves. Some seem to want to claim that there is collusion between what is being reported among the prophets or at least there is a perpetuation of a fraud for the sake of control. I don't see in the record any justification for such claims.

I admit to the similarities that exist between religions. There is indeed much good in all of them. The question is however, just how close does each come to representing the mind and will of God... it being a matter of degrees. Let's use your example of Buddhism. The Buddha (a good man of fine example) never claimed to be a god or even to represent such a being. Those kinds of additions came later (depending on which faction of Buddhism we're talking about). The Buddha's efforts were to suggest a way of life (a religion) based on his investigations and experiences. Even so, there is an absence of corroboration to the one and only original source material. There is no agreement with other figures on a par with the Buddha to validate what he said relative to any god. Buddhism does not for me provide a credible answer to the questions of why we are here, where we came from or what will happen to us after this life is over.

You ask if I accept ancient lore from other sources? This will give you my answer... I believe that Christianity originated from the time of Adam and that other forms of lore are corruptions of what has existed from the beginning. You remember the story of Cain and Able and how it was that God accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's? Cain tried to sacrifice vegetables, whereas Able sacrificed a lamb without blemish. There is a symbology there which should be obvious. It is the same symbology which God gave to Moses which represents the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Christianity was known to Adam.

First, thank you for enlarging your font.
Now, the evidence a scientist of repute would accept is tangible. It is observable, reliable, valid and so on. For example, the studies my mentor and I did years ago on rats about Fetal alcohol syndrome. There was no conjecture. There was nothing that could not be replicated by another, which is the point. The stories of whomever prophet you choose to name cannot be replicated today, nor are they valid or reliable or tangible. That is the difference.
And I have never ever claimed that the Buddha was anything more than a man, maybe fictional, who I happen to agree with. No one is saying you should not follow Christ, or at least not me. What I am saying is that there is no evidence of accuracy and less so for a Adam and Eve type of proto-human parents. In fact, that story is so illogical as to be ludicrous. Genetics alone would have killed out, due to inbred and incest tendencies, the entire line within a few hundred years. Think Deliverance here.

 

[Desert Snake]

yes, as in evidence seen and witnessed.

Ok, I'm trying to figure out how you aren't contradicting yourself, then. Many people have 'evidence', for their religious beliefs. If you are dismissing everyones personal perspective, but your own, (and everyone who has the same perspective as you, I would assume) then great; but that is a personal declaration of subjective beliefs, not any sort of objective truth.

 

[JoStories]

Ok, I'm trying to figure out how you aren't contradicting yourself, then. Many people have 'evidence', for their religious beliefs. If you are dismissing everyones personal perspective, but your own, (and everyone who has the same perspective as you, I would assume) then great; but that is a personal declaration of subjective beliefs, not any sort of objective truth.

Oh my...you clearly misunderstood me. I have never rejected anyone's beliefs simply because I can. I support and applaud all who have found the path that works for them. I may not agree with that path but that is my opinion only. I was, with that post, only speaking of objective scientific evidence as can be gleaned through double blind, veriable and reliable studies. The difference is that science is built on this and is not reflective of religion or their beliefs. For example, I follow a Buddhist path but would never claim it is objectively supported. It is entirely subjective and therein lies the difference, you see, or at least from my own POV. I hope this clears this up q konn. I meant no disrespect to anyone and never have.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh my...you clearly misunderstood me. I have never rejected anyone's beliefs simply because I can. I support and applaud all who have found the path that works for them. I may not agree with that path but that is my opinion only. I was, with that post, only speaking of objective scientific evidence as can be gleaned through double blind, veriable and reliable studies. The difference is that science is built on this and is not reflective of religion or their beliefs. For example, I follow a Buddhist path but would never claim it is objectively supported. It is entirely subjective and therein lies the difference, you see, or at least from my own POV. I hope this clears this up q konn. I meant no disrespect to anyone and never have.

That's fine. Without a definition provided for the labels used, ie like 'theism', etc, it is not practically possible for me to have much of a involved debate/dialogue, regardless.

 

[Thanda]

According to scripture, faith is blind. Hebrews 11.1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

Can you see the nitrogen in the air? Does the fact that the object of your faith invisible make your faith blind?

 

[viole]

Christians are variously accused of believing because that is what they want to believe. To someone who wants to make that accusation there is no good rebuttal they will accept. I will say that from my perspective, that hey are rejecting because that is what they want to do and not out of some rational decision.

I never said that you believe because you want to believe. I don't even think that wanting, or choosing, to believe makes any sense. I would like to believe that I can fly but, despite my efforts, I cannot possibly believe that. I hope we agree on that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[thau]

Thanks for answer. Do the op have any relevance to prove the religion being a right/correct/true religion?

I do not quite follow your question here? If it is along the lines (for example) “Does a firmly believing Christian have an obligation to witness to others?, the answer is definitely Yes. Those of us who have been "gifted" by God, at a minimum we owe Him what He asks of us to do and that is to care for others and share the gospel.

I do think the top posters question was a fair and valid one, which I repeat here.
>>What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?<<

 

[Thanda]

Knowledge is consistently superior to faith and expected to remove the need for it, though, or even to dissolve it entirely

Since all we can really know is the past; and since the past can often be a poor source from which to judge what is in the future; and since the future is where we are going and is therefore infinitely more important than the past - I submit that faith is a far superior attribute than knowledge. Knowledge (the valuable kind) is almost always a by product of faith. Therefore without faith there can be no knowledge. If no one had the faith to start a business we would never understand / know how businesses work. The default position is always that of no knowledge. And only those with faith can ever attain knowledge. Therefore if I take two people: the one has faith and the other has knowledge but no faith. Who would you rather be? I would rather be the person without knowledge and with lots of faith. The man with faith will in time gain knowledge until he is on equal footing with the man with knowledge. Thereafter he will begin to exceed the man with knowledge as he gains more using his faith. While the man without faith will forever remain with that knowledge he had and no more. Note also that the knowledge of the man with no faith may one day become outdated and irrelevant.

Therefore, for beings who are not omniscient, faith is always required.

But there is another aspect of faith which gives us the conclusion that even an all knowing being needs to have faith. Faith is a principle of action. One does not simply have faith one also exercises faith. What does this mean? Take two people again. Both know (let us assume they know) that if they plant they will have food in a few months. This knowledge does not mean they will have food in a few months. They have to act on their knowledge in order reap the rewards. And so it is with all aspects of life for all intelligent beings regardless of their level of knowledge. They have to be willing to act in order for what they know, think they know or simply believe in to come to pass.

When the Bible speaks of faith as a saving principle it is almost always this aspect of faith of which they are speaking. God is not too impressed if you simply believe he exists. His existence is not dependent on our belief. What he is interested in is whether we are willing to keep his commandments. If we are willing to keep his commandments then he can save us. If not he cannot - because he cannot deny his word.

Faith is not "all we have to operate by". There is such a thing as actual knowledge, even direct experience.

To address this statement I will make one final point about faith and knowledge. After Newton developed the laws of motion it was assumed by those of his day and afterwards that they knew how objects (all objects) interact with each other with regards to the relationships between speed, direction, force and energy. Extensive experimentation had been done and people were sure this is how ALL objects behaved. But some years later we ran into quantum physics. We start dealing with very large and very small and very fast objects. Suddenly the old axioms were not holding. New formulas had to be developed. Suddenly it was no longer correct to say Newtonian formulas describe how objects move. Suddenly we had to qualify exactly what kind of objects in what kinds of situations the Newtonian formulas and theorems hold.

If people can think they have knowledge and it can turn out that what they knew is not true then it begs the question: what is knowledge? I will tell you what knowledge is not (especially when dealing with human beings): knowledge is not truth.

I may satisfy myself all I want that I know something. But there always remains a possibility that somewhere somehow my reasoning process went awry or there were some facts I was not aware of when I came to my conclusion.

Thus, even when I "know" I simply believe. "Knowing" is just my way of saying how strongly I believe in something or how much evidence I believe I have in support of my conclusion. But I don't truly know anything - at least not with regards to something that has not already happened.

 

[Thanda]

What is your belief in the existence of souls based on if souls exist beyond our five senses? If you can't verify something exists, how do you know it exists?

Can you (or anyone else you know) verify the existence of the Higgins Boson using your (or their) five senses?