What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Thanda]

Any faith I have in anyone or anything is based on personal experience. I do not have blind faith in invisible things whose existence cannot be verified.

Indeed. I have plenty of evidence in by way of personal experience in support of the existence of invisible things.

 

[Thanda]

If REAL evidence existed that proved a religion true than there would be one religion and no use for this forum.

This is false. Real evidence exists for the existence of climate change but there are people who believe it exists and there are people who believe it does not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

The Higgs-Boson (or, at least, what we have lead to believe is a basic Higgs Boson according to the the standard model) has been observed through experimentation in which we can confirm the effects of the particle's existence directly:

https://wikis.utexas.edu/display/utatlas/Higgs+boson+FAQ
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460438

Nothing is absolutely confirmed as of yet, but we have good reason to believe that the results we have seen so far are the result of a particle with similarities to those described in the Higgs Boson model. I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of the subject than me would be happy to clarify me and correct any errors I've made with regards to that.

Can you answer their question now? How do you know the soul exists if you can't verify it?

 

[Thanda]

Of course their claims coincide! They all belong to the same religion and have the same beliefs! All that proves is that they belong to the same religion, it has no bearing whatsoever on if their claims are true.

The prophets created the religion (according to you). How then can you say their claims coincide because they belong to the same religion? If the Judeo-Christian religion was created by the speeches and writings of prophets over hundreds (if not thousands) of years. How can the fact that they produced a consistent story not lead us to question if it was all a lie. Do you have a similar case that you can put forward where people continually put forward consistent ideas that often endanger their lives over hundreds or thousands of years and in the end they were all just making it up?

 

[Thanda]

The Higgs-Boson (or, at least, what we have lead to believe is a basic Higgs Boson according to the the standard model) has been observed through experimentation in which we can confirm the effects of the particle's existence directly:

https://wikis.utexas.edu/display/utatlas/Higgs+boson+FAQ
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1460438

Nothing is absolutely confirmed as of yet, but we have good reason to believe that the results we have seen so far are the result of a particle with similarities to those described in the Higgs Boson model. I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of the subject than me would be happy to clarify me and correct any errors I've made with regards to that.

Can you answer their question now? How do you know the soul exists if you can't verify it?

No my friend you have not answered my question. The question is: can you, or anyone you know, verify with your, or their, five senses the existence of the Higgins Boson.

EDIT: Let me make this easy for you. Have you, or anyone you know, seen, heard, touched or felt the Higgins Boson?

 

[JoStories]

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

You are talking here about particle physics and the only place I am aware of that does research in this field is the particle machines at CERN in Switzerland. They research things like antimatter, which is completely, if I am not mistaken, totally theoretical. And no, it cannot be verified by the senses but rather by the complex machinery they developed. The machinery can and does detect it but its very difficult. Can you detect viruses by your five senses or do you admit that viruses can and do cause such things as the cold, URI's, and so on. Do you deny them? and if you do, why do you? They cannot be seen by the eyes, heard by ears, felt by touch, etc. Yet, they exist.

 

[Thanda]

I certainly wouldn't start worshipping it.
I'd want to ask ....

• Why are you so jealous?
• Why was the book(s) you wrote so ambiguous?
• Why were your commandments so poor and didn't include slavery and protecting children?
• Why didn't you tell us about germs?
• Where've you been for the last 2000-years?
• Which god are you?

Very good questions. I would venture to answer your third question though.

• Leviticus 19:18
  18 ¶Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

• Leviticus 19:34
  34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Note that last quoted verse. The Lord speaks of strangers and tells them they were also strangers in Egypt. Note that they we made slaves in Egypt. The Lord is commanding them to treat people the way they would have wanted to have been treated in Egypt: we assume they did not like being slaves.

 

[Thanda]

You are talking here about particle physics and the only place I am aware of that does research in this field is the particle machines at CERN in Switzerland. They research things like antimatter, which is completely, if I am not mistaken, totally theoretical. And no, it cannot be verified by the senses but rather by the complex machinery they developed. The machinery can and does detect it but its very difficult. Can you detect viruses by your five senses or do you admit that viruses can and do cause such things as the cold, URI's, and so on. Do you deny them? and if you do, why do you? They cannot be seen by the eyes, heard by ears, felt by touch, etc. Yet, they exist.

You are talking to the wrong person. I do not deny the existence of things which cannot be seen by the natural senses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No my friend you have not answered my question. The question is: can you, or anyone you know, verify with your, or their, five senses the existence of the Higgins Boson.

Well, yes. Those pages I linked you to provided evidence which has been observed and verified by the senses. Are you asking whether human beings can directly interact with the Higgs Boson and actually, physically touch and see the particle itself? No, of course not. But we can observe and analyze the effects of the Boson. We still have good reason to believe the Boson exists that is directly observable and verifiable.

EDIT: Let me make this easy for you. Have you, or anyone you know, seen, heard, touched or felt the Higgins Boson?

No. But then the Higgs Boson is still largely theroetical and nobody is asserting that its existence is known for a certainty, and we can still verify the existence of the Higgs Boson through experimental evidence which we CAN observe with our senses.

Can you PLEASE answer the question now? How do you know the soul exists if you can't verify it?

 

[Thanda]

Well, yes. Those pages I linked you to provided evidence which has been observed and verified by the senses.

So the senses saw "evidence" but they did not see the Higgins Boson? And for you that is sufficient? Can you now understand why it is sufficient for a Christian to believe in God without ever having to experienced him with the five senses?

No. But then the Higgs Boson is still largely theroetical and nobody is asserting that its existence is known for a certainty, and we can still verify the existence of the Higgs Boson through experimental evidence which we CAN observe with our senses.

When will we know the existence of the Higgins Boson for certain? Will it be when we can see, hear, feel, touch or smell it?

Can you PLEASE answer the question now? How can you verify the existence of the soul?

The answer is: by inference. The Bible teaches that humans have a soul. If the Bible is true then humans have a soul. If it is not then we don't know if humans have a soul. How can we verify if the Bible is true? The best method would be to verify the existence of the central character and subject of the Bible: God. How do you verify the existence of God? One must pray for him to give a confirmation of his reality. He could give that confirmation through a voice, an appearance, a feeling, a vision etc.

You could also seek to follow the counsels he allegedly gave in the Bible which he claimed would bring happiness. If, by following his counsels you obtain happiness, then your belief that he exists may be strengthened (though you have not come to a knowledge). The best way to come to a knowledge is to go directly to God in sincere prayer.

 

[Thanda]

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.

What process did you follow during you honest evaluation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The prophets created the religion (according to you). How then can you say their claims coincide because they belong to the same religion? If the Judeo-Christian religion was created by the speeches and writings of prophets over hundreds (if not thousands) of years. How can the fact that they produced a consistent story not lead us to question if it was all a lie. Do you have a similar case that you can put forward where people continually put forward consistent ideas that often endanger their lives over hundreds or thousands of years and in the end they were all just making it up?

They didn't all put forward consistent ideas. There are many different branching paths, most of which didn't lead anywhere. It's filtering after the fact that makes them seem consistent with each other, because the prophets with inconsistent messages get screened out.

There's nothing mysterious about people within a common traditions holding similar positions, especially when there's an after-the-fact editing process that labels the inconsistent prophets as "schismatics" or "heretics".

 

[Thanda]

Thanks for answer.

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


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?

Suppose I really like drinking (alcohol of course). Mormonism teaches that God is against alcohol. If I believe God exists then I will have to believe I am wrong in drinking alcohol. Now since I don't want to stop drinking alcohol I would prefer it if God doesn't exist. So I reject all evidence (or supposed evidence) of his existence simply because I don't want to change my lifestyle.

In this case it is clear that I simply want to drink no matter what. And even if God was proved to exist to my satisfaction I would still likely continue drinking becase that is what I want to do.

 

[Thanda]

They didn't all put forward consistent ideas. There are many different branching paths, most of which didn't lead anywhere. It's filtering after the fact that makes them seem consistent with each other, because the prophets with inconsistent messages get screened out.

There's nothing mysterious about people within a common traditions holding similar positions, especially when there's an after-the-fact editing process that labels the inconsistent prophets as "schismatics" or "heretics".

Fair enough.

 

[Thanda]

They didn't all put forward consistent ideas. There are many different branching paths, most of which didn't lead anywhere. It's filtering after the fact that makes them seem consistent with each other, because the prophets with inconsistent messages get screened out.

There's nothing mysterious about people within a common traditions holding similar positions, especially when there's an after-the-fact editing process that labels the inconsistent prophets as "schismatics" or "heretics".

I will say this though. Whenever a bunch of people babble on about the same thing over and over again over hundreds of years - each one claiming to have had their own experience and with none really having much to gain from doing since they are busy getting thrown in jail (Jeremiah), thrown in amongst lions (Daniel), beheaded (John the Baptist), crucified (Jesus and Peter) or being stoned (Stephen) then such does give it a status where it is something that is worthy of further investigation. That worthiness of further investigation is what ether-ore was referring to as credibility. We can't go about trying to verify the claims of everyone in the world and through out history. But where there are numerous people witnessing the same thing (that there is a God and they have experienced him) over a very long period of time. Then their claims are worthy of investigation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the senses saw "evidence" but they did not see the Higgins Boson?

Correct.

And for you that is sufficient?

Sufficient for what? Sufficient enough to say we have observed an effect for which a likely explanation is the existence of a Higgs Boson like particle, and therefore evidence of its existence, yes. Not sufficient for any kind of definite conclusion, however.

Can you now understand why it is sufficient for a Christian to believe in God without ever having to experienced him with the five senses?

No, because you haven't explained that. Nobody here is claiming that the Higgs Boson exists, just that we have evidence that indicates it does, and this evidence can be verified directly. What evidence do you have of God's existence that can be verified directly like the evidence we have for the Higgs Boson?

When will we know the existence of the Higgins Boson for certain? Will it be when we can see, hear, feel, touch or smell it?

I have no idea.

The answer is: by inference. The Bible teaches that humans have a soul. If the Bible is true then humans have a soul. If it is not then we don't know if humans have a soul. How can we verify if the Bible is true? The best method would be to verify the existence of the central character and subject of the Bible: God. How do you verify the existence of God? One must pray for him to give a confirmation of his reality. He could give that confirmation through a voice, an appearance, a feeling, a vision etc.

You could also seek to follow the counsels he allegedly gave in the Bible which he claimed would bring happiness. If, by following his counsels you obtain happiness, then your belief that he exists may be strengthened (though you have not come to a knowledge). The best way to come to a knowledge is to go directly to God in sincere prayer.

And how is absolutely any of this verifiable? It all sounds entirely like circular reasoning, not inference. Where is the evidence which directly leads to the conclusion of God's existence? If it is entirely based on personal experience, then what reason do I have to trust that your experience is accurate and others aren't? How can I verify that your experience of God is solid evidence, but a Tibetan Monk's experience aren't? How can we weigh the veracity of one belief versus another?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will say this though. Whenever a bunch of people babble on about the same thing over and over again over hundreds of years - each one claiming to have had their own experience and with none really having much to gain from doing since they are busy getting thrown in jail (Jeremiah), thrown in amongst lions (Daniel), beheaded (John the Baptist), crucified (Jesus and Peter) or being stoned (Stephen) then such does give it a status where it is something that is worthy of further investigation. That worthiness of further investigation is what ether-ore was referring to as credibility. We can't go about trying to verify the claims of everyone in the world and through out history. But where there are numerous people witnessing the same thing (that there is a God and they have experienced him) over a very long period of time. Then their claims are worthy of investigation.

You could be describing the history of Sikhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_in_Sikhism

How much have you bothered to investigate that religion?

How about Joseph Smith's claims? How worthy are they of further investigation?

Religious martyrs aren't really that rare. They certainly aren't unique to Christianity... or your particular brand of Christianity.

Edit: more people have martyred themselves proclaiming beliefs that oppose your religious beliefs than have ever martyred themselves for your beliefs. If we decide to measure truth by body count, you lose. Personally, I prefer to just acknowledge that people will sometimes die in defense of false beliefs or bad ideas and instead examine the different claims on their merits.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will say this though. Whenever a bunch of people babble on about the same thing over and over again over hundreds of years - each one claiming to have had their own experience and with none really having much to gain from doing since they are busy getting thrown in jail (Jeremiah), thrown in amongst lions (Daniel), beheaded (John the Baptist), crucified (Jesus and Peter) or being stoned (Stephen) then such does give it a status where it is something that is worthy of further investigation. That worthiness of further investigation is what ether-ore was referring to as credibility. We can't go about trying to verify the claims of everyone in the world and through out history. But where there are numerous people witnessing the same thing (that there is a God and they have experienced him) over a very long period of time. Then their claims are worthy of investigation.

You're absolutely right, it is worthy of investigation. The problem being that absolutely every objective investigation has turned up exactly zero evidence of the veracity of any of their claims. And when you have a lot of people all saying something, but absolutely zero evidence that suggests any of it is true, it calls into question those accounts as well as the accounts made about those individuals subsequently.

Do you also extend this logic to members of all the world's various other religions? Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism have just as long and rich a history of individual practitioners and followers. Should we consider their claims as equal to the claims of those YOU listed? Whose voice carries more weight?

 

[viole]

You're absolutely right, it is worthy of investigation. The problem being that absolutely every objective investigation has turned up exactly zero evidence of the veracity of any of their claims. And when you have a lot of people all saying something, but absolutely zero evidence that suggests any of it is true, it calls into question those accounts as well as the accounts made about those individuals subsequently.

Do you also extend this logic to members of all the world's various other religions? Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism have just as long and rich a history of individual practitioners and followers. Should we consider their claims as equal to the claims of those who listed? Whose voice carries more weight?

Right. Refuting the claims (miracles, personal experiences, happiness coming from God, etc) of the believers of a different God, falsifies the same claims attributed to own's God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

You could be describing the history of Sikhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_in_Sikhism

How much have you bothered to investigate that religion?

How about Joseph Smith's claims? How worthy are they of further investigation?

Religious martyrs aren't really that rare. They certainly aren't unique to Christianity... or your particular brand of Christianity.

I have not bothered to investigate Sikhism because I am still investigating another religion worthy of investigation. That is the religion of Joseph Smith.