What if you KNEW there was a God.

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Here's an important question: When you investigate these various religious accounts, what methodology do you use to determine which claims are accurate and which claims are not? How do you verify which ones are worth accepting and which ones aren't?

 

[Thanda]

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?

I believe the claim that there is a God / gods is worthy of investigation. My belief that there is a God or Gods is strengthened by the existence of the religions you mention. Now the only thing I am left to investigate is which God or Gods is or real.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe the claim that there is a God / gods is worthy of investigation.

I absolutely agree. So how do we investigate it?

My belief that there is a God or Gods is strengthened by the existence of the religions you mention.

How? They all claim very different things about God (or the Gods), characterize them in different ways, and not all of them are theistic.

Now the only thing I am left to investigate is which God or Gods is or real.

So you've already concluded that there is a God based on the fact that there are lots of religions (thought not all) which say that there is a God? What evidence do you have to verify their claims?

 

[Thanda]

Here's an important question: When you investigate these various religious accounts, what methodology do you use to determine which claims are accurate and which claims are not? How do you verify which ones are worth accepting and which ones aren't?

I believe one must get to the source. That is, God. That is how I am going about my investigation. I'm interested in finding God. All other things, as far as I'm concerned, will flow naturally from that knowledge. If God tells me there are many people like him and some them are like elephants etc - then I will move away from Christianity and move towards Hinduism. If God says he is the only God and he has no son, then I will gravitate towards Islam. My current religion is therefore just a stepping stone in my search for God. I am sure that an honest seeker of God will come to know the true God regardless of which religion was their starting point.

 

[Thanda]

How? They all claim very different things about God (or the Gods), characterize them in different ways, and not all of them are theistic.

Most religions testify there is a God. Pure buddhism (those direct teaching of Buddha) doesn't deny the existence of a God. Bhudda didn't assert that there was no God.

 

[Thanda]

So you've already concluded that there is a God based on the fact that there are lots of religions (thought not all) which say that there is a God? What evidence do you have to verify their claims?

That is what I believe. It is my hypothesis. I am busy testing it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe one must get to the source. That is, God. That is how I am going about my investigation. I'm interested in finding God.

It seems like there's a fundamental assumption there: God. Why assume God (or gods)?

 

[Thanda]

It seems like there's a fundamental assumption there: God. Why assume God (or gods)?

Because of the number of people who have testified of him. I have also personally lived with people whose lives were so exemplary as to make me call them perfect. They attributed the righteousness to God. I am simply investigating these claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe one must get to the source. That is, God.

But how can you verify claims about God by asking God? Isn't that affirming the consequent? You're already assuming the truth of the claims.

That is how I am going about my investigation. I'm interested in finding God.

How can you say you're investigating something if your only means of investigation requires you to assume the existence of the thing you're investigating?

All other things, as far as I'm concerned, will flow naturally from that knowledge. If God tells me there are many people like him and some them are like elephants etc - then I will move away from Christianity and move towards Hinduism. If God says he is the only God and he has no son, then I will gravitate towards Islam. My current religion is therefore just a stepping stone in my search for God. I am sure that an honest seeker of God will come to know the true God regardless of which religion was their starting point.

1) How do you verify God's existence?
2) How do you verify that what God is supposedly communicating to you is accurate?

Most religions testify there is a God. Pure buddhism (those direct teaching of Buddha) doesn't deny the existence of a God. Bhudda didn't assert that there was no God.

But there are many who do assert that there is no God. Why do you discount their experiences?

That is what I believe. It is my hypothesis. I am busy testing it.

But you've already clearly said that you believe that there is God. How can you test a hypothesis if you've already accepted it as a given? What is your method for determining your hypothesis is true?

Because of the number of people who have testified of him.

And of all of those people, how many of them have presented actual evidence to support their claims?

Because of the number of people who have testified of him. I have also personally lived with people whose lives were so exemplary as to make me call them perfect. They attributed the righteousness to God. I am simply investigating these claims.

You cannot be said to be investigating their claims honestly if you have a bias towards assuming their claims as being true.

 

[Thanda]

But how can you verify claims about God by asking God? Isn't that affirming the consequent? You're already assuming the truth of the claims.

Yes, that is how you always establish the truth of something. You first make an assumption one way or the other. This is called the null hypothesis. You then determine what you would expect to observe if that something was true. You then run the test to see if you get the result you expected.

From my personal first hand experiences and the second hand experiences of those I know, I have decided to take God's existence as the null hypothesis. Do you have a problem with that?

1) How do you verify God's existence?
2) How do you verify that what God is supposedly communicating to you is accurate?

Personally I expect an experience that will be impactful and unique. It cannot be something I have experienced before. There experience needs to remove all feelings of doubt and anxiety. The fruits of the spirit (according to Christianity) are "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,". If the God of Christianity is true, then I expect these elements to attend his manifestation.

But there are many who do assert that there is no God. Why do you discount their experiences?

What are their experiences. Who has experienced the non-existence of God? Secondly I do not discount anyone's experience. But I am just one person. I can only deal with one thing at a time.

And of all of those people, how many of them have presented actual evidence to support their claims?

Their lives were the evidence. And that is the evidence I expect to give to the World when I have found God. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another".

You cannot be said to be investigating their claims honestly if you have a bias towards assuming their claims as being true.

I could likewise say few atheists can claim to be investigating the claim that there is a God since most are biased towards the idea that he doesn't exist. In fact I could extend it and say that anyone who lives and loves to live a life that is contrary to the teachings of the Christian God cannot honestly investigate his existence since they will likely have a clear bias towards his non-existence.

 

[Altfish]

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.

I would refer you to my second question...

• Why was the book(s) you wrote so ambiguous?

 

[Thanda]

I would refer you to my second question...

• Why was the book(s) you wrote so ambiguous?

To this God might answer:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.​

 

[Altfish]

To this God might answer:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.​

Translation?????

 

[Bunyip]

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

What faith? I can't see nitrogen, but I can measure it, test it, weigh it, detect it etc etc.
I could purchase a bottle of it right now.

 

[Thanda]

What faith? I can't see nitrogen, but I can measure it, test it, weigh it, detect it etc etc.
I could purchase a bottle of it right now.

 

[JustWondering]

Perhaps you better brush up on your logic and philosophy.

Enlighten me.

 

[JustWondering]

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

That's what advanced scientific equipment is for. Please show me the advanced scientific equipment for detecting souls. I'm an open minded person, if you can produce evidence for souls then I'm willing to listen. If you cannot, then all you have is unsubstantiated claims. I do not think my position is unreasonable.

 

[JustWondering]

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

If you experienced something than it is by definition, not invisible. If it is not invisible to human beings than it can surely be demonstrated, somehow, to exist, yes?

 

[Thanda]

Translation?????

God gives us principles and expects us to use them to guide ourselves in the decisions we make. He does not want to have to spell everything out.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

What do you think of people who deny climate change?