Are you certain that God exists?

[Ahmadi]

What I am trying to say is that the search for God is not an overnight process. It's a very gradual process and a difficult road but the rewards for finding God, our creator and the One Who can love more than anyone else, are unimaginable. Why do people have such a problem going through this process? Why do people insist on 'objective evidence' when I see that only as a way of denial of God? Or a laziness towards commitment? What's wrong with actually experiencing God subjectively through revelations, acceptance of prayers, etc.?

 

[Fascist Christ]

What I am trying to say is that the search for God is not an overnight process. It's a very gradual process and a difficult road but the rewards for finding God, our creator and the One Who can love more than anyone else, are unimaginable. Why do people have such a problem going through this process? Why do people insist on 'objective evidence' when I see that only as a way of denial of God? Or a laziness towards commitment? What's wrong with actually experiencing God subjectively through revelations, acceptance of prayers, etc.?

Nonsense. I found god and it is nothing like you say.

 

[Cynic]

I know God exists because I studied his prophecies, and saw them to be 100% accurate, in actual history, not just biblical history. One example is that the Bible says Israel would be scattered but in the last days they would return. These were fulfilled, first in 70AD, and next in 1948.

Please give me the chapter and verse.

 

[Tawn]

Because I can't convince myself that there wasn't one. If you can prove to me that there was no beginning, then I will change my opinion. At this point I am not convinced, though I admit I could be wrong. It's only a theory. That's why I am a Deist, my beliefs can change in light of new information.

But isnt that like saying, I believe in God because he cannot be proven not to exist?
You believe in a beginning, because it cannot be proven that there wasnt a beginning.

Conversely though, you cannot prove there was a beginning either.

It this situation surely it is better to say, 'I dont know' and leave it as an unknown? ..and if a conclusion has to be reached surely it makes more sense to not believe in something than to believe in something (within this context).

Consider:
You have no idea whether or not I have ever been hang-gliding. Lets say I refuse to tell you and you are unable to find this information out from anyone else.
What do you assume?
That I must have been hang-gliding because you cannot prove I havent been hang gliding? Or that I must not have been hang gliding because you cannot prove that I have? Or that it is an unknown - and you will withhold belief in either position?

 

[Fascist Christ]

But isnt that like saying, I believe in God because he cannot be proven not to exist?
You believe in a beginning, because it cannot be proven that there wasnt a beginning.

Conversely though, you cannot prove there was a beginning either.

It this situation surely it is better to say, 'I dont know' and leave it as an unknown? ..and if a conclusion has to be reached surely it makes more sense to not believe in something than to believe in something (within this context).

Consider:
You have no idea whether or not I have ever been hang-gliding. Lets say I refuse to tell you and you are unable to find this information out from anyone else.
What do you assume?
That I must have been hang-gliding because you cannot prove I havent been hang gliding? Or that I must not have been hang gliding because you cannot prove that I have? Or that it is an unknown - and you will withhold belief in either position?

Other factors would come into play. I would ask myself, what else do I know about him? Is he afraid of heights? What else does he like to do? Is this even important enough for me to even think about?

The theory I made is based on my own experiences. Since I cannot prove it conclusively, the only options I have are to disprove it, or take no position. When I took no position, my curiosity heightened, and I searched for more information.

There is no harm in leaning one way or the other. It is most important to be honest with yourself.

 

[Ahmadi]

Nonsense. I found god and it is nothing like you say.

And what did you find? An academic God? You can't even be sure that He exists.

 

[Ahmadi]

Please give me the chapter and verse.

There is a similar prophecy in the Quran:

And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105) -Taken from here.

That was fulfilled with the creation of Israel in 1948. Many other prophecies of the Quran are found on the same page.

 

[Ahmadi]

One question that arises in my mind because of this debate is:

Is it possible to prove to a blind man that colour actually exists? Or can you provide 'objective evidence' to a blind man that colour exists?

Another question that arises is:

Why is subjective evidence for God not enough?

Follow-up Questions: Can't we analyze the subjective evidence for ghosts, spiritual beings, gods, God, etc. and try to determine the level of reliability of the evidence? Isn't there a difference between the subjective evidence for a ghost and God?

 

[Fascist Christ]

And what did you find? An academic God? You can't even be sure that He exists.

That's funny. I can't even be sure that you exist. I just take for granted that, based on previous experiences, that you are a real person behind a keyboard. It is certainly possible that I am wrong in this assumption, but all other options I know of just don't make sense to me.

For example, you could be an artificially intelligent computer. The fact that I have not seen such a computer causes me to doubt that possibility.

LIkewise, you could be an extra-terrestrial. However, I have not experienced anything to warrant that assumption.

I could be hallucinating. I could be dreaming. All these things I doubt, but are all possible.

I personally worry about people who think things are always 100% certain. I choose to accept that I can be wrong. It's called humility.

 

[Tawn]

Other factors would come into play. I would ask myself, what else do I know about him? Is he afraid of heights? What else does he like to do? Is this even important enough for me to even think about?

The theory I made is based on my own experiences. Since I cannot prove it conclusively, the only options I have are to disprove it, or take no position. When I took no position, my curiosity heightened, and I searched for more information.

There is no harm in leaning one way or the other. It is most important to be honest with yourself.

Absolutely. Sounds like you have a grip on the situation..

 

[Ahmadi]

I personally worry about people who think things are always 100% certain. I choose to accept that I can be wrong. It's called humility.

Interesting post!

Maybe I am a supercomputer and how can you be sure that I am not?
You see, these are the kinds of doubts that an Academic God raises. Personal experiences with God destroy these doubts.

It's good that you choose to accept that you could be wrong and I don't dispute the fact that it is your humility. In fact, it's a very noble quality to have.:bonk:

 

[Tawn]

One question that arises in my mind because of this debate is:

Is it possible to prove to a blind man that colour actually exists? Or can you provide 'objective evidence' to a blind man that colour exists?

No you could not. However, if every single person the blind man meets assures him colour does indeed exist, then whilst he doesnt know for CERTAIN that colour exists - it would be sensible for him to assume it does.

However, if the blind man comes across a compelling reason why the 'sighted' people would either: be tricking themselves into believing colour exists OR lie about the existance of colour.. then the blind man would surely place his belief in colour into serious doubt.

Another question that arises is:

Why is subjective evidence for God not enough?

Because the subjective evidence is potentially corrupted. There are many ulterior motives why someone would fabricate such evidence. We also know that there are many faith systems in the world. They cannot all be true since they fly in the face of each other (to various extents). We know most if not all must therefore be false.
They can all produce subjective evidence. Therefore subjective evidence is not reliable.

Follow-up Questions: Can't we analyze the subjective evidence for ghosts, spiritual beings, gods, God, etc. and try to determine the level of reliability of the evidence? Isn't there a difference between the subjective evidence for a ghost and God?

If subjective evidence is unreliable, it seems that any analysis done is also going to be unreliable. Not that it shouldnt be performed and investigated..

 

[Tawn]

You see, these are the kinds of doubts that an Academic God raises. Personal experiences with God destroy these doubts.

Not really, even if he were to visit you and meet you.. and then go back home and chat to you here.. he couldnt be 100% certain that it is still you.
He couldnt be 100% certain that you werent an alien disguised as a human - or even a supercomputer disguised as a human.. etc..

Of course these things are fairly ludicrous - but still, certainty cannot be achieved.

 

[joeboonda]

Please give me the chapter and verse.[/QUOTE

]

Prophecies of the Jews being scattered: http://100prophecies.org/page5.htm

Prophecies of the Jews returning: http://100prophecies.org/page2.htm

 

[joeboonda]

That's the funny thing about prophecies, they can be open to multiple meanings

I see by your answer your ignorance of Bible prophecy, as Bible prophecies are extremely detailed. For example, the Old Testament prophecied that the Messiah would be betrayed by 30 pieces of silver. Not 29, not 100, not gold... So, you may want to educate yourself, you will find the prophecies to be very accurate and detailed.

 

[joeboonda]

That's the funny thing about prophecies, they can be open to multiple meanings. For example, I can say Marilyn Manson predicted the 2004 election results in 1996 with his "Little Horn" prophecy. However, thats getting too far offtopic.

Sounds like a nice story to put in the bible. Especially with those nice round numbers and the vagueness of it all. Here's one for you:

100 followers of Mammon went to their financial representative and 5 years later were millionaires. The atheist is still flipping burgers. Looks like we should all praise Mammon![/QUOTE

]

In San Fransisco, a man once challenged Dr. Harry Ironside to a debate on "Agnosticism versus Christianity." Dr. Ironside agreed, on one condition: that the agnostic first provide evidence that agnosticism was beneficial enough to defend. Dr. Ironside challenged the agnostic to bring one man who had been a "down-and -outer" (a drunkard, criminal, or such) and one woman who had been trapped in a degraded life (such as prostitution), and show that both of these people had been rescued from their lives of degradation through embracing the philosophy of agnosticism. Dr. Ironside undertook to bring 100 men and women to the debate who had been gloriously rescued through believing the gospel the agnostic ridiculed. The skeptic withdrew his challenge to debate Dr. Ironside. So DUDE, I didn't make it up!

 

[Cynic]

Prophecies of the Jews being scattered: http://100prophecies.org/page5.htm

Prophecies of the Jews returning: http://100prophecies.org/page2.htm

The exact date of when Luke was written is uncertain, but many scholars suggest that it was written after 70 AD, that is after the prophesied events happened.

"The evangelist does not claim to have been an eyewitness of Jesus's life, but to have investigated everything carefully and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4)." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Your source states that luke was written 30 AD, at the time of the crucifixion. I'm wondering how one can be certain, especially since the author does not state that he was an eye witness:

Bible passage: Luke 21:24
Recorded: about 30 AD
Fulfilled: 70 AD

It is my speculation that the gospels were written after the fact. But of course, since there is uncertainty, my speculation remains as that.

 

[Ahmadi]

Not really, even if he were to visit you and meet you.. and then go back home and chat to you here.. he couldnt be 100% certain that it is still you.
He couldnt be 100% certain that you werent an alien disguised as a human - or even a supercomputer disguised as a human.. etc..

Of course these things are fairly ludicrous - but still, certainty cannot be achieved.

Okay? Now, I am beginning to doubt whether you even consider yourself a human. Are you really sure that you yourself exist? 100%?

 

[Ahmadi]

It is my speculation that the gospels were written after the fact. But of course, since there is uncertainty, my speculation remains as that.

What if there was a scenario that a prophecy was written in a book before the fact? Doesn't that make subjective evidence more credible?

For example:
1. Prphet Muhammad (saw) prophesized regarding the future of Islam: "Suraqa, how will you feel with the gold bangles of the king of Iran on your wrists?"

The prophecy was fulfilled years later when the Muslim forces defeated the Persians.
2. A simple satement in the Quran: "And when books are spread abroad." (81:11)

This prophecy has been fulfilled by the large-scale publication of books.

 

[Ahmadi]

No you could not. However, if every single person the blind man meets assures him colour does indeed exist, then whilst he doesnt know for CERTAIN that colour exists - it would be sensible for him to assume it does.

Despite his assumption and the lack of certainty in his mind, colour does indeed exist.

Because the subjective evidence is potentially corrupted. There are many ulterior motives why someone would fabricate such evidence. We also know that there are many faith systems in the world. They cannot all be true since they fly in the face of each other (to various extents). We know most if not all must therefore be false.
They can all produce subjective evidence. Therefore subjective evidence is not reliable.
If subjective evidence is unreliable, it seems that any analysis done is also going to be unreliable. Not that it shouldnt be performed and investigated..

There are some who might have ulterior morives but if you analyze the lives of all the prophets, you would not find even a single prophet who had an ulterior motive. For instance, the suffering that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) had to go through doesn't seem like an 'ulterior' motive for me.

As far as the number of faith systems is concerned, it takes me back to my question. Is there a way to differentiate between subjective evidence for the God of Islam and the pagan gods? Is there a way to use rationality to investigate the evidence for both types of God/gods and determine which is more credible?