• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence is not enough!

Neuropteron

Active Member
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

What's the difference ?

Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.

Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".

What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

What's the difference ?

Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.

Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".

What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.

Can I ask, since you mentioned jesus, every other person in the world has had a life changing experience that is similar if not the same in concept and feelings (we are all human) as their spiritual peer. If it were god of the bible, wouldn't all of our experiences regardless what we name them, culture, language, and tradition point to jesus' creator?

With the same logic, if someone around the world did the same math problem as I did but in their way, their language, and using their cultural methods (lets say), we will both end up with the same answer.

Yet, regardless the culture, language, etc, we all still have totally different religious and spiritual beliefs that have nothing to do with the christian god.

If there is evidence of the christian god, wouldn't the evidence of our experiences lead to the same creator regardless from what part of the world we hail from?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
... with that in mind

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

What's the difference ?

I think most question it not because of what believers call creation but the nature of god itself. People-actual human beings-made stonehenge so it's not impossible to imagine that there is a creator because we know the nature with whom could create such a structure.

Believers have SOOO many different definitions of god that even to say "there is a creator" just by looking at a tree or a baby means nothing. It's so much more involved than saying "look! there's a tree. there 'must' be a creator" and poof! there is one. It is a belief but not a fact... so I'm not sure how one can make that logical assumption but I do understand why people believe it.

Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

I don't think so. I do know many people who do not believe in god probably have more issues with god's people than they do with god. But, nonetheless, I'd assume if they did have an emotional life changing connection, even if they left the people, they'd still have the belief. So, it's much more than an emotional connection or lack thereof.


Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

I wouldn't say "not accepting." That's assuming god exists for us to reject him. (Not sure why believers think that??)

Anyhow, signs are in the eye of the beholder. Explain to me how a baby born is logically connected to the beauty of a creator.

Signs, assumptions, and beliefs aren't facts. So, is there a connection and if so, what is it that I would know, Joe, and and Jim on the other side of the would will pick up no problem?

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.

The only proof that would probably be "so evidence" is personal experience. A lot of people who don't believe in a creator have at once, have been christians, have studied christianity, and so forth and realize that god does not exist and rejected the "concept" of god not god itself.

So, maybe change your frame of reference?

Why rejection?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I'll stick with a simpler answer.

LOL are you just being lazy LnM?

Do the implications not cross your mind from time to time? :shrug:

Or are you one of these.....?

images


images


:D
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
LOL are you just being lazy LnM?

Often, yes...lol. But not generally intellectually lazy. Still, I was pulling up carpet yesterday, so perhaps physical fatigue has led to mental fatigue. Let me see here...

Do the implications not cross your mind from time to time? :shrug:

Of Stonehenge? Not particularly, although I'm quite interested when people try undertaking ancient projects using only the technologies we believe they had access to. That applies regardless of the project, or the religious value of the discussion.
Stonehenge, Noah's Ark, the Draken Harald Harfagre...it can be pretty fascinating.

Or are you one of these.....?

images


images


:D

Nah. I think you know me well enough to know I'm happy to listen to others points of view, and evidence. But I can only speak in terms of what I find credible and compelling. Stonehenge isn't going to convince me of a God anymore than posting pictures of nature's beauty will.

Now, more specifically in relation to your pics...

Do ostriches really bury their heads in the sand?

I like checking against preconceptions and assumptions. I find the real world pretty interesting.
 

Miken

Active Member
One might argue for a creator entity based on orderliness in the universe. Yet when one looks a the nature of this orderliness - the truly immense size of the universe and how little of it has anything to do with us - the really strange nature of reality including everything from quantum theory to general relativity - it is hard to imagine that this creator entity has any connection with human religions. This is especially the case if one wants to identify the God portrayed in the Bible with this creator entity. The attitude I often hear is "You believe in God? Then how come I don't see you in my church on Sunday?" Can you say hubris, boys and girls?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

You obviously aren't a Pagan, then. Contemporary Pagans - especially Druids - use it as a religious pilgrimage destination. So this "us" you are talking about? Speak for yourself.

In spite of your bad example and presumptuousness, I get your point, though. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?
No, there is someone claiming to have proof of god as often as there is someone claiming to have a perpetuum mobile.
I even constructed a god proof myself (which, btw, has only ever been challenged once). I post it frequently here.
What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
That happens when you search for evidence. Sometimes the experiment is expensive or hard to set up. That's why you document very precisely the setup of your experiment and publish it in a respected journal. When it is interesting enough someone else will reproduce the findings and validate your theory. I consider reliantly repeated experiments published in respected journals pretty believable. In which journals has your experiment been published?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.
But why do you say humans did Stonehenge and not God? Is it because you have evidence of humans doing it?

The elephant in the room here is that there is plenty of evidence that evolution creates divergence in species, thus as with Stonehenge, there is a simpler more likely explanation than God poofed it into existence.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

What's the difference ?

Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.

Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".

What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.
What an absolutely terrible analogy.

There is plenty of objective evidence of Stonehenge being an artifact. (We know the location the stones came from, we have tool marks and other evidence of construction, and so on.)

There is no objective evidence for the existence of God. We have scriptures written thousands of years ago making various claims, as we do for the Greek myths. And some people have subjective experiences that they associate with God. But there is no objective evidence.

Regarding a posteriori, the Merriam Webster description of this term is worth repeating:

"A posteriori, Latin for "from the latter", is a term from logic, which usually refers to reasoning that works backward from an effect to its causes. This kind of reasoning can sometimes lead to false conclusions. The fact that sunrise follows the crowing of a rooster, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that the rooster's crowing caused the sun to rise."

So circumspection is needed in using a posteriori reasoning. This is one reason why scientific theories are never claimed to be "proved".
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.

Errr....

Why exactly, do you think, people accept that stonehenge is a man-made structure?
Because it sounds like you don't have a clue tbh...

If you did, you wouldn't say that with the same standards of evidence, everyone would believe in god.
Because the evidence of stonehenge being man-made, is NOTHING like the "evidence" of religions. Not even remotely.

However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

Remind me of this evidence?

What's the difference ?

The difference is that stonehenge being man-made is actually demonstrable and independently verifiable. ie, it is back by actual evidence. Not just by mere "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations" and "anecdotes" and a bunch of fallacious apologetic "arguments".

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

It would absolutely not surprise me to HEAR theists CLAIM that there is such proof.
I would be extremely surprised for there to actually be such proof.

The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".

What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.

:rolleyes:

It's called self-delusion / self-brainwashing.
Aka "putting your cart before the horse"
Aka "painting the bullseye around the arrow"
Aka "an assumed conclusion".

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.

That's nothing. Some muslims are so convinced of their evidence that they are willing to blow themselves up for it.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.

If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.

What's the difference ?

Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.

Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.

Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.

That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?

The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".

What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?

However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.
Simple. If humans or nature can duplicate it then its the likely source. Show something that humans or nature cannot do, something regarded as impossible, then you might be on to something.

That said, I'd probably think of an advanced being before I would think any type of deity or supernatural being.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
We have observed monuments that we unmistakably know were built by human hand.

How many worlds have we observed that we unmistakably know were built by an omniscient omnipotent being?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hi,

If the creator does exist, and his creation denies his existence. That is a rejection.

Cheers

It could be rejection. Some just don't know him to really have rejective feelings about him. Others are indifferent. But assuming that god exist, rejection would be more emotionally involved. I know there is a Sam Smith someone in the world but I don't reject his or her existence because I have no emotional attachment to it. Not denial. Not rejection. Just indifference.

Same with god. There's more to rejection than just "knowing" someone exists and not assuming existence means one has to have an emotional attachment and interest of it.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
Can I ask, since you mentioned jesus, every other person in the world has had a life changing experience that is similar if not the same in concept and feelings (we are all human) as their spiritual peer. If it were god of the bible, wouldn't all of our experiences regardless what we name them, culture, language, and tradition point to jesus' creator?

With the same logic, if someone around the world did the same math problem as I did but in their way, their language, and using their cultural methods (lets say), we will both end up with the same answer.

Yet, regardless the culture, language, etc, we all still have totally different religious and spiritual beliefs that have nothing to do with the christian god.

If there is evidence of the christian god, wouldn't the evidence of our experiences lead to the same creator regardless from what part of the world we hail from?


Hello,
The answer lies in a comment Jesus made:2Cor4:4 "The God of this system(Satan)has blinded the minds of the unbeliever(to the true God) so that they do not see...."

Regarding mathematical logic and scientific testing: We cannot compare God to a science project or a mathematical equations. He requires us to get to know him on His terms, it is up to us to inquire what those terms are.

Regarding your last question, that evidence is there, it's just a matter of knowing where to look for it. However the road to the truth is narrow, it is not to be found in mainstream opinions.


Cheers.
 
Top