Evidence is not enough!

[Milton Platt]

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.

If we could see god standing out in the field, perhaps he would be on equal footing.

 

[Neuropteron]

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.

Hello,
Using your example, Making the statement Sam Smith does not exist is an expression of rejecting Sam Smith regardless if I know him or not.
Saying I don't care if he exists is a statement of indifference.

Be well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello,
Using your example, Making the statement Sam Smith does not exist is an expression of rejecting Sam Smith regardless if I know him or not.
Saying I don't care if he exists is a statement of indifference.

Be well.

If you knew sam smith existed, and you had ill feelings about sam, then by not acknowledging his existence, yes, that would be rejection.

If you didn't have an emotional attachment to someone who existed, then his existence would be irrelevant to you. So you're not rejecting (or accepting) him. You have no reason to. It's indifference.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

I think one of the more fascinating questions is how some people don't believe "free will" is a thing and yet "free will" appears to be necessary concept to our systems of law. Things depend on whether or not someone has decided to do a thing of his own free will. It is at least necessary to acknowledge that free will appears to exist even if you suspect it is an illusion, because free will leads to a more functional model that can be practically applied to existing circumstances. That means that even people who don't believe in free will practically have to behave as if it does. It's interesting to think about.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I make no decisions based on Stonehedge. If you want to imagine it's a coincedence, be my guest. Seems needlessly complicated given that we have evidence that humans exist, and that they can and do move rocks about.

I'll stick with a simpler answer.

What's "a simpler answer"?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What's "a simpler answer"?

'I don't know'