Nonsensical

[Brian2]

But you are not ready to apply the same measure to the God in which you believe.

I apply that to my God.

And the evidence is Torah, Bible and Quran.

Yes, even if the Quran is sort of negative evidence.
But the creation supplies evidence for my God and my God supplies miracles these days also and Biblical prophecies continue to be fulfilled these days.

 

[Brian2]

How?

Apart from your belief, we need something to base your opinion on that would let us determine if you are right.

You have the Bible, which lays on the ground these days torn to pieces by those opposed to it.

For example, why is the pagan god wrong? We have examples of pagan belief for centuries before the bible and the gods to some, like Christianity, you can't see or touch.

What's the difference?

Then you have Hindus god which I find makes more sense than abrahamic. How can you tell there is no evidence when their nature is one hundred percent opposed to each other?

How would I know?

There are myths and philosophies and there is real history and real fulfilled prophecy.

 

[Brian2]

If you say you have evidence, we can't take your word for it. We need a common agreed criteria to determine your opinion is based on fact.

If you say you believe because if testimony, no one needs to ask. Some can to have a back and forth discussion of spiritual experiences but if you tell someone who doesn't share in your views (no confirmation bias) and you say to them there is evidence, you'd need to back up that statement for mutual understanding.

If that's impossible, saying you have evidence is misleading.

I see your point but plainly my evidence is not the evidence that non believers accept, maybe the voices against such evidence are louder and more readily believed, especially when people seem to want evidence that is concrete and sure.
Accepting evidence that is not concrete and certain is a step that leads people to the evidence of a relationship with God however.

 

[Brian2]

Just a few of the 3800+ creator gods of whom the followers have said exactly the same thing.

Atum
Amun
Ahura Mazda
Itzamna
Marduk
Viracocha
Izanagi
Tezcatlipoca
Ahone

Do you see evidence that any of them exists?

I think they showed themselves not worthy of the title God and faded into obscurity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can call anything evidence that justifies my belief, true, and I probably do.
I can't help but come from the perspective that people are blind since the Bible tells me that people have been blinded to the truth.
I don't go around declaring this to everyone from the roof tops but I'm not a good sales person and all I can do is leave it up to God to lead people in the right direction if they want to go that way, and try not to get in the way.

I personally don't understand the view of others being blind to god or so have you. It makes it seem that if their eyes were open without their say so, they follow because they are pulled to not because they want to. It seems counterproductive to bring people to god (if so be). I don't see that as healthy, to be honest-at lest not in a spiritual sense if not just in general.

 

[Brian2]

That's your belief but we still haven't got the any of the evidence you claimed there was.

Haven't you? Where have you been? What have you been reading after almost 4000 post on RF? You must have seen the evidence.

I always find this rather amusing. Do you not understand 'evidence'? How does the mere existence of a person (or people) provide evidence for a god - let alone a specific god?

Our brain is said to be the most complex thing around. Our body and Genes are incredibly complex and story and use information. That is evidence of a God. For us to say we know what life is and how things work and how we got to what we are is like a farmer saying that he knows how a plant grows, you put the seed in the ground and water it.
It's all from God whether we recognise it or not.
I can't help it if that is not evidence for you but I can see why you think that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have the Bible, which lays on the ground these days torn to pieces by those opposed to it.

Evidence means every person regardless their religion and lack thereof can connect what they read in the bible with what we know of and can measure today. So, if jesus was crucified, then yes-we know people do tend to be crucified back when but if you said he rose from the grave the closest one would get is finding historical evidence of an empty grave. It's not evidence that jesus rose just evidence of an empty tomb. A lot of things in the bible are like that-evidence of the history but not the supernatural connection it teaches.

When you say you have evidence, it's interpreted that any person of any discipline and belief can test whether the bible (in this case) is true/a fact without dependence on one's knowledge and spiritual convictions.

Evidence isn't a good word for it. For yourself, yes, but when you say it to others who do not share your confirmation, you'd have to support it with criteria and ways that would not be biased to believers (hence why the bible is not a good way to determine evidence).

There are myths and philosophies and there is real history and real fulfilled prophecy.

That's from a believer's view. Are there fulfilled prophecies that have be studied as fulfilled-as a scientific and historical fact? If you take judgement day, for example, how would you connect the stories and lessons of the bible when we don't know what will happen after death (to those who do believe in an afterlife)? Faith-yes, but when you say evidence the criteria needs to be neutral and mutually agreed upon.

 

[Brian2]

All gods seem to go the same way over time.

If there were evidence then there is no need for faith

There is evidence and still a need for faith. That is because the evidence given is less than what you might call evidence. With that sort of evidence there is no need for faith, but with faith the evidence does not have to be what we would like. That's just how it is.
It would be nice for some if the Bible God went away also and people all over the world are working for that cause and legislation in countries opposes this God and makes it illegal to speak about Him and preach what He tells us.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see your point but plainly my evidence is not the evidence that non believers accept, maybe the voices against such evidence are louder and more readily believed, especially when people seem to want evidence that is concrete and sure.
Accepting evidence that is not concrete and certain is a step that leads people to the evidence of a relationship with God however.

They won't because it's not evidence that everyone use common criteria to judge it as such, but it's your evidence most likely based on conviction, experience, and faith. So, of course people would be blind (if one likes) because they aren't you.

Projecting your evidence as evidence and assuming that other people who don't share in this belief and criteria thereof (such as scripture) is illogical. Personal opinion, yes, but without being you, they'd be blind unless they agreed with your criteria of truth.

It's better to say "my" evidence rather than evidence. I think you're mixing up that people are blind to your evidence but without neutral criteria there is really nothing to be "blind" to. It's all subjective.

 

[Brian2]

That's very, very broad. And does not give evidence for a specific god - Yahweh/Allah - as requested.

As I saw you mention him earlier (and yes, there are still people who worship him), Zeus has evidence in the lightning. Thor's name literally means "thunderer". No scripture is needed to know those.

I know about thunder and lightning and the creator of them both.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I know about thunder and lightning and the creator of them both.

Given your Religion as professed, I can take a guess who you mean. Challenge: prove to me it's not Thor and Loke (who's name means lightning).

 

[Brian2]

I personally don't understand the view of others being blind to god or so have you. It makes it seem that if their eyes were open without their say so, they follow because they are pulled to not because they want to. It seems counterproductive to bring people to god (if so be). I don't see that as healthy, to be honest-at lest not in a spiritual sense if not just in general.

People are drawn to Jesus as they find out and believe. If that is being pulled and not because they want to follow, then so be it, but people aren't forced. Once the truth is clear people come even if they did not want to or even do not want to.
CS Lewis was an atheist academic who claims he was dragged into the Kingdom kicking and screaming.
He certainly did not want to become a Christian and with the press we have these days, that is the same now.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I apply that to my God.
But the creation supplies evidence for my God and my God supplies miracles these days also and Biblical prophecies continue to be fulfilled these days.

Abrahamics don't. Apparent existence of universe does not prove existence of the Abrahamic God. And prophecies are but fairly tales.

.. especially when people seem to want evidence that is concrete and sure.

So, you admit that your evidence is not concrete or sure. It is sort of 'airy'. Then why do you blame us for not accepting it?

I think they showed themselves not worthy of the title God and faded into obscurity.

Well, the 5.000 Hindu Gods and Goddesses are all healthy and frolicking.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People are drawn to Jesus as they find out and believe. If that is being pulled and not because they want to follow, then so be it, but people aren't forced. Once the truth is clear people come even if they did not want to or even do not want to.
CS Lewis was an atheist academic who claims he was dragged into the Kingdom kicking and screaming.
He certainly did not want to become a Christian and with the press we have these days, that is the same now.

I notice people of different faiths outside of Christianity on RF have
had spiritual awakening but without them telling me he religion I wouldn't know whose god he speaks of just the result of his conviction.

If the biblical god can change lives I'd need to know what is unique about christian experience and others.

That's one way to show evidence is that one's experiences (and even creation) could show God without religious scripture. It speaks of it's own.

Without that distinct connection evidence is in the rye of the beholder

 

[Brian2]

Evidence means every person regardless their religion and lack thereof can connect what they read in the bible with what we know of and can measure today. So, if jesus was crucified, then yes-we know people do tend to be crucified back when but if you said he rose from the grave the closest one would get is finding historical evidence of an empty grave. It's not evidence that jesus rose just evidence of an empty tomb. A lot of things in the bible are like that-evidence of the history but not the supernatural connection it teaches.

When you say you have evidence, it's interpreted that any person of any discipline and belief can test whether the bible (in this case) is true/a fact without dependence on one's knowledge and spiritual convictions.

Evidence isn't a good word for it. For yourself, yes, but when you say it to others who do not share your confirmation, you'd have to support it with criteria and ways that would not be biased to believers (hence why the bible is not a good way to determine evidence).

Yes I know all that and I guess that is why they say that Christians don't have blind faith and don't have to leave their brain behind to become Christians (usually).
But of course the evidence (if we can call it that) does not take us all the way. Faith is required.
There is what I call good evidence about fulfilled prophecy but there seems always to be enough wiggle room for people to say it is not real prophecy or too vague or something like that. Nothing is 100%.
As for the resurrection, it is seen as something that was taught by the earliest Christians and is reported as something that was known by them, having seen Jesus after He rose from the dead. But of course if people want certainty that is not certainty.

That's from a believer's view. Are there fulfilled prophecies that have be studied as fulfilled-as a scientific and historical fact? If you take judgement day, for example, how would you connect the stories and lessons of the bible when we don't know what will happen after death (to those who do believe in an afterlife)? Faith-yes, but when you say evidence the criteria needs to be neutral and mutually agreed upon.

There certainly are fulfilled prophecies but there always seems to be wiggle room for people if they do not want to believe them and prefer other beliefs about them, or as you say, when the criteria of evidence or standard of certainty is not high enough.
I' not sure what you mean by what you said about the afterlife.

 

[Brian2]

They won't because it's not evidence that everyone use common criteria to judge it as such, but it's your evidence most likely based on conviction, experience, and faith. So, of course people would be blind (if one likes) because they aren't you.

As we all are blind to a certain extent. Evidence enough for some to take a step of faith but others want more certainty.

Projecting your evidence as evidence and assuming that other people who don't share in this belief and criteria thereof (such as scripture) is illogical. Personal opinion, yes, but without being you, they'd be blind unless they agreed with your criteria of truth.

That's faith. Then again I see people reject the Bible for other beliefs that seem to require as much or more faith,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or it feels right.

It's better to say "my" evidence rather than evidence. I think you're mixing up that people are blind to your evidence but without neutral criteria there is really nothing to be "blind" to. It's all subjective.

True.

 

[Brian2]

Given your Religion as professed, I can take a guess who you mean. Challenge: prove to me it's not Thor and Loke (who's name means lightning).

What would be proof to you?
You have no proof that it is them even if you believe it is.
If your beliefs changed to something else it does not really require proof that Thor and Loke aren't real, that would come later I guess and there may even be an overlap of time where the new and old beliefs are both accepted as true.

 

[Brian2]

Abrahamics don't. Apparent existence of universe does not prove existence of the Abrahamic God.

Just a creator God as the first cause since a cyclical universe is impossible.

And prophecies are but fairly tales.

Not when they are fulfilled. Your assumption is the same one that many scholars use to say that the gospels were written after the Temple destruction in 70AD and that OT prophecies must have been written after the events. Then people say, "look scholars have shown that the OT books were written after the events prophesied" But the people that say that don't realise the circular reasoning that they are involved in where the scholars have just assumed the prophecies were written after the events.

So, you admit that your evidence is not concrete or sure. It is sort of 'airy'. Then why do you blame us for not accepting it?

I don't blame anyone.

Well, the 5.000 Hindu Gods and Goddesses are all healthy and frolicking.

You say that but agree with me that they are not real Gods.

 

[Valjean]

""Who the heck would need evidence of Cthulu, Bigfoot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus? ""
I would like evidence for them before I would venture to believe in them.

My point exactly!

The Abrahamic God is the only one with the evidence, even if people don't want to see it as evidence.

Declaring it so doesn't make it so. Everybody, no matter what religion, does the same.
What is this evidence, that exists only in Abrahamic belief?

 

[Valjean]

Not when they are fulfilled. Your assumption is the same one that many scholars use to say that the gospels were written after the Temple destruction in 70AD and that OT prophecies must have been written after the events. Then people say, "look scholars have shown that the OT books were written after the events prophesied" But the people that say that don't realise the circular reasoning that they are involved in where the scholars have just assumed the prophecies were written after the events.

Doesn't every system point to fulfilled prophecies?
People are apophenic. They see patterns, whether they exist or not -- images in clouds, Mother Mary on a slice of toast, messages in records played backwards, prophecies in Nostradamus and the Bible. Somehow the ambiguous becomes clear, and supportive of whatever worldview the faithful believe in.

You say that but agree with me that they are not real Gods.

What empirical evidence do you have that any real gods exist at all?