Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe the Bible. You don't have to.
Free choice. So why do you want all to be like and think like you?

Well, I don't claim Heaven, you do and you claim how we all can go there. So you claim a we, I don't.

 

[nPeace]

I believe Archeology is a science that provides contrary evidence to the Biblical narrative to be more specific.

I believe that is an opinion.

1) Folklore is even more limited as a source of truth.

Of course. Who in their right mind thinks that folklore is truth. Because you and others think the Bible is myth, that does not make it so.

2)Sure, logic and reason are also paths to truth, but faith is neither of those nor is it science.

Faith is based on solid evidence. So, it is a guarantee to it's adherents of truth.

Anything can be believed.

We know that. That's why a lot of us believe in the theory of evolution.

3)The Bible is often wrong, but unlike science the Bible doesn't correct itself.

Well that's a baseless claim. It's almost like saying "God is a liar. There. I said it."
The Bible does not correct itself, anymore than the laws of the universe corrects itself.
We are the ones who adjust our understanding of the laws of the universe, and the Bible.
They are both fixed truths.

We literally only know where science got it wrong because the application of a greater amount of evidence confirmed the faults of earlier theories, in other words it was the scientific method in combination with more facts that showed the earlier theories were in error.

Same with the Bible. Closer examination, and study, as well as revealed knowledge help us adjust.

So you literally can't prove that science got anything wrong without resorting to science if you want to be logical about it in my opinion.

Well of course you can't challenge 'big heads' unless you can demonstrate they are wrong.
That's what Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis had to do. he knew the 'big heads' were wrong, by using simple commonsense and experience, but he had to come up with an experiment.
How sad.

The poor man had to endure ridicule from 'big heads', till he was mentally ill, and died, before someone could come along and demonstrate to the 'big heads' that they were wrong.
Meanwhile, lots of mothers... well we can't call them mothers... they didn't have a chance, but lots of women died.

Do you see a lesson here? I do.
This Scientism has got people bewitched... thinking that everything must be proven by science. Sad.

Science considers questions concerning the material realm according to my understanding. If a person comes up with evidence that heat from internal combustion expands gases that push cylinders and another person says with no evidence "no internal combustion did not cause it, God is pushing the cylinders" that person has made a claim concerning the material realm which places their God into the magisteria of science.

No. The people in the Scientism temple believe that. Not real scientists.

The only claim which can be considered correct by science is the one with evidence - the contrary claim with no evidence stands rejected by science.

Only science has evidence?
Daniel... I'm frankly tired of hearing this Scientism nonsense. It's running my blood to water, to be honest. So, I think I have to stop before my blood boils. I don't want to become like Bruce Banner. The smile is to cool me down a bit.

By saying "evolution did not make virtuous behavior God did it" I wonder if you even have the capacity to tell why this puts your God into the domain of science's consideration?

I also wonder if you have the capacity to analyse which part of the analogy of internal combustion engines i provided your contrary assertion - that God did it without evolution - most resembles?

In my opinion.

See yah.

 

[nPeace]

Well, I don't claim Heaven, you do and you claim how we all can go there. So you claim a we, I don't.

Not me. You have me confused with several posters on here. I have never claimed such a thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not me. You have me confused with several posters on here. I have never claimed such a thing.

Okay, sorry. I will try to not do it again.

 

[nPeace]

Tell the people who are night racing with no lights on, causing the death of two parents leaving 3 children without parents. There is no excuse of course. Irrational in their driving? Absolutely. Free will... definitely. Man caused and not God caused? Obviously. No excuse for suffering in free will? not logical

My condolences. I am deeply sorry to hear of your loss.
Thankfully, you are aware of the resurrection hope, and trust in the God of comfort, knowing that we will see our loved ones again.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, sorry. I will try to not do it again.

That's okay. You made a mistake. We all do.

 

[icehorse]

When speaking about evidences and proofs with regards to God here I am not speaking about scientific proofs but spiritual proofs. I believe that the human mind cannot grasp God so it is fruitless trying to prove God scientifically as we are told He is Spirit. Then to prove God we need to look at spiritual evidences.

What are spiritual proofs and evidences of God? Some say the virtues. Others, the transformative effect the Teachings of the Great Spiritual Teachers have had on the character of the individual and society. Still others say miracles.

Readers might like to contribute by adding how their Prophet’s teachings transformed the life of the individual and society or add their own spiritual proofs of God’s existence.

I declare myself to be a "spiritual anti-theist". I disagree with the premise or assumption that being spiritual requires believing in god(s).

 

[Kenny]

My condolences. I am deeply sorry to hear of your loss.
Thankfully, you are aware of the resurrection hope, and trust in the God of comfort, knowing that we will see our loved ones again.

THAT, my dear friend, is our hope, our faith and our solid rock! thank you!

 

[blü 2]

Those who read the Bible carefully, and not with a closed-minded bias, know that God did not change his views on anything.

So your God still approves of slavery and invasive war and massacre of populations and still craves human sacrifice? Sheesh! You're welcome to [him].

Not sure what you are talking about, except the misconceptions and misrepresentations of atheists.

I simply pointed out that a god without followers is an ex-god, without social or tribal relevance.

This is your viewpoint. It is not scripture.

You're dodging the question. IF God is omnipotent, WHY was a (particularly cruel) human sacrifice necessary at all?

What prevented your omnipotent God from achieving whatever it was [he] wished to achieve, without cruelty and death?

If you don't know ─ and you're certainly conveying that impression ─ just say so.

No. See - atheists misrepresentations.

It was your choice of example and I didn't misrepresent it in any way. You said Jesus was admirable because he sacrificed himself for others.

In the first place, you haven't said why any sacrifice was necessary, or what it sought to achieve that couldn't be done without sacrifice.

In the second place, I said I admired those who in war situations put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of their group ─ in reply to your specific question. But you keep running away from explaining why Jesus' crucifixion was necessary and what (if anything) Jesus' crucifixion achieved.

 

[nPeace]

So your God still approves of slavery and invasive war and massacre of populations and still craves human sacrifice? Sheesh! You're welcome to [him].

God will always approve slavery.
We are slaves to one thing or other.
The word slave does not carry the meaning attached to it.
It simply means 'servant'.
God never approved slavery created by humans. He simply tolerated it.

God's view on war has not changed.

I simply pointed out that a god without followers is an ex-god, without social or tribal relevance.

Yes, and the earth without humans is an ex-earth. That's why the planets out there are ex-planets.
Sensible reasoning.

You're dodging the question. IF God is omnipotent, WHY was a (particularly cruel) human sacrifice necessary at all?

I am not. I posted the answer on the forums to at least two skeptics. Never got a reply on it.
I don't want to post it to you. I think the response will be worst.

Edit: It was man's cruelty that existed at the time, which God's son was subjected to.

What prevented your omnipotent God from achieving whatever it was [he] wished to achieve, without cruelty and death?

Nothing. Nothing will prevent God from accomplishing his will.
If cruelty and death occurs, what of it. What's that to God?
the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart.” ISAIAH 65:17

If you don't know ─ and you're certainly conveying that impression ─ just say so.

The Bible answers any question we need to know about God.

It was your choice of example and I didn't misrepresent it in any way. You said Jesus was admirable because he sacrificed himself for others.

In the first place, you haven't said why any sacrifice was necessary, or what it sought to achieve that couldn't be done without sacrifice.

In the second place, I said I admired those who in war situations put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of their group ─ in reply to your specific question. But you keep running away from explaining why Jesus' crucifixion was necessary and what (if anything) Jesus' crucifixion achieved.

I don't want to answer you blu... Not you, of all people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I can agree that it is a free will on this one.

Proof?

What?

Think for a minute.

Do you struggle with the temptation to do things you've never even thought of?

It's like Penn Jillette once said: "I murder all I want and I rape all I want; it's just the amount I want of these things is zero."

Do you may control how you reapond to temptation, but do you control what tempts you?

Yes, our physical ability can make it impossible, but does that mean one didn't try?

irrelevancy gone to seed? What in the world does any of the above change the young people's free will to street race at night with no lights on that killed the friends of my daughter?

If God hadn't arranged it so that the street race was physically possible, then those people wouldn't have been killed.

Those guys might still have wanted to race that night, but without the physical ability to do it, the suffering wouldn't have happened.

Short version: if God were real, God could have prevented those deaths without interfering in anyone’s free will.

... and that's why mindlessly parroting "free will!" whenever someone mentions the suffering that features in "God's holy plan" is irrational garbage.

 

[Kenny]

That our desires are not free will

 

[Kenny]

So your God still approves of slavery and invasive war and massacre of populations and still craves human sacrifice? Sheesh! You're welcome to [him].

I think that was more of a trolling, non logical statement. IMV

 

[YoursTrue]

Your politically biased selection process followed by life term is silly.

I didn't devise the system, by the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right: you recognize the deficiency in God's creation - i.e. us - but don't see how the quality of the creation reflects on its creator.

Actually man is different from fish or gorillas. It's a long story but God can open a person's eyes.

 

[blü 2]

God will always approve slavery.
We are slaves to one thing or other.
The word slave does not carry the meaning attached to it.
It simply means 'servant'.

No, it means someone owned as property by another person. But you know that, because you've read the rules ─ I mentioned the one about how to sell your daughter correctly, and the one about being entitled to beat them savagely as long as they don't die in the next day or so. Here, let me jog your memory ─

Exodus 21​

7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.​

Leviticus 25​

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.​

God never approved slavery created by humans. He simply tolerated it.

That's nonsense, just you wishing your own wishes onto the bible, which flatly contradicts you. Even in the NT, Paul tell slaves to be good little slaves ─ nowhere does he suggest the institution of slavery is wrong.

And since, you say, your God never changes, [he] still approves slavery and will doubtless make no objection to it should the Republican far right take over the Confederate States again and restore them to a great cotton-exporting nation.

I am not. I posted the answer on the forums to at least two skeptics. Never got a reply on it.
I don't want to post it to you. I think the response will be worst.

So you can't articulate any sensible reason that might justify Jesus' suicide mission? Okay, that's clear ─ you don't know why Jesus had to die, though you apparently continue to think it was a terrific idea.

Edit: It was man's cruelty that existed at the time, which God's son was subjected to.

That won't work. Look how he refuses to escape while there's still time after the Last Supper. Look at how at his trial before Pontius he forces Pontius into a corner, and lets the rabble decide his fate. He set the whole thing up, chose the manner of his death.

But neither you nor I know what on earth he was trying to achieve that couldn't be better achieved by other means.

1
Nothing. Nothing will prevent God from accomplishing his will.
If cruelty and death occurs, what of it. What's that to God?

That's my very point. Who'd want to worship a god who likes invasive war, slaughter of surrendered populations, mass rapes, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, slavery, subordination of women, blank but malicious incomprehension of the forms of human sexuality ...

Sheesh. And, you say, incapable of change ─ double sheesh!0

I don't want to answer you blu... Not you, of all people.

Some things just don't change, hey?

 

[blü 2]

Noah is older that 3,000 BC. So is Shem, Ham, and Japheth. etc.

From memory, Noah (about 500 BCE) is a version of the earlier Babylonian Uta-Napishti (by 2000 BCE), who is a version of the still earlier Sumerian Ziasudra (by 2500 BCE).

Since you know it's a myth, why would you think otherwise than as the evidence shows? Surely you don't think the tip of Mt Everest was 20 feet under water in the last 10,000 years? Or that the Three Bears lived in a cottage and breakfasted on boiled porridge?

 

[sayak83]

That is not what you are asking for. Strawman.

I am asking for evidence for the specific claims of Bible being older tradition than Hinduism. So far you have failed to provide any and as far as I see, trying to desperately avoid the issue.

 

[sayak83]

That is not what you are asking for. Strawman.

I am asking for evidence for the specific claims of Bible being older tradition than Hinduism. So far you have failed to provide any and as far as I see, trying to desperately avoid the issue.

 

[Watchmen]

That is not so of all religion. Some, but not all.
As for religion being meaningless or not, there is no proof of that. Meaningless is also a feeling and not proof.

Correct. Not all religions claim to be the one true church. What is meaningless is the “spiritual proof” proffered by the religions that do.