Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

The problem ends in the limitations of justification, but that is philosophy.

 

[blü 2]

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

I didn't make it up ─ the bible is very explicit about the things I mentioned, and I can quote you relevant parts if you wish. They represent a morality that I reject.

 

[metis]

I hope you know Jesus, Stephen, Paul, Peter, and all the apostles are in heaven hearing you.
We still have time to repent of things we say about them.

You obviously don't understand that "myths" are ancient teachings, thus the importance of the Flood narrative is that basic morals and values are being taught.

What we call "oral traditions" were largely done as teaching devices, especially since so many people were illiterate. In this early tradition, myths are not made up lies but are meant to educate. And it's so pathetic that you reach for the low of judging others simply because they have a difference in interpretating scripture on some narratives.

 

[Kenny]

I didn't make it up ─ the bible is very explicit about the things I mentioned, and I can quote you relevant parts if you wish. They represent a morality that I reject.

Yes, if you mine position at the expense of everything else that is written, then you are trolling IMV

 

[viole]

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.

Any spiritual argument assumes the existence of the spiritual. And it can therefore be chalked out as yet another circular argument.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

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.​

No.
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽeʹvedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽEʹvedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar. — Jer 27:6.

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.

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

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.

You have not hear a word I said, have you.
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others.
God never approved slavery created by humans. He simply tolerated it.

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.

Clearly, you have not a clue about reason.
Will not do, does not mean cannot do. No judge would put you to sit on a jury in any court after hearing that from you... not even the lowest.
Bearing false witness is also a crime, so you might end up in a courtroom... awaiting your own trial.

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.

I thought a sacrifice requires running to the aid of others. Not away from... at the cost of your own life.
Isn't that what it means to sacrifice one's life for others.

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

I know. Speak for yourself.

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 ...

You don't understand the difference between allowing something and wanting something?
Okay. To allow something does not mean to want something.
For example, you may not want all your teeth taken out of your mouth, but you may allow the physician to do so, because it may be necessary.
Does that help?

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

Some things just don't change, hey?

How true. How true.

 

[nPeace]

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?

It's not a myth. You are listening to those... and creating them in your own head.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, if you mine position at the expense of everything else that is written, then you are trolling IMV

Why? Because I disagree with you?

What is a debate board for if not to argue different points of view?

 

[nPeace]

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.

The history of the Bible is older than Hinduism.
I have evidence. You prefer opinion as evidence, so I cannot help you.
Whatever opinion you accept as evidence, you are free to keep them. That's alright with me.

Most scholars believe Hinduism started somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C.
When do you say Hinduism started.

Regardless of the date pinned on the Israelites...
The earliest recorded evidence of a people by the name of Israel appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE.
The History of the Bible is older.
Chronology of the Bible

 

[nPeace]

You obviously don't understand that "myths" are ancient teachings, thus the importance of the Flood narrative is that basic morals and values are being taught.

I understand that Christianity without Jesus is not Christianity, and if one claim that Jesus is a myth, they might as well not claim to be Christian.

Luke 3:
36 ...
son of Shem,+
son of Noah,+
son of Laʹmech,+

37 ...
son of Eʹnoch,

38 son of Eʹnosh,+
son of Seth,+
son of Adam,+
son of God.

Mark 10:
6 However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.+ 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother,+ 8 and the two will be one flesh,’+ so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Luke 17:
26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah,+ so it will be in the days of the Son of man:+ 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage until that day when Noah entered into the ark,+ and the Flood came and destroyed them all.+ 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot:+ they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all.+ 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed.+

Jesus obviously does not agree with your view. Neither does his followers.
He did not believe in the theory of evolution either.

What we call "oral traditions" were largely done as teaching devices, especially since so many people were illiterate. In this early tradition, myths are not made up lies but are meant to educate. And it's so pathetic that you reach for the low of judging others simply because they have a difference in interpretating scripture on some narratives.

I think Jesus knows more than you o this, and I do what Jesus said, his father instructed. “This is my Son, the one who has been chosen. Listen to him.” Luke 9:35

 

[blü 2]

The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽeʹvedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽEʹvedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar. — Jer 27:6.

Sure, "slave" can be used metaphorically. But God sets out [his] rules for the "this person is my property" concept of a slave ─ how to sell your daughter, the rule about beating them at will, and so on.

You'll note that NONE of those rules says "You shall not own slaves". The God of the bible was often quick to make [his] likes and dislikes known, and this has no hint of dislike. Whereas [he] doesn't tolerate witches, or men who cut their beards incorrectly, a very long list of dislikes NOT including slavery.


But still, it's nice when we can agree, and we agree that neither you nor I have the slightest clue why it was necessary for Jesus to die, let alone die horribly, or what (if anything) his death achieved that couldn't be achieved by non-violent means.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, we do. We know it empirically and by many methods, none of which depend on going there. A frequent error of apologists is to limit what constitutes evidence to the evidence the scientists used, as if I shouldn't believe that the science underlying the Apollo mission if I haven't see how it was developed and don't understand the math. That's not the evidence I rely on. The men came home alive. That tells me all I need to know about the validity of the science used. And that's the evidence in support of all scientific pronouncements the stunning success of the method. People who call science a faith-based religion because people who can't reproduce it accept its validity don't understand that difference between have results that confirm one's idea and ideas that can't be tested or which make no predictions.

A while back the James Webb telescope started sending amazing pictures of the early universe back to Earth.

Years before, some scientists sat down and did a lot of work to design the mechanism that led up to that. It was built in pieces, the mirror having 18 sections that unfolded and fit together in space with an accuracy that boggles the imagination. It was sent to the L2 Lagrange point, a position in space where the gravity fields of the Sun and the Earth balance, so it can stay more or less in one place relative to the Earth and the Sun as it orbits the Sun. It got there. The Lagrange point is not stable so the telescope needs to be able to adjust its position to stay in place. It can and does do that. The whole thing was designed to control the process itself, as the distances made fine control from Earth impossible. It all worked, and people didn't even go there to measure the distances involved.

How amazing that science, that is so often wrong and so inferior to religious faith, somehow managed such a feat. Must have been luck I guess.

 

[nPeace]

Sure, "slave" can be used metaphorically. But God sets out [his] rules for the "this person is my property" concept of a slave ─ how to sell your daughter, the rule about beating them at will, and so on.

Yes, God set regulations to prevent injustices... on what man started, and was practicing.

You'll note that NONE of those rules says "You shall not own slaves".

I don't note that.
Leviticus 25:
39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold.

Sound familiar?
We too are hired workers - slaves.

Even though God dictated this, he did not end the practice, as he had his time for doing so.
Did you notice... "they are my slaves".
Yes. Slavery was not a bad thing under God, and it will be that way with his servants - slaves - always.

As I said, God tolerated the practice followed by man, in the same way that he tolerated polygamy.

The God of the bible was often quick to make [his] likes and dislikes known, and this has no hint of dislike. Whereas [he] doesn't tolerate witches, or men who cut their beards incorrectly, a very long list of dislikes NOT including slavery.

Well, for people who read the Bible, in a way that prevents them grasping, or understanding what they read, that would be true to you.
For others, it is clear what God likes and dislikes... even in this case.

But still, it's nice when we can agree, and we agree that neither you nor I has the slightest clue why it was necessary for Jesus to die, let alone die horribly, or what (if anything) his death achieved that couldn't be achieved by non-violent means.

You know what you say there is not true.
I think, regardless of what is said, some persons will continue to say what is not true, even though they know it is not.

 

[sayak83]

The history of the Bible is older than Hinduism.
I have evidence. You prefer opinion as evidence, so I cannot help you.
Whatever opinion you accept as evidence, you are free to keep them. That's alright with me.

Most scholars believe Hinduism started somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C.
When do you say Hinduism started.

Regardless of the date pinned on the Israelites...
The earliest recorded evidence of a people by the name of Israel appears in the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt, dated to about 1200 BCE.
The History of the Bible is older.
Chronology of the Bible

As the historical evidence has determined Hinduism is older than the Bible. You linked it yourself.
If you look at internal evidence from the scriptures, Hinduism never started. It existed from the beginning of the universe. It was transmitted to the first conscious human beings whenever he/she had the ability to ask the "who am I question".

The Hindu puranas have extensive chronology that extends beyond first humans even.
Yuga Cycle - Wikipedia
Here is the genealogy of human kinds and gods and demons according to the Hindu texts.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, God set regulations to prevent injustices... on what man started, and was practicing.

Yes, God set out the rules of how to trade in slaves. None of which reads, "You will not own slaves. Instead you will recognize that the idea of owning another person is an abomination."

So clearly I'm much more opposed to slavery than God is and that you are ─ your unchanging God is stilll telling you how to sell your daughter.

We too are hired workers - slaves.

A slave is NOT a hired worker, as you very well know.

A lave is a person who is the property of someone else, and like property may be bought and sold.

As I said, God tolerated the practice followed by man, in the same way that he tolerated polygamy.

*Chuckle* Love it! God raising no objection to Solomon's sizable harem, the whole bible tone expressing approval and admiration for the great man, the great woman-owner.

Well, for people who read the Bible, in a way that prevents them grasping, or understanding what they read, that would be true to you.

The bible says what it says. It says that it's fine to conduct invasive wars (and I'm sure Patriarch Kyril, that fine Christian man, has told his buddy Vladimir that invading Ukraine is a very Christian, very God-pleasing act), it says it's fine to massacre surrendered populations or in doing so to spare the rapable women and to rape them, it's fine to offer God human sacrifices, it's fine to kill the followers of other gods, everybody knows women are inferior, anal sex, although found throughout nature, is punishable by death, so is performing magic, it's fine to have as many concubines as you can afford ─ how many do you have, nPeace, if I may be so bold as to ask? ─ and it's fine to own other humans ─ how many slaves do you have, nPeace, if I may make so bold as to ask again? . . . and that's just page 1.

For others, it is clear what God likes and dislikes... even in this case.

The answer, apparently, is what you like and dislike.

I think, regardless of what is said, some persons will continue to say what is not true, even though they know it is not.

You don't know why Jesus had to die, or you would have told me.

You don't know why Jesus had to die horribly, or you would have told me.

You don't know what, if anything, Jesus' dying horribly complished, or you would have told me.

You don't know why Jesus had to die to accomplish it, given his father is omnipotent, or you would have told me.

Which is simply what I said before.

 

[1213]

It is reasonable to expect more to go as prayed if a tri-omni god exists than if one doesn't exist, and if this occurred, it could be confirmed empirically. It's been studied scientifically in controlled, double-blinded studies, and all that was found was a harmful placebo effect in the context of cardiac patients being prayed for before life-threatening surgery: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer - PubMed

Maybe the problem is in praying "tri-omni god". After all, Bible is not book of "tri-omni god". Maybe it would help, if one would first read the Bible.

Then what does this mean? "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move."

It means what it says.

I had written, "Critical thought applied to the problem of gods leads to only one possibility: agnostic atheism." God claims that are falsifiable have been falsified empirically. Unfalsifiable and unsupported claims can be ignored. There is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore God." Thus, belief in gods is not supported by critical analysis, making atheism the only rational position. But also, there is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore god's don't exist" thus making agnosticism the only rational conclusion.

You don't seem to be critical to what you say.

 

[Kenny]

Why? Because I disagree with you?

What is a debate board for if not to argue different points of view?

Debate, no problem, give quotes at the expense of ignoring everything else - a little shifty

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Debate, no problem, give quotes at the expense of ignoring everything else - a little shifty

The problem is this as per your signature. You hold a worldview of the Christian Faith. I then find another one of the Christian Faith and ask you to react to that.
In that I set you up to either accept something you won't accept but then you have the problem is that the other worldview is also of the Christian Faith or you accept it for which I point out the problem with that version.

 

[blü 2]

Debate, no problem, give quotes at the expense of ignoring everything else - a little shifty

Grateful for your elaboration ─ what everything else did I ignore?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if you mine position at the expense of everything else that is written, then you are trolling IMV

This is the same argument we're seeing from the insurrection apologists regarding the J6 footage not presented by the J6 committee. The implication is that the unseen part explains why what appeared to crimes in the footage showing violence and trespassing wasn't really criminal and the defendants are being railroaded. Bible critics cite verses that demonstrate why they find the deity described therein immoral, and you give the analogous answer, and insult the integrity of other poster.

It means what it says.

You had written, "Bible doesn't promise that God will do anything anyone asks." I asked what this meant: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." What it says is God will do anything you ask if you have even a mustard seed of faith.

We can't both be correct, because our conclusions are mutually contradictory, which is why mine meets the definition of rebuttal. Can you offer a counter-rebuttal that shows where my comment is wrong? You can if I'm wrong, but not if I'm correct. And to remind you, rebuttal is not merely disagreeing and saying what you believe instead, but showing what part of the comment is incorrect and why as I did.

You don't seem to be critical to what you say.

Once again, if you think an argument is flawed, show how if you can. The reason this is important is that with dialectic, the last plausible unrebutted comment is the end of and resolves the debate, the reason being that correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted. People cooperating using this method will both recognize when this has occurred, and one will have been convinced by the other. But when debating the faithful, that doesn't happen, because they aren't using the method of critical thought, but we can still recognize the resolution of a debate when we see the last plausible, unrebutted claim.

Bible is not book of "tri-omni god". Maybe it would help, if one would first read the Bible.

I read it cover to cover three times when I was a Christian, and have been debating its scriptures with believers since. But the Bible doesn't define Christianity for me anyway. Christians do. What they say and do is what the religion is, not what the book says if they aren't the same. And yes, the god of the Christian Bible is believed to be tri-omni by most Christians, so why go to the Bible?

God never approved slavery created by humans. He simply tolerated it ... You don't understand the difference between allowing something and wanting something?

That's the moral equivalent when you're able to prevent it. Condoning is approving.

The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17)

Owning people was acceptable to that god. That isn't mitigated by showing that there were other types of relationships

Clearly, you have not a clue about reason. Will not do, does not mean cannot do. No judge would put you to sit on a jury in any court after hearing that from you... not even the lowest. Bearing false witness is also a crime, so you might end up in a courtroom... awaiting your own trial.

Here's a great example of what is NOT a rebuttal. He said, "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." Rebuttal there would be showing him an error in his comment if there were one, that is, falsifying his claim that you don't know what he claims you don't know by showing him that you do. Instead, you waved away the comment and added verbiage that has nothing to do with the argument. That debate is over as well. He made his point, and there was no rebuttal, making his the last plausible, unrebutted comment made and thus the end of the debate.

I don't note that.
Leviticus 25:
39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold.

His comment was, "You'll note that NONE of those rules says "You shall not own slaves." Your response doesn't rebut his claim. You could both be right. The Bible notes some places where slavery is forbidden, but nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is forbidden in all circumstances.

for people who read the Bible, in a way that prevents them grasping, or understanding what they read

That describes the believer, not the skeptic. If the skeptic wants to know what any holy book says, he'll go to the source, not a believer, who approaches the matter very differently. The believer begins by assuming that the words are from a good and honest god, which shapes how he reads them. When he sees passages that a skeptic would call false or immoral behavior from or endorsed by a deity, he begins his motivated reasoning to try to explain why wrong is right and immoral is moral as we are seeing in this discussion of biblical slavery, which is an unenviable position, and should be causing a little cognitive dissonance.

It puts him on the defense, he understands that, and he understands at some level that his apologetics tools are unconvincing rationalizations. None of this is necessary for the critical thinker, who can make his argument in good conscience. As I said, I don't envy the apologist trying to defend what is clearly wrong to the unbeliever. It's like a defense attorney trying to defend a client with a lot of evidence against him. He's got to show why none of it means what it appears to mean even when it means just that. That ought to cause a little cognitive dissonance in the attorney if he has a conscience. He knows that it is not immoral to defend a criminal, and that he must give his best effort to exonerate his client, but he also knows that he is lying at some level, and that feels bad to many people.