Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False. I used you as an example. You are not God.
You don't even have to be the cook who burnt the food.
Try and understand how to apply the example. God is not the cook.
You made a wrong assumption, and a wrong application. A mind thing, I guess.

When you're done playing games and want to have a real conversation, let me know.

 

[dybmh]

Did that precious metal allow you to own your wife?

No way. Not even a little.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But not the daughter. Can you refute a single thing I've said regarding this?

Likely not in a way you'll understand or accept.

 

[dybmh]

Likely not in a way you'll understand or accept.

Try me. I'm a reasonable person. I'm extremely good at understanding. That's one of my specialties.

Here are my points:

1. There is no money exchanged
2. The word in hebrew does not always mean purchased
3. There is different word used for slave
4. There is a different word used for purchasing slaves
5. The details do not describe a property purchase

 

[blü 2]

The only reason to oppose this is if a person has a negative opinion which they DESIRE to maintain. They benefit from the idea of biblical slavery. They are rewarded for beleiving a father sells his daughter into slavery. Without that reward, without that desire, this should be a welcome correction.

As I said, I don't speak Hebrew, so I rely on reputations of translators and their work. But from that angle I think your view is refuted by the evidence: >here< are 32 different translations of Exodus 21:7 and every one of them uses the verb "to sell" regarding the daughter. You'll need a conspiracy theory worthy of Donald Trump.

 

[dybmh]

As I said, I don't speak Hebrew, so I rely on reputations of translators and their work. But from that angle I think your view is refuted by the evidence: >here< are 32 different translations of Exodus 21:7 and every one of them uses the verb "to sell" regarding the daughter. You'll need a conspiracy theory worthy of Donald Trump.

So it all comes down to 1 word? All the other words are without value? Isn't that a shallow approach?

I said and you quoted: "They are rewarded for beleiving a father sells his daughter into slavery."

No one has been able to answer the question, how can a slave owner betray / deal falsley with a slave?

Now I'll go look at the list and the translations to see what I see...

 

[blü 2]

So it all comes down to 1 word? All the other words are without value? Isn't that a shallow approach?

I said and you quoted: "They are rewarded for beleiving a father sells his daughter into slavery."

No one has been able to answer the question, how can a slave owner betray / deal falsley with a slave?

Now I'll go look at the list and the translations to see what I see...

Yes. You can sell your daughter IFF she's your property, and if she's not, you can't.

That is, she's owned, so she already has the legal status of a slave. A favored slave, so the rules appear to be intended to protect her favored status, but she's still a human with an owner.

 

[Alien826]

Good. The word "sold". Depending on the english translation, there's also the word "slave". That's 2 words. @blü 2 brought the RSV, I don't love it, but I agreed to use it.

I'll color code the words that indicate ownership in red, and the words which moderate that in blue.

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 dealt faithlessly with her.​

So that's 2 to 5, owned as property compared to not owned as property. Not owned as property clearly wins. What's happening is a transfer of custody where betrothal is required and she is consenting to the agreement. That's my position. I can show it, but it takes several steps, including looking at the hebrew word being translated as "slave".

A person doesn't need to know Hebrew to recognize that the word in the first part of verse 7 is not the same word as at the end of verse 7. Though so many translations ignore that and mistranslate it.

וְכִֽי־יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת־בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָֽעֲבָדִֽים׃​

​

7 When a man sells his daughter as a אָמָה, she shall not go out as the male עֲבָדִֽ do.​

So, there are reasons, good reasons, that these verses in Exodus are not talking about property ownership. This doesn't excuse the other issues people criticise about the Bible. But this one issue is misunderstood.



Good. Me neither. So what ever is happening here is not an owner / slave relationship.

What fun!

I think something may be being overlooked here.

You don't issue a rule so specific unless it stands as an exception to some other rule or practice. So, an exception to what? Male slaves. Female slaves that are not betrothed to the master. All of whom can, by implication, be "sold to a foreign person". So this particular rule bears witness to the prevailing practice of slavery, does it not?

(Oh, I've been wondering, what does "go out" mean in verse 7?)

 

[dybmh]

@blü 2,

Here's what you're looking at. Most of those translations are essentially the same thing. They're the KJV, basically. Then there's a healthy group of freebie versions. A Septuagint, which is another version of the KJV, basically. The Latin Vulgate. The NRSV, and another misc translation of unknown origins.

If you scrap the freebies, because, really they're probably just copying off others without any scholarship. You end up with 3 main sources. That's it, just 3. It's pretty easy for each of these to make the same mistake. And honestly, just because people translate the word as "sell" it doesn't change much of what I'm saying.

1. KJV/Septuagint
2. Latin Vulgate
3. NRSV

Spoiler: Breakdown of each translation and their source

KJV sourced

1. The New International Version: Modern version of the KJV
2. The New living Translation: A paraphrase, not a literal translation, trying to make it a simple version of the RSV and KJV
3. The English Standard Version: Sourced from the RSV which is sourced from the ASV which is "rooted in the KJV"
4. KJV
5. NKJV - sourced from the KJV
6. New American Standard Version - Sourced fom the ASV which is rooted in the KJV
7. NASB 1995 - sourced from the ASV which comes from the KJV
8. NASB 1977 - sourced from the ASV which comes from the KJV
9. Legacy Bible - comes from the NASB <<< ASV <<< KJV
10. Amplified bible - comes from the ASV <<< KJV
11. ASV - comes from the KJV
12. english revised Version - KJV
13. JPS 1917 - KJV
14. Literal Standard Version - Youngs Literal <<< KJV
15. Webster's Bible Translation - KJV
16. Word English Bible - ASV <<< KJV
17. Young's Literal - KJV

Easy to Read Free Versions

1. Berean Bible: Unknown source
2. Contemporary English Version - intends to be a easy to read version - unknown source
3. GOD'S WORD® Translation - tries to make it easy to understand
4. Good News Translation - tries to be easy to read
5. Majority Standard Bible - unknown source - free version
6. NET Bible - unknown - says it's a fresh translation
7. New Heart English Bible - unknown source - free version

Septuagint

1. Brenton Septuagint Translation - from the Septuagint

Latin Vulgate

1. Douay-Rheims Bible - from the latin vulgate
2. New American Bible - Vulgate

"Greek Majority Text"

1. Christian Standard Bible - comes from the Holman Christian Standard Bible <<< "Greek Majority Text"
2. Holman Christian Bible - comes from a "Greek Majority Text"

Aramaic Bible in plain english - Pe****ta Holy Bible Translated - syriac - aramaic

International Standard Edition - unknown source

NRSV - "recently publised critical editions"

 

[nPeace]

When you're done playing games and want to have a real conversation, let me know.

Oh, right. Thanks for reminding me. That was you the first time. Twice. That's it. Don't come back.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I am not opposed to belief. I'm just saying that you cannot prove religious beliefs. Do you see the difference? For example, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God -- there is no definitive scientific observation or logical rational that proves one way or the other. But you can still believe in God for any number of different reasons, including the fact that many people simply intuit a designer behind the design, etc. So if you want to believe this or that, more power to you. But don't claim that you have proofs.

I accept that scientifically God cannot be proven as God‘s Essence is unknowable and beyond the human mind to fathom. But spiritually there is plenty of proof. When the sun shines and the physical rain falls, and plants and life grows. so too when man practices the teachings which emanate from the Suns of Truth they spiritually advance and grow. This is undeniable evidence. King Asoka was a king warrior conqueror but when he accepted Buddha he stopped killing and plundering and worked for peace, tolerance and reconciliation. History is full of such examples.

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2,

Here's what you're looking at. Most of those translations are essentially the same thing. They're the KJV, basically. Then there's a healthy group of freebie versions. A Septuagint, which is another version of the KJV, basically. The Latin Vulgate. The NRSV, and another misc translation of unknown origins.

If you scrap the freebies, because, really they're probably just copying off others without any scholarship. You end up with 3 main sources. That's it, just 3. It's pretty easy for each of these to make the same mistake. And honestly, just because people translate the word as "sell" it doesn't change much of what I'm saying.

1. KJV/Septuagint
2. Latin Vulgate
3. NRSV

Spoiler: Breakdown of each translation and their source

KJV sourced

1. The New International Version: Modern version of the KJV
2. The New living Translation: A paraphrase, not a literal translation, trying to make it a simple version of the RSV and KJV
3. The English Standard Version: Sourced from the RSV which is sourced from the ASV which is "rooted in the KJV"
4. KJV
5. NKJV - sourced from the KJV
6. New American Standard Version - Sourced fom the ASV which is rooted in the KJV
7. NASB 1995 - sourced from the ASV which comes from the KJV
8. NASB 1977 - sourced from the ASV which comes from the KJV
9. Legacy Bible - comes from the NASB <<< ASV <<< KJV
10. Amplified bible - comes from the ASV <<< KJV
11. ASV - comes from the KJV
12. english revised Version - KJV
13. JPS 1917 - KJV
14. Literal Standard Version - Youngs Literal <<< KJV
15. Webster's Bible Translation - KJV
16. Word English Bible - ASV <<< KJV
17. Young's Literal - KJV

Easy to Read Free Versions

1. Berean Bible: Unknown source
2. Contemporary English Version - intends to be a easy to read version - unknown source
3. GOD'S WORD® Translation - tries to make it easy to understand
4. Good News Translation - tries to be easy to read
5. Majority Standard Bible - unknown source - free version
6. NET Bible - unknown - says it's a fresh translation
7. New Heart English Bible - unknown source - free version

Septuagint

1. Brenton Septuagint Translation - from the Septuagint

Latin Vulgate

1. Douay-Rheims Bible - from the latin vulgate
2. New American Bible - Vulgate

"Greek Majority Text"

1. Christian Standard Bible - comes from the Holman Christian Standard Bible <<< "Greek Majority Text"
2. Holman Christian Bible - comes from a "Greek Majority Text"

Aramaic Bible in plain english - Pe****ta Holy Bible Translated - syriac - aramaic

International Standard Edition - unknown source

NRSV - "recently publised critical editions"

No doubt in such a list there will be copies and (as with the annoying Living Bible) paraphrases. There will remain substantial scholarship with complete reassessment of each verse with others, however, such as the KJV (remarkable relative to its day and age), Young's Literal Translation 1862, the Standard Version of the 1890s, the RSV 1965, and the NRSV 1989. No doubt there are more. They all say "sell".

So by my criteria your protestations are yet to have a basis in the text. God has no objection to people owning and selling other people.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is for the critical thinker, but not for the faith-based thinker, who has his own standards for religious pronouncements. They only need appear in a holy book or feel right to be called truth.

They would be "tested" against subjective standards. People will disagree on such matters, and there is no objective standard for them to decide that one is right.

There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God." This is a falsifiable statement. If it is wrong, such an argument exists and can be presented here. If it is correct, it cannot be falsified (note: falsifiable doesn't mean can be disproven ,but rather, if it's wrong it, that can be shown; evolution is falsifiable but will never be falsified if it is correct.)

You've made this claim before, but the evidence contradicts you. Christianity, for example, wasn't more effective when it was new, nor less effective now. Likewise with your religion. It's never been effective if the measure of that is improving the human condition. Humanism has done that brilliantly, but not the religions.

Do you mean like Jesus and Mohammad before the Enlightenment? Their teaching left people barbarians. The Christians were conducting inquisition and killing alleged witches until humanist sensibilities made that illegal in north America, and the Muslims, who have been exposed to much less of humanist influence, are still stoning people to death, cutting off hands, pushing people off of tall towers, and burning them alive in cages. That's the barbarism of unmitigated Abrahamic religion. Cooler, kinder heads were needed, and the Enlightenment produced them, not the religions.

That's business as usual for humanity, and most of the world is spared from direct involvement. The Jehovah's Witnesses came by today, but my wife sent them away. Too bad. I love talking with them. The last time, they began with that Abrahamic nihilism you just manifested - the world is going to hell in a basket meme. What was so interesting was that when I told them that I disagreed, and that the life had never been so good for so many, rather than try to refute that, they were flabbergasted and speechless. They just left. Dose that mean that they had never heard that answer before, or didn't know how to proceed? It seemed so, but that seems impossible. Maybe they just understood that their time would be better spent on Death Row and Skid Row (the despondent) than Restaurant Row (happy people).

The plan doesn't work. How old is it now? Nor have any of the other Abrahamic religions provided solutions. Who in the world is making a difference for peace? Not the religions. It's secular governments and agencies, like the EU, NATO and the UN. Who stepped up during the pandemic to provide for needs? Not the religions. What have the religions contributed to countering global warming? Only humanism - the philosophy of reason applied to evidence and compassion - has made inroads in any of those. I'll bet you know the cliche definition of insanity. Continuing to trust the religions to make a difference in any of these areas is a losing proposition.

The opposite is more correct. Only by turning away from Abrahamic religion will we ever have a chance to come together. Look at all of the contention on the Baha'i threads over the past few months as the faithful tried to defend homophobia because the Baha'i god allegedly condemns the practice. Very divisive. Perhaps you recall the specific Baha'i with the gay son, whose homosexuality he disapproves of. He might say that that attitude is not divisive, but if he does, I would expect the son to disagree.

It is possible to judge religion as if it were a human activity dependent on the physical world, because that's what it is.

Here's another of those empty claims contradicted by history.

You fail to mention the schools and orphanages established and centres of learning. Baghdad was once the centre of learning of the world and Islam established the earliest universities with degrees. Religions are not permanent. They have a used by date after which they cease to exert a beneficial effect on society. The negative you mention are rightfully highlighting that for this age these religions no longer unite people but they once did.

There will always be opponents of God and truth. The division between the godly and the immoral is a part of every new Revelation from God. And the latest is no exception. Obviously those who are blinded by physical pleasures and passions will show complete contempt for God and His religion. One of the purposes of God’s religion is to separate the godly from the ungodly. To the immoral and ungodly the teachings of God are very bitter and they detest them. But to those who love truth they are the choicest of all fruits.

Humanism? Many of its ideals were around in religion thousands of years before it was founded.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But how would one test these spiritual matters?
Science and religion are two entirely different things, with different goals, foci, modalities, and definitions of "evidence."

The laws of physics have no author? So.... God did not do it, it all operates automatically?
We're in agreement, then.

Moral principles are not the magesterium of science, nor are spiritual values, meaning or purpose. These are , essentially, untestable by science.

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Objective reality and facts, mechanisms, and the measurable, testable laws of physics are the purview of science. Science does not make judgements on moral principles, meaning, purpose, &c.
Annoyingly, though, religion is constantly making judgements of objective reality and physical mechanisms. What's worse, when possible, it enforces them and lobbies legislatures to base laws on them.

Cause and effect. One obeys the laws of God and observes the effect. We take a law and obey it and then see what the effect is. Here is an example. I’ve tried obeying this with wonderful results but it comes from God not man. Men tell us the opposite that only their religion should be followed but God says not so. This quote is from a new Revelation which came from God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I accept that scientifically God cannot be proven as God‘s Essence is unknowable and beyond the human mind to fathom. But spiritually there is plenty of proof. When the sun shines and the physical rain falls, and plants and life grows. so too when man practices the teachings which emanate from the Suns of Truth they spiritually advance and grow. This is undeniable evidence. King Asoka was a king warrior conqueror but when he accepted Buddha he stopped killing and plundering and worked for peace, tolerance and reconciliation. History is full of such examples.

There is no such thing as spiritual proofs. Proof can be either empirical observation, as with science, or it can be logic.

 

[F1fan]

I accept that scientifically God cannot be proven as God‘s Essence is unknowable and beyond the human mind to fathom.

It's worse than that. There's not even adequate evidence to jude any god concept is plausibe. Why some folks believe is not due to any sort of reasoning.

But spiritually there is plenty of proof.

Well only in the believer's severe confirmation bias at work. The testimonies of theists suggests they hear about what other believers experience and then mimic the behavior. That is evident with pentecostals who speak in tongues while no other sect of Christianity does. We see a broad set of different religious experiences in Christian churches, from the ordered response performance of Catholics, to the sedate Baptist church experience where manners are crucial, to the party-like experience in black church services, to the evangelical megachurch experience with its faith healing and mezmorized audience of people feeling the "presence" of God. I've been to many diverse types of church services and no doubt you can feel the energy, but it is most likely tied to the people creating this collective feeling. There is a biological reason why humans behave this way.

When the sun shines and the physical rain falls, and plants and life grows. so too when man practices the teachings which emanate from the Suns of Truth they spiritually advance and grow. This is undeniable evidence.

No, it's plenty deniable. Notice you use an invalid analogy and not evidence. This is not evidence. Evidence has to be recognized by unbiased minds as relevant to a claim. Your analogy requires an interpretation, and it has flawed assumptions, so invalid. "Suns of truth"? That isn't a true reference outside of any believer's mind. Note your "sun of truth" will be different for Muslims and Hindus, so not exactly one "sun" in your solar system.

King Asoka was a king warrior conqueror but when he accepted Buddha he stopped killing and plundering and worked for peace, tolerance and reconciliation. History is full of such examples.

Maybe he was a nice guy caught up in a bad situation and had to fight, and/or was just not very wise and learned a lesson from the bad feelings of being violent? Religions don't make bad people good. Buddhism can't help a sociopath. Nor can Christianity or Baha'i. It's a mental defect that inflicts 1 in 24 people.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You have a very strange, apparently personal, definition of "proof."
I could say thunder and lightening were proof of Zeus, or wisdom proof of Athena.

Your religion attributes X to God, then uses X as "proof" of God.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But would we be good barbarians, or bad barbarians?
Do you think our troglodite ancestors lacked moral or ethical values?
Virtues vary culturally, but we've had them since our hunter-gatherer days. Morality, propriety and values are artifacts of our obligate communal nature. They evolved because they were utilitarian, not because "great spiritual teachers" pointed them out to us.

I think that under the influence of the Prophets humanity has progressed and advanced spiritually, socially and even scientifically and materially, for high and noble thoughts, principles and attitudes which religion inspires, leads to the discovery of truths formerly unknown. We have progressed under God’s Watchful Eyes from the family, tribe, city state, state and now approaching the founding of a world civilisation. How on earth did America ever conceive the idea of nationhood in 1776 without help from Islam which founded the first great nation with a constitution. The Constitution of Medina was founded 622AD. Different religions have inspired different qualities in people to advance their own society.

Today, with the internet and international communications, the world is gradually giving birth to a world society. While Muhammad taught love of one's nation as a prerequisite of faith in God, today Baha’u’llah teaches that love of one’s nation is inadequate for this age and only an inclusive love for all humankind can hope to bring about true and lasting peace.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe that the human mind can very well “grasp God” by using the scientific method.
The scientific method is quite simple: the researcher asks questions, studies his subject, collects evidence, values the evidence, and provides answers to the questions.
Want to try it for a change?

Let us pose the first question:

― Who said that there is a God? In other words, how it happened, when, and where humans were informed of the existence of God?

You certainly know that our ancestors, the ancients, believed in earthly gods who had sexual relationships with humans, were killing humans, etc. Then theology appeared and informed people of the existence of heavenly “G” Gods, one of whom created the universe.
So, to answer the question we need to study theology.

What are the origins of theology?

Here is the answer:
The Origins of Theology

What our minds grasp is not God. It is our imagination. We cannot create only reproduce. All the universe is contained in a matrix of laws it cannot deviate from. We did not initiate these laws. There is a Supreme Intelligent Being otherwise nothing could exist as we did not create ourselves nor nature nor a human friendly environment. Every law has a LawGiver. To say there is no God is to say that cause and effect do not exist. And all existence owes its existence to a Cause which has to be intelligent. For intelligent life cannot come from emptiness and nothingness and we did not create ourselves.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

It’s like one has food, shelter, clothing and electricity but stating that the sun does not exist although without the sun no life could exist. Being in denial is really very illogical but to each his own.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's worse than that. There's not even adequate evidence to jude any god concept is plausibe. Why some folks believe is not due to any sort of reasoning.

Well only in the believer's severe confirmation bias at work. The testimonies of theists suggests they hear about what other believers experience and then mimic the behavior. That is evident with pentecostals who speak in tongues while no other sect of Christianity does. We see a broad set of different religious experiences in Christian churches, from the ordered response performance of Catholics, to the sedate Baptist church experience where manners are crucial, to the party-like experience in black church services, to the evangelical megachurch experience with its faith healing and mezmorized audience of people feeling the "presence" of God. I've been to many diverse types of church services and no doubt you can feel the energy, but it is most likely tied to the people creating this collective feeling. There is a biological reason why humans behave this way.

No, it's plenty deniable. Notice you use an invalid analogy and not evidence. This is not evidence. Evidence has to be recognized by unbiased minds as relevant to a claim. Your analogy requires an interpretation, and it has flawed assumptions, so invalid. "Suns of truth"? That isn't a true reference outside of any believer's mind. Note your "sun of truth" will be different for Muslims and Hindus, so not exactly one "sun" in your solar system.

Maybe he was a nice guy caught up in a bad situation and had to fight, and/or was just not very wise and learned a lesson from the bad feelings of being violent? Religions don't make bad people good. Buddhism can't help a sociopath. Nor can Christianity or Baha'i. It's a mental defect that inflicts 1 in 24 people.

Theres so many good people in the world as a direct result of modelling their lives on one religion or another. The proof of the transformative power of religion is undeniable. But each religion has a lifespan. Each age had a religion which brought great spiritual and social progress to the world. Religions make bad people good if they obey it.