Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[nPeace]

Maybe understand what terms like "confirmation bias" mean before you use them in conversation.

What? It does not mean, having preconceived ideas, and trying to support those ideas with arguments you favor?
Looking... the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Yup. Guess for you, that might require some spelling out.

No, they didn't. In this analogy, the person who sacrifices themselves - Jesus - and the shooter - God - are separate people each acting of their own volition.

The shooter is not God. Where did you get such an erroneous idea?

When someone does something at great personal cost to save others from a bad outcome, they've acted bravely. What they did is praiseworthy.

You believe that? I'm confused then.... but I'll see where you are going. I'm listening.

When someone does something at great personal cost to "save" others from a good outcome, they've acted recklessly, not bravely. What they did is foolish.

From a good outcome... Of course. I agree with that.

You've told us that you consider Jesus to be brave and praiseworthy for saving humanity from God's judgment. This tells us that you consider God's judgment to be a bad thing.

Well no. I never told you that. You must have had some dream. I know the demons do give people dreams, but I won't go there.
Or, it is just the usual thing with atheist - misrepresenting the facts, to have something to attack.

What Jesus did was indeed good. It was to save humanity from death - Adamic death - that is death caused by sin of Adam. Not God's judgment. If Jesus died to save mankind from God's judgment he failed, because 9/10th of humankind will face God's judgment... and if wont be pretty.

The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus. Romans 6:23
God loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten son, so that all those exercising faith, might not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And atheists claim they know the Bible. Really?
They think too much of themselves. That's the problem.

 

[sayak83]

Well here is your chance to demonstrate your claim.
You see, I'm a fair person.

Please give me the name of the religion, and the transformation made.
What things for example, have they given up, and no longer practice, and are they no longer practicing any of the things in my list?

There is a reason I ask. I'll give you the first.
The newer religions, trace their moral values back to the Bible.
For example, Muslim, Hindus, etc, are all after the Psalms and the Proverbs, and their holy books point to these, as being from the true God.
Even modern day witnesses of Jehovah (JWs) trace their values back to the early writings.
So that is why there will be similar values.

Even atheists. You won't want to admit it, but your fore-parents grandfather, aunt, somebody, held values passed down through generation, which has had some influence on atheists... even if you were born into an atheists household, or brought up in a church.


No sorry. That does not mesh, with the facts.

Wow.
Provide evidence that Hinduism and Jainism is after the Bible.
You made a claim. Time to back it up.

 

[joelr]

Wow. You're fast. You have all these things stored in a 'journal', so it's just a quick copy paste, isn't it. That's smart. Good practice. I should try it, because it saves repeating things too.

Uh, no I searched Edheduanna because I'm familiar with her writing.

Hymn to Inanna

The Hymn to Inanna (also known as The Great-Hearted Mistress) is a passionate devotional work by the poet and high priestess Enheduanna (l. 2285-2250 BCE), the first author in the world known by name...

www.worldhistory.org

I'm reading Meditations and I studied his teacher
Epictetus and remember that quote about Zeus because it's such a clear demonstration that every millenia religious people think they have the"true" God.

But I do save certain things so I don't have to search for them if they add to the debate.



Your divinity shines in the pure heavens like Nanna or Utu. Your torch lights up the corners of heaven, turning darkness into light. ... with fire. Your ... refining ... walks like Utu in front of you. No one can lay a hand on your precious divine powers; all your divine powers ... You exercise full ladyship over heaven and earth; you hold everything in your hand. Mistress, you are magnificent, no one can walk before you. You dwell with great An in the holy resting-place. Which god is like you in gathering together ... in heaven and earth? You are magnificent, your name is praised, you alone are magnificent!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What? It does not mean, having preconceived ideas, and trying to support those ideas with arguments you favor?
Looking... the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Yup. Guess for you, that might require some spelling out.


The shooter is not God. Where did you get such an erroneous idea?


You believe that? I'm confused then.... but I'll see where you are going. I'm listening.


From a good outcome... Of course. I agree with that.


Well no. I never told you that. You must have had some dream. I know the demons do give people dreams, but I won't go there.
Or, it is just the usual thing with atheist - misrepresenting the facts, to have something to attack.

What Jesus did was indeed good. It was to save humanity from death - Adamic death - that is death caused by sin of Adam. Not God's judgment. If Jesus died to save mankind from God's judgment he failed, because 9/10th of humankind will face God's judgment... and if wont be pretty.

The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus. Romans 6:23
God loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten son, so that all those exercising faith, might not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And atheists claim they know the Bible. Really?
They think to much of themselves. That's the problem.

Okay - at this point, you're just trolling.

Let me know when you're ready for a real discussion.

 

[Kenny]

No, they didn't. In this analogy, the person who sacrifices themselves - Jesus - and the shooter - God - are separate people each acting of their own volition.

God is not the shooter. Why dod you think He is?

When someone does something at great personal cost to save others from a bad outcome, they've acted bravely. What they did is praiseworthy.

That is true... that would be Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is not the shooter. Why dod you think He is?

In the analogy, the thing that people need saving from is the shooter. In Christian theology, the thing people need saving from is God's judgment.

That is true... that would be Jesus.

And as I pointed out, this implies that the thing Jesus saves us from - i.e. God's judgment - is bad and should be condemned.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think that is not necessary the same, because God has not promised to do everything anyone asks.

So prayer basically "works" at the rate of chance then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but I don't think atheists are critical thinkers. I don't believe critical thinker could be an atheist.

Well then, you'd be wrong. Anyone can be a critical thinker.

 

[nPeace]

Wow.
Provide evidence that Hinduism and Jainism is after the Bible.
You made a claim. Time to back it up.

Sorry. Wrong expression I used. What I meant by Bible, goes back to Adam and Eve, so that the values passed from generation to generation, from that point onward. There are God's values, which were later wtitten down. Still stemmed from the tree. .)

 

[sayak83]

Sorry. Wrong expression I used. What I meant by Bible, goes back to Adam and Eve, so that the values passed from generation to generation, from that point onward. There are God's values, which were later wtitten down. Still stemmed from the tree. .)

The Hindu scriptures goes back to 7 Rishis who predate the first human on earth (Manu) and who transmitted the scriptures to the first human (as well as to the lesser gods, demons etc.) once they came into being. So clearly it is older.
Of course I am happy to share evidence once you share your evidence that the Bible goes back to Adam and Eve as you claim...and that Adam and Eve actually existed.....

 

[nPeace]

The Hindu scriptures goes back to 7 Rishis who predate the first human on earth (Manu) and who transmitted the scriptures to the first human (as well as to the lesser gods, demons etc.) once they came into being. So clearly it is older.
Of course I am happy to share evidence once you share your evidence that the Bible goes back to Adam and Eve as you claim...and that Adam and Eve actually existed.....

You go first, because you have access to Genesis, like the 90% of the world does. Or have you never read the Bible?

 

[sayak83]

You go first, because you have access to Genesis, like the 90% of the world does. Or have you never read the Bible?

Your claim, you have to back it up.
Are you seriously claiming that claims made in the Bible is itself evidence of the said claim? You understand how evidence works right??
There is claim X. There is a separate and independent evidence Y that backs up this claim X. Where is your separate and independent evidence for the claim that "there was an Adam and Eve" and that " Bible goes back to Adam and Eve".

 

[nPeace]

Your claim, you have to back it up.
Are you seriously claiming that claims made in the Bible is itself evidence of the said claim? You understand how evidence works right??
There is claim X. There is a separate and independent evidence Y that backs up this claim X. Where is your separate and independent evidence for the claim that "there was an Adam and Eve" and that " Bible goes back to Adam and Eve".

Oh. You are asking me to prove that the Bible is reliable?
That's a different topic. This thread has that evidence. I did not finish it, since they seem no need to add, at the time. You can find my posts in the thread, so you don't have to read through.
If that's difficult for you, let me know.

The problem here though, is that you made a claim, so don't pretend that you don't need to support it, because you need proof, when you yourself cannot provide proof yourself.
You need to back up your claim... regardless.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It’s not possible to judge religion as if it were matter because it involves spiritual life not physical existence. The huge mistake psychology makes, a science still in its infancy, is that it has no proper definition of the human being. It does not know what we are so everything that flows from that wrong definition leads to wrong understanding and wrong diagnosis.

On the other hand religion gives a definition of man that can cure all humanity’s ills. Once we know what a human being is then we can administer the remedy. If science ignores religion it will be to its own detriment.

Even lately a renowned Psychologist Martin Seligman began promoting ‘Positive Psychology’ which is all about virtues. He says this about virtues and where they came from.

The belief that we can rely on shortcuts to happiness, joy, rapture, comfort, and ecstasy, rather than be entitled to these feelings by the exercise of personal strengths and virtues, leads to legions of people who in the middle of great wealth are starving spiritually. While psychology may have neglected virtue, religion and philosophy most assuredly have not, and there is astonishing convergence across the millennia and across cultures about virtue and strength. Confucius, Aristotle, Aquinas, the Bushido samurai code, the Bhagavad-Gita, and other venerable traditions disagree on the details, but all of these codes include six core virtues: Wisdom and knowledge Courage Love and humanity Justice Temperance Spirituality and transcendence.

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.

 

[sayak83]

Oh. You are asking me to prove that the Bible is reliable?
That's a different topic. This thread has that evidence. I did not finish it, since they seem no need to add, at the time. You can find my posts in the thread, so you don't have to read through.
If that's difficult for you, let me know.

The problem here though, is that you made a claim, so don't pretend that you don't need to support it, because you need proof, when you yourself cannot provide proof yourself.
You need to back up your claim... regardless.

No. I asked you to provide independent evidence for the claim in the Bible that it comes from Adam and Eve, who is again claimed to be the first two human beings on the planet earth. Which post in the thread you linked above addresses this specific claim. If a Bible has 10,000 different claims, then each claim needs to be backed up by its own set of independent evidence. You understand that correct?
For example, just because the claim of physics that the earth revolves round the sun is well validated by evidence, does not mean that another claim of physics that the fundamental constituent of matter is 12-dimensional strings is also well validated by evidence.
Hence, please provide evidence for your claim that the teachings of the Bible come from the first man and woman on earth or acknowledge that you have no such evidence.

 

[nPeace]

No. I asked you to provide independent evidence for the claim in the Bible that it comes from Adam and Eve, who is again claimed to be the first two human beings on the planet earth.

No. I did not say the Bible came from Adam and Eve. The history of the Bible is from Adam and Eve.

Which post in the thread you linked above addresses this specific claim. If a Bible has 10,000 different claims, then each claim needs to be backed up by its own set of independent evidence. You understand that correct?

No. Sorry. That's what's called a strawman argument. It appears you know that, but yet don't know.

For example, just because the claim of physics that the earth revolves round the sun is well validated by evidence, does not mean that another claim of physics that the fundamental constituent of matter is 12-dimensional strings is also well validated by evidence.
Hence, please provide evidence for your claim that the teachings of the Bible come from the first man and woman on earth or acknowledge that you have no such evidence.

The Bible only needs evidence demonstrating that it is reliable, accurate, and authentic. Nothing else.
I posted the thread. Is there a problem? You seem to have trouble understanding what I say. That has nothing to do with having a PhD, does it?

 

[sayak83]

No. I did not say the Bible came from Adam and Eve. The history of the Bible is from Adam and Eve.


No. Sorry. That's what's called a strawman argument. It appears you know that, but yet don't know.


The Bible only needs evidence demonstrating that it is reliable, accurate, and authentic. Nothing else.
I posted the thread. Is there a problem? You seem to have trouble understanding what I say. That has nothing to do with having a PhD, does it?

I am seeing that you are trying to wriggle out of your epistemic burden of giving specific evidence for any of your claims by falsely accusing me of strawmanning etc. Sorry. Specific claims require specific evidence. If you claim that I have robbed a bank, demonstrating that you pay your taxes every year and hence are a reliably tax-pating citizen is NOT evidence that your claim about me murdering a guy is true.
Every claim stands or falls on its own. Goes for every sphere of human life, study and discipline. And it goes for all claims of the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

I am seeing that you are trying to wriggle out of your epistemic burden of giving specific evidence for any of your claims by falsely accusing me of strawmanning etc. Sorry. Specific claims require specific evidence. If you claim that I have robbed a bank, demonstrating that you pay your taxes every year and hence are a reliably tax-pating citizen is NOT evidence that your claim about me murdering a guy is true.
Every claim stands or falls on its own. Goes for every sphere of human life, study and discipline. And it goes for all claims of the Bible.

No. That is not how things work in life.
If the political ruler wants to choose judges for the Supreme Court, he does not want to know if he goes to the toilet. He only wants to know if he is credible, trustworthy... Once there is evidence for that, it's a done deal.
You are strawmanning.

 

[nPeace]

Uh, no I searched Edheduanna because I'm familiar with her writing.

Hymn to Inanna

The Hymn to Inanna (also known as The Great-Hearted Mistress) is a passionate devotional work by the poet and high priestess Enheduanna (l. 2285-2250 BCE), the first author in the world known by name...

www.worldhistory.org

I'm reading Meditations and I studied his teacher
Epictetus and remember that quote about Zeus because it's such a clear demonstration that every millenia religious people think they have the"true" God.

But I do save certain things so I don't have to search for them if they add to the debate.



Your divinity shines in the pure heavens like Nanna or Utu. Your torch lights up the corners of heaven, turning darkness into light. ... with fire. Your ... refining ... walks like Utu in front of you. No one can lay a hand on your precious divine powers; all your divine powers ... You exercise full ladyship over heaven and earth; you hold everything in your hand. Mistress, you are magnificent, no one can walk before you. You dwell with great An in the holy resting-place. Which god is like you in gathering together ... in heaven and earth? You are magnificent, your name is praised, you alone are magnificent!

You must be a computer whizz then, because you got that information up in a twinkling of an eye.

 

[Valjean]

No. You can't see clearly, looking through the lens you are using currently.
He is making claims with no supporting evidence. The Bible writers are making claims with supporting evidence.
Cannot be the same.

[/QUOTE]

He is doing so intentionally! He's imitating the arguments made by theists, to demonstrate how insubstantial the justifications are.
It's an analogy.

Of course you can't. How could you, if your head is stuck in the sand.

OK, show me some actual demonstrations. Not claims of demonstrations, actual, reproducible demonstrations we can test today.
Whom do you mean? People today?
Anybody can make claims. Without tangible evidence they are best ignored.

Whom do you mean? People today?
They can claim from now till thy kingdom come, what does that have to do with anything?
Scientists are not in agreement. So what's your point?

I mean that religious "knowledge" is fragmented, but science is agreed on major principles. The disagreement is on details.
Science is open to new information, it actively seeks it, then incorporates it into updated knowledge.
Change doesn't necessarily indicate systemic problems. Improvements and updates are change, too. As I've said, science is our best guess; the best source of knowledge we have

Done. Repeatedly.

[/QUOTE]
When? How? How do you reproduce and test dreams, except in your own head?

Here we go again... calling historians and scholars, non-Biblical scholars so long as they do not agree with your position.
Does any Biblical scholar really point that out? No. Opinions vary, and not all agree.
Please don't appeal to majority. That would be an Argumentum ad Populum.

[/QUOTE]
I'm appealing to authority; to those best versed on biblical text and history, and without agendas:

appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Until they are helped to see what the careful reader sees. The stubborn biased critics run along with their misrepresentations.

[/QUOTE]
No, the contradictions and falsehoods are glaring. Both casual and careful readers can see them.
It's not my head stuck in the sand.