• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
More like spiritual poof! as evidence. I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but any idea of proof or evidence is illusions of delusions to justify a one sided agenda.
I understand Dr. Hawking's claim (as well as some others here) that there IS no God at all -- none whatsoever in the form, idea, or shape of an intelligent force responsible for the heavens and the earth -- although I don't agree with him, that's his posit. And of course, not to leave out that some here and elsewhere believe in and assert there are demons as well. (So?) What does it mean, to an extent? I'll put it this way -- we aren't all correct, are we? :) Or who knows, maybe someone will put forth a theory that everyone is correct. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Talk of clutching on straws....
I don't know what happens in your silly supreme court appointments. But in private companies, where performance and profitability truly matters, employees have to go through performance review every year and every project has to be individually checked. Just because you did a good project once two years ago does not give you a clean chit for the other 10 projects you do after.
It's kind of hard to rule a country, methinks. How about you?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You go first, because you have access to Genesis, like the 90% of the world does. Or have you never read the Bible?
What are you alleging, exactly?

That the account in Genesis of the Creation of the universe by magic is an accurate statement about reality?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
No, it's exactly the same:

- prayers being answered is consistent with God existing, so an answered prayer is very weak evidence that God exists.

- prayers not being answered is consistent with God not existing, so an unanswered prayer is very weak evidence that God does not exist.

But in either case, we don't get very far because we haven't done anything to address alternative explanations that fit the facts: maybe the thing being prayed for happened because of mundane causes that didn't involve God, or maybe - as you suggest - the prayer wasn't answered because God leaves some prayers unanswered.

... so exactly the same.
It is not the same, because there are certain conditions, which is why it is not reasonable to expect everything to go as prayed. Bible doesn't promise that God will do anything anyone asks.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Critical thought applied to the problem of gods leads to only one possibility: agnostic atheism
Please explain why do you think so? Doesn't sound critical to settle into agnostic atheism. Perhaps you mean that one is only critical to ideas of others, not to his own thinking?
 

Trimijopulos

Hard-core atheist
Premium Member
I believe that the human mind cannot grasp God so it is fruitless trying to prove God scientifically...
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
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It is not the same, because there are certain conditions, which is why it is not reasonable to expect everything to go as prayed. Bible doesn't promise that God will do anything anyone asks.
But by the same token, it's also not reasonable to expect that everything that's prayed for and happens was actually caused by God as a result of the prayer.

... so still the same.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Maybe in a twisted sort of way. In reality the shooter is Satan - who has the power of death.
If God created Satan knowing what he'd be and do, then your objection is splitting hairs. Even if you want to tweak things so that God is the one who "calls the hit" instead of the one pulling the trigger, it doesn't change anything ethically for God.

The law breakers are humanity. The judge is never a "shooter". As you noted "When someone does something at great personal cost to save others from a bad outcome, they've acted bravely. What they did is praiseworthy." Jesus came to save others out of a bad outcome.

So... since the judge is never the "shooter"- I would disagree. Most of was you are stipulating is just a victim mentality IMV
Word salad.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If God created Satan knowing what he'd be and do, then your objection is splitting hairs. Even if you want to tweak things so that God is the one who "calls the hit" instead of the one pulling the trigger, it doesn't change anything ethically for God.


Word salad.
That can be your interpretation. I support you in your right to view it as such. :) I just don't agree.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Are you sure that this article says what you think it says? Did you read it, or are you just basing this on the abstract? When I read the abstract it could be the opposite of what you're claiming.

The concept of a fundamental virtue domain is introduced to clarify issues in the virtue literature surrounding the cross-cultural universality of virtue concepts. Fundamental virtue domains are defined as directly and clearly reflecting behavioral tendencies that contribute substantially to survival and flourishing, without implying ubiquity or cultural essentialism. Evidence for this case is drawn from comparative evolution suggesting cross-species adaptations serving similar functions to the virtue domains, some of which may underpin the human potential to act virtuously.​

IOW, it could be that there is evidence of a universal component of virtue which is not evolving over time. Could be. One would need to read the paper to see what it's actually saying.

I see this a lot when it comes to the request for peer-reviewed literature. All that's provided is the title and an abstract, but the actual paper itself is not readable by the person posting it, nor to any of us who are following the debate.
Sadly many of us don't have the funds to read the papers in detail, but I think the abstract provides enough to go on in this case.
Cross-species adaptations according to my understanding is a phrase meaning heritable traits suitable to the environment over a number (greater than one) of species.

You may find the Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of adaptation helpful here;
'adaptation, in biology, the process by which a species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection’s acting upon heritable variation over several generations.'
Source: Adaptation | Definition, Examples, & Facts

In other words cross-species adaptations are evolution in multiple species over time. So I dont get how you drew from that that virtue did not evolve over time.

In my opinion.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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.
Again, that is your viewpoint, which I support you in having.

For me, love requires choice. Robotic controlled living isn't living. Think of it as a marriage. Would it really be a marriage if you controlled your spouse?

I find it quite liberating and life-filled. :)
 
Last edited:
Top