Not sure if that was a joke, but it doesn't exsist :bugeye:
Edit: Never-mind you changed it.
Edit: Never-mind you changed it.
All evidence pointed that the earth was flat until all evidence pointed otherwise. Think about it, if there is a God, anything that would point to Him would come from Him - on his terms - and would be comprehensible by everybody from the simplest earliest human to the last and wisest man on earth. But evidence isn't evidence until you recognize it.Originally posted by ScrollMaker
Wait 100 hundred years and try that one again.
As for choosing... Theists choose a story of how everything was created. They have chosen that everything was because God created it. That, in a sense, means that you know everything. Because everything was written in that book the way it is. I choose to believe nothing, but what evidence suggests there is. Evidence suggests there is no God. If evidence pointed to a God, there would be no atheism.
Originally posted by Jenyar
All evidence pointed that the earth was flat until all evidence pointed otherwise.
Originally posted by Jenyar
Think about it, if there is a God, anything that would point to Him would come from Him - on his terms - and would be comprehensible by everybody from the simplest earliest human to the last and wisest man on earth.
Originally posted by Jenyar
But evidence isn't evidence until you recognize it.
Originally posted by Jenyar
That's not where everything we know comes from. The book didn't exist even after generations of believers. It points to things that were known before anybody thought to write them down. Everything we need to know is contained in love - we know how to love and experience love. We can know all there is to know about everything in the unverse, but if we don't know love we know nothing worth knowing. Sounds familiar?
Originally posted by Jenyar
You said you believe in nothing until evidence suggests it - so what evidence suggests there is something like love?
Why did they take it for granted? Because they thought the way you think about God.Originally posted by ScrollMaker
All evidence did not point to the Earth being flat. It was just taken for granted until people started sailing in ships around the world.
Not for us. We can only have knowledge of the things with which we have contact. If a thing never crosses any of our senses, we will remain unaware of it. The question is whether our five senses can describe everything there is to describe.
So if God has done nothing, then God doesn't exist until he has done something.
Yourself. You can't "wield" anything else that would bring you closer to knowing Him.Tell me, what evidence can I use to prove there is a God?
Not that kind of love. If you could refine love until it could apply to everything that is good and universally beneficial, you would be close to making a difference in the world. Knowledge makes no difference unless it's applied, application requires procedure, and procedure requires ethics. If you loved your parents you would not care whether they could do basic math or not. But you would learn maths quicker from someone who has patience than from someone who hates you. The biggest planet in the universe is just a name within another name within another name; the co-ordinates would not mean a thing until we find a telescope big enough to confirm it. What you want from me is a telescope strong enough to see God, when ironically your dependence on your senses is what could prevent you from seeing Him.If everything you know is contained in love then you are part of the wrong religion. (cough hippie cough ) What do you learn from love? Will love teach you how to do basic math? Will it teach you to read and write? If everything in the universe can be learned about by love... Please tell me what is the biggest planet in the universe.
You said you only believe what evidence suggests. Prove to me that love exists. Or don't you think it does?
I don't understand what you are saying? Can you rephrase it?
Teach on...Originally posted by Jenyar
Yourself. You can't "wield" anything else that would bring you closer to knowing Him.
Originally posted by Jenyar
Why did they take it for granted? Because they thought the way you think about God.
Not for us. We can only have knowledge of the things with which we have contact. If a thing never crosses any of our senses, we will remain unaware of it. The question is whether our five senses can describe everything there is to describe.
Yourself. You can't "wield" anything else that would bring you closer to knowing Him.
Not that kind of love. If you could refine love until it could apply to everything that is good and universally beneficial, you would be close to making a difference in the world. Knowledge makes no difference unless it's applied, application requires procedure, and procedure requires ethics. If you loved your parents you would not care whether they could do basic math or not. But you would learn maths quicker from someone who has patience than from someone who hates you. The biggest planet in the universe is just a name within another name within another name; the co-ordinates would not mean a thing until we find a telescope big enough to confirm it. What you want from me is a telescope strong enough to see God, when ironically your dependence on your senses is what could prevent you from seeing Him.
You said you only believe what evidence suggests. Prove to me that love exists. Or don't you think it does?
Originally posted by Crushing Belial
What a wast of your time you don't have long,
why would you reject someone who loves you,
being christian isn't hard
some of the things they did back then don't apply today
some of it was their own personal beliefs God message is simple LOVE.
Depending on what you expect, all evidence could fit an almighty God as well. What happened is that people have become so alien to God that they assume God must be alien to everything else as well, which is simply not true. If God created nature, its laws, its dimensions - why would He have to overthrow or even manipulate it to do what He wants? Its dependence on God would be so "natural" that we wouldn't even recognize it. If everything were supernatural - how would we distinguish what was just natural?Originally posted by ScrollMaker
I don't take God not exsisting for granted. If I took anything for granted it would be that there was a God. I was brought up to believe in God, but I could see at once that the idea of one powerful God is not logical and against all evidence.
Becuase all evidence points to the fact that who I am - my life, my thoughts, aren't just the "sum of my senses". Senses are just inputs sending information to my brain. I would still be sentient without them - although very limited. If we limit our thoughts to our sense, that's like shutting down the only sense that can come even close to experiencing God.So if God has never crossed any of your five senses, then why do you assume he exsists.
This is a similar question than the rich young man asked Jesus: How do I become part of the kingdom of God? The answer was Let go of everything you hold dear, and follow God. This doesn't mean go away and become a missionary, as some seem to think. It means submit everything you are - senses, thoughts, actions, property, ambition - to God. Practically, that means taking stock of your life and deciding whether you are serious about knowing God or not. Immediately God will be with you, but you might or might not realize this. It takes practise, but the result is like a veil being pulled from your eyes. It's also a bit traumatic, which is why you'll need people who love you. These people become an important point of reference.So what can I do to bring myself close to God to prove he exsists?
You're right: "good" is not accurate enough either. The love I'm talking about is a cauldron filled with many ingredients in the right proportions, which will make you invincible like Asterix You know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Love is not the goal, its the means. It does not prove God, its the way of getting to know Him.
You are redefining the word love to mean anything good. Hitler thought he was doing good by creating a Utopia on earth. If humans only loved they would die out of exsistence. The biggest, baddest creatures are the ones that are at the top of the food chain. So you are claiming that because nobody can sense God, that he must exsist? Please explain.
That's the problem. You don't want to prove anything, therefore you can't prove that God exists. You are the only proof there will ever be - you yourself. Use it or lose it. You might be confusing the Bible's claims about God's omniscience and omnipotence with the classic Greek philosophical claims about "god". It's a common but major error. The Bible does not describe God as doing everything He is able to - only what needs to be done - or being everywhere He can be - only where He chooses to be. Likewise, whether love is part of evolution or part of you is up to you. There are many people who are good examples of love, who died under the injustice of people who were not. Natural selection favours might over right, and love is more a disadvantage in such situations than anything else. A person who loves his enemy is more likely to be killed by him than the other way around. It's really not a very efficient tool for survival, if you think about it. In fact, it's a bit "unnatural" compared to everything else.
I should not be the one trying to prove anything. You are the one making claims about an omnipotent, omniescient being that exsists even though we have nothing to say that he does exsist. I will explain anyway... Love is all part of evolution. Which species would last longer? One that kills its young on sight? Or the one that cares for its young. Love is not always everything good as you defined it. If someone loves someone that dies, they may commit suicide. I'm not exactly sure what this "love" idea of yours is, but for me to comment on it, I will have to hear more about it.
Originally posted by GodLied
Have fun reading and finding out that the Holy Bible contains a lot of perjury in the sense that it is supposed to be God's Word.
Godlied
What's the difference between your little practice and a self-induced delusion? One has more people wrote about it and one doesn't?Originally posted by Jenyar
It means submit everything you are - senses, thoughts, actions, property, ambition - to God. Practically, that means taking stock of your life and deciding whether you are serious about knowing God or not. Immediately God will be with you, but you might or might not realize this. It takes practise, but the result is like a veil being pulled from your eyes.
You don't need any intercessor other than the Spirit, who is closer to you than you are to yourself. You don't pray to a priest, you pray to God. In the Old Testament, you had to go to a temple and purify yourself before you could enter into God's presence. But Jesus established his temple in our hearts. You don't have to go anywhere or see anyone to communicate with God.originally posted by Scrollmaker
Apparently this is not true. If I am correct you need a priest (or other leader) to communicate with God. I would like to see where the Bible says that you can contact God by yourself. If you apply your "all" to any fantasy and practice it over and over again you will of course believe it is true. Why do you think people suicide-bomb? This is how deadly religion can be.
What do you think the Bible is?If I can not prove love exists until I feel it, why can you prove God exists without feeling him? Love can be documented, yet God cannot.
The conflation of legend, poetry, politics, and civil law.Originally posted by Jenyar
What do you think the Bible is?
No, it is impossible to prove or, for that matter, rationally maintain. Whose experiences, specifically? Quoted by whom, specifically. Written when, specifically? Verified how, specifically?Originally posted by Jenyar
And documented experiences of God. You might not like or believe it - but it is impossible to deny.
The Jews have rationally maintained the OT as their history for hundreds of years. The authors of the recorded experiences are just as known/unknown as Plato, Philo, Josephus or any other historical author - personal acquaintance has never been a prerequisite for validity, and neither has the specific date of composition. What meta-information we have is as vague and general as for every other ancient texts, but the texts speak for themselves. With any source, you can keep on doubting its authenticity and "verifying" them until you know the type and origin of ink they were written with, or you can start exploring the territory they map and let them test your faith.Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, it is impossible to prove or, for that matter, rationally maintain. Whose experiences, specifically? Quoted by whom, specifically. Written when, specifically? Verified how, specifically?