DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Agreed. Belief is a deeply personal thing.
Maybe its like sex - it's OK to share with other willing persons, but should never wielded as a weapon.
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Maybe its like sex - it's OK to share with other willing persons, but should never wielded as a weapon.
Indeed! I kinda look at it as something to be humble but proud of - if anyone asks, I'm always willing to teach what I know, limited as it may be... but I have no right to try and claim my belief as the only truth, or that it is somehow superior or makes me superior. I hate to say it, but the bulk of the bigoted and intolerant people I've encountered are often also the ones extolling the virtues of their faith and boasting of their own good deeds.
You need to examine what it is you believe, when you say you are a believer. If you think there should be physical evidence of God, apart from everything you perceive, plus your ability to perceive, then what do you think God is to begin with.
Do you believe that God is the original cause (spiritual) of all causes (material), or do you believe that God is a powerful being/force that is made of physical matter?
I doubt that we need God to experience moments of profound peace, any more than we need God to tell us when we require food and water. We already have those abilities built in to our biological machinery, and a mind and intelligence to discriminate and make choices.
We know what we like, and what we don't like.
What we don't know is what we are, how it is that we are here, what happens when we leave, or what is the source of our being. Materialism can inform us of material things, but it is incapable of spiritual awakening because it is material. To reduce everything down to materialism, is to kill ones full potential.
A religion can be whatever the leader wants it to be, and that can be dangerous as you say. But what is Religion? How did it start out?
Again, you can look in the scriptures to find out, how religions begin, and how over time they become corrupt, then begin again with a new revelation accordingly tuned to the time, place, and circumstance.
Take Yashua as an example. When he came on the scene, the old religion had run it's course, and had now become a corrupt institute, performing rituals and ceremonies, only as a novelty and making great profit.
The priests, in their ignorance, thought they were upholding the religion of their founding father, Abraham.
But they were informed, in no uncertain terms, that they were not.
Now Yashua did not throw out the old religion, he maintained it, but understood that it could not be implemented the way it was supposed to be, due to the fallen nature of the current population. He, invented (so to speak) a different way of distributing the religion, in the form of parables. In this way the populace could get the meaning of what had been practised in ancient times. He went to the point of sacrificing himself, to exemplify his teachings. Not because he was stupid, he did it because he knew the truth. He knew that the body is not the end, and as such you should have no fear.
That is what religion is. What we do with it (over time) is dependent on the leaders. If they are even, a little greedy, lustful, and envious, those qualities will eventually seep into the mainstream. Not much different to the priests that were talking to Yashua in the temple.
jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am sorry but I can not resist the temptation to say.....
The opening post claim has, not withstanding the efforts from some to provide support, has with out doubt failed.
There has been no proof of God and thankfully there were 74 pages of chat which suggests anyone who could offer proof had plenty of time and opportunity to clearly state a case in support of the op claim.
Thank goodness the matter has been settled that there is no proof but those who believe are still free to do so.
The end.
Alex
The opening post claim has, not withstanding the efforts from some to provide support, has with out doubt failed.
There has been no proof of God and thankfully there were 74 pages of chat which suggests anyone who could offer proof had plenty of time and opportunity to clearly state a case in support of the op claim.
Thank goodness the matter has been settled that there is no proof but those who believe are still free to do so.
The end.
Alex
I accept that you have to label it something in order to keep your current world view, mentally credible.
jan.
In other words, don't try to prove something that I vehemently deny, because I will always deny it.
The end.
jan.
jan, your arguments always come down to: jan believes it, and if you also believe it then you will believe it. You provide no content.
For there to be an argument, there has to be terms which both sides agree upon. In this case, we must agree upon what God is, despite our belief status.
It has become clear that the atheist, in this discussion, is not prepared to make any such agreement. Therefore, there is no argument. Only defence, and denial.
If we laid down a rule which states one must leave all presuppositions at the door. My definition of God could still be thrown into the pot, as it has nothing to do with whether or not I believe God to be real. What would the atheist definition be?
jan.
But every time we have tried to accept your definition, then you change that definition. First you say that god is just everything, then you say that god is different from everything. You are not an honest debater.
I always accept the theist definition given as the basis for argument. I don't have to agree with the definition, as an atheist never would.
It's not just a matter of accepting my definition. My definition doesn't matter, especially if I'm leaving presupposition at the door.
I take it you're scientifically minded?
Are you interested in ancient artifacts, and sociology, as a matter of curiousity (at least).
Do you think we can learn from understanding such artifacts? Why do you, all of a sudden give ancient scripture a wide berth?
jan.
Last edited:
I don't have to accept it as fact, I just have to accept that this is your premise coming to the table. I have to know your concept of God in order to address things like whether that definition corresponds to reality. As a believer, it isn't possible for you to eliminate presuppositions. If you did, you would be an atheist (or pretend to be one), since accepting that there is a God is a presupposition. Is that what you want, to pretend to be an atheist for the purposes of this discussion?
I don't have to accept it as fact either, and the premise needn't be mine.
We can use ancient scriptures as a premise, as that would be the earliest notion of the concept of God, to our knowledge.
We both need a concept of God, I'll give you that. But it needn't be mine in particular. Especially if we are to leave presuppositions at the door.
You don't know that.
In fact I'm in a better position to know that, than you are, being a believer.
In the real sense of the term ATHEIST, I am atheistic. As far as what you mean atheist to be, (I don't have to agree with the definition, as an atheist never would.) it just wouldn't be necessary to invoke a belief when describing the God of scriptures. Why would you think it is?
jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Hi Jan I thought it was over but it seems you have yet to make your point. Please go ahead make your point but please stay on topic and address the op.
Alex
Doesn't interest me so much, since ancient beliefs were mostly based on long debunked premises. I'm interested in what you believe and why, if you would be honest about it instead of evasive all the time.
Logically, there is no belief in God without the supposition that God exists.
You do have to agree with the definition of atheist, since, unlike religions, there is only one. It means lacking a belief in God or Gods.
The atheist does not need to agree any definition. They are not putting the proof forward.
The theist puts their definition forward, then puts their proof forward that that definition actually exists as something more than just a concept, and we then discuss it... not only whether we find the proof convincing but whether the definition is something that is even meaningful.
But that can come afterward.
The starting point is the theist putting their definition forward and their subsequent proof.
Can you do that for us, Jan? Can you please put forward a definition that doesn't start with the a priori assumption that God exists.
Then prove that that definition of God actually exists rather than is a definition of merely a concept.
If you can't, or if you don't, then it is you who are turning what might be a discussion into nothing more than posturing, with you the ringleader of the troupe.
So please don't lay this at the door of those not claiming to offer proof.
Not that I care about Jan's definition at this point. But it could be interesting to hear something new.
I think that's the difference. It interests me a lot. As for debunked premises, I'm not sure what you mean.
I believe in God, because God makes sense to me.
But we're not discussing belief.
For example if you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Agreed?
But how would you know it was God that existed?
It doesn't matter whether I agree with the definition or not, if I am an atheist.
I know I'm atheistic, and not because of any definition of the word.
jan.