45
   

How do i know God is real?

 
 
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:02 am
@ContraTodo,
Again, referencing the Bible to support the veracity of the Bible is logically flawed. Please do better next time.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:03 am
@ContraTodo,
ContraTodo wrote:

Steven himself uses circular reasoning.
Steven went against his own evidence (of the big bang) to then claim that the universe 'just is.' If you can accept Stevens research, you can accept that God just is. I see no quotes from the Bible in what i just said.


There is no circular reasoning in Hawking's statements. Please look up the definition of circular reasoning. It's easy.
ContraTodo
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:09 am
@FBM,
If you can accept Stevens research, you can accept that God just is.
0 Replies
 
ContraTodo
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:13 am
@FBM,
Quote:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with


Begin with Nothing, then God, is what i'm saying.
Begin with Nothing, then the universe is what Steven says.
(however there is clear scientific evidence of a 'bang' at one point)

DNA is evidence that someone/or something 'coded' things, so I think there is an intellegent creator.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 12:17 pm
@ContraTodo,
Welcome to a2k.
ContraTodo wrote:
. . . However, God DID experience all three as Christ. . .
Interesting, particularly at this time of the year. Christ died on the Passover, which started after sundown and was remembered on April 3 (in 2015). He was resurrected after 3 days and 3 nights.

So who resurrected him? Did he resurrect himself? If so, then do you assert he was not really dead? To whom did he pray?

This is a fun place, but not very welcoming for believers. You should have all your ducks in a row if you expect to be taken seriously.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 12:36 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
There is no problem with the concept of either the universe or a god being eternal. The problem is with the lack of evidence for this or any god.
Are you expecting epistemological certainty?
When it comes to cosmological and theological considerations, is not naive realism the default starting point? A cause for the first event? An absurdity when we consider that our minds seem to be hard wired to consider time as indefinite in both past and future.
God always was, or
Energy always was, or
Was Isaiah on to something when he referred to God as the source of energy? (Isaiah 40:26)
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 05:33 pm
@ContraTodo,
ContraTodo wrote:

Quote:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with


Begin with Nothing, then God, is what i'm saying.
Begin with Nothing, then the universe is what Steven says.
(however there is clear scientific evidence of a 'bang' at one point)

DNA is evidence that someone/or something 'coded' things, so I think there is an intellegent creator.


DNA is evidence for genetic evolution via natural selection. If you posit a god behind that, you need to provide unequivocal evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, your posts are so much Jim McMahon telling me that I may have already won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Straight to the recycle bin. Ho hum.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 05:37 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
There is no problem with the concept of either the universe or a god being eternal. The problem is with the lack of evidence for this or any god.
Are you expecting epistemological certainty?
When it comes to cosmological and theological considerations, is not naive realism the default starting point? A cause for the first event? An absurdity when we consider that our minds seem to be hard wired to consider time as indefinite in both past and future.
God always was, or
Energy always was, or
Was Isaiah on to something when he referred to God as the source of energy? (Isaiah 40:26)


Asking for evidence isn't the same as either demanding epistemological certainty or naive realism. Asking for evidence is just asking for evidence. You can't even rent a car without evidence that a) you can drive and b) that you can pay for it. The nature of the universe is a bit bigger issue and asking for evidence is a commonsense response to any claim regarding it. Again, quoting the Bible to convince someone that the Bible's claims are true is circular reasoning and a waste of effort.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:24 pm
@FBM,
Well, I am always ready to present the same sort of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that provided justification for our ancestors.

The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written so the least sophisticated of us might understand God's purpose. That it has been obfuscated by priests and the powerful is not the fault of God, for it has always been possible for those willing to search to find the truth.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:31 pm
@neologist,
Sorry, but I can't measure any useful attributes of anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence. Also, there is no lack of anecdotal or circumstantial evidence for competing claims regarding non-Abrahamic gods, spirits, etc. It just doesn't help.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:59 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Sorry, but I can't measure any useful attributes of anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence. Also, there is no lack of anecdotal or circumstantial evidence for competing claims regarding non-Abrahamic gods, spirits, etc. It just doesn't help.
as I wrote:
. . . it has always been possible for those willing to search to find the truth.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:06 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
Sorry, but I can't measure any useful attributes of anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence. Also, there is no lack of anecdotal or circumstantial evidence for competing claims regarding non-Abrahamic gods, spirits, etc. It just doesn't help.
as I wrote:
. . . it has always been possible for those willing to search to find the truth.



But I did the searching already and found a plethora of reasons to doubt. I started out as an ardent believer. Studying the history of the Bible in university, in a class taught by a faithful Baptist minister no less, is what convinced me that it's much, much, much more likely that the religious claims made therein were made up. Not that that closed my mind about, though. I still keep my eyes peeled for genuine evidence to the contrary, but faith is out.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:33 pm
@ContraTodo,
ContraTodo wrote:
. . . .I'm using what may happen in the future as proof that what the Bible says is true. If it does not happen, then ok, i end my argument.

What i'm saying is that a very clear thing that was stated in the Bible is about to happen by the year 2016 or 2017. Namely the Pope (or some other politcal figure) being mortally wounded and then somehow seemingly healed from death.
My other evidence for this, that is not from the Bible, is what the Pope himself said in 2014 - "2 or 3 more years and then it's off to the fathers house" - that puts the death of the Pope sometime around 2016.
And very interestingly enough it is Revelation 13:3 that speaks of this mortal wound, and 13 + 3 = 16. that's just Math, that happens to be in the Bible.
There is nothing in the scriptures to support numerology, as the numbers were added after the texts were written.

But the event you are speculating about may have already happened. At least there is a good argument for a political organization created in 1920, and which pretty much died before 1940 (though it was not finally buried until 1945). Within a few months, it was reborn, but under a new name.

At least one historical figure used the Revelation prophecy to predict its rebirth That was in 1942.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 12:14 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
. .. .But I did the searching already and found a plethora of reasons to doubt. I started out as an ardent believer. Studying the history of the Bible in university, in a class taught by a faithful Baptist minister no less, is what convinced me that it's much, much, much more likely that the religious claims made therein were made up. Not that that closed my mind about, though. I still keep my eyes peeled for genuine evidence to the contrary, but faith is out.
From my perspective, a 'faithful Baptist minister' is a shaky place to start. But let's try a more modest approach:

If there is a God who created us with our (nearly) universal qualities of love and fairness, may we then assume He must possess those qualities to an even greater degree?

Reading only the first 2 chapters of Genesis from a naive realist point of view, may we then conclude the creative God intended our human parents to continue living until now?

That's as far as I'll go in this post because it is patently obvious the earth we live in today does not meet that expectation; and a great deal of explanation is in order if we are to continue belief in a creator who declared at the end of the 6th day "it is good".
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 04:20 pm
@neologist,
I don't think the ad hom about him being a faithful Baptist minister is helpful. He was/is a tenured scholar, and this wasn't a Bible college. He ran rings around the blind-faith believer-students, demonstrating to them that much of what they had faith in was BS. The text book was a secular publication of research done on such things as the Q-source and archaeology, not theology. I respect the man and his impressive acumen to this day, despite no longer sharing his faith.

As for the questions you posited, I'm just not willing to speculate on questions based on the veracity of a book that I consider to have very little veracity on the points that matter. The question that I need answered before I consider anything in that or any other scripture to be worth discussing is whether or not there is a god. If there turns out to be some credible evidence in the affirmative, then I'd choose whichever scripture that evidence pointed to, whether it be Jehova or Quetzalcoatl. But without compelling non-scriptural evidence, I'll have to stand firm over here in the unbelievers' corner.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 05:05 pm
@FBM,
Sorry about the slam. It's just that a huge percentage of the straw men I encounter come from those who profess belief. Let's get back to the modest proposal. I've added numbers:
I wrote:
>1 If there is a God who created us with our (nearly) universal qualities of love and fairness, may we then assume He must possess those qualities to an even greater degree?

>2 Reading only the first 2 chapters of Genesis from a naive realist point of view, may we then conclude the creative God intended our human parents to continue living until now?

>3 That's as far as I'll go in this post because it is patently obvious the earth we live in today does not meet that expectation; and a great deal of explanation is in order if we are to continue belief in a creator who declared at the end of the 6th day "it is good".
I think you will find that the first has absolutely nothing to do with any scripture, while the second applies only to a few verses. Your opinion??
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 05:18 pm
@neologist,
Hmm. When you capitalize the words "God" and "He," that suggests to me that you're speaking of a particular god from a particular scripture. I don't capitalize "god" and refer to it as an "it" because I'm not talking about any one god in particular, but any of the many that have been posited.

Anyway, whatever the religion, whatever the scripture, the first question for me is still, 'What evidence do you have that such a god exists?' Followed by, 'If you have none, what coherent reasoning would drive a rational person to believe that it does exist?' My opinion is that these questions take precedence over any hypotheticals built on the assumption that a god exists, and I simply don't have any interest in spending time on hypotheticals when there are potentially productive questions about actuality that are as yet unanswered.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:29 pm
@FBM,
Are you of the opinion that your capacity for love and your concept of justice are traits incmpatible with belief in any creator?

Because if you are unable to, even momentarily, consider my hypothesis, then you will never have insight into my point of view.

I would think a person of your education would be familiar with metaphors.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:44 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Are you of the opinion that your capacity for love and your concept of justice are traits incmpatible with belief in any creator?


Not sure where that question came from. Love, justice, etc, are present in both believers and unbelievers, as far as I can tell.

Quote:
Because if you are unable to, even momentarily, consider my hypothesis, then you will never have insight into my point of view.


Not unable. Unwilling. I don't intend any slight when I show no interest in your point of view; I'm simply not interested in any faith-based piont of view. I've investigated quite a few of them and the common thread they all share is lack of evidence that any of them are true.

Quote:
I would think a person of your education would be familiar with metaphors.


That's like asking a preacher if he knows what the Bible is. Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:24 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
That's like asking a preacher if he knows what the Bible is. Wink
My point exactly. Few preachers actually know what the bible is and most of those that do will not tell their congregations. They either continue to preach straw men such as a 6000 year old earth, or use the phony assertion as a reason to ignore the bible's message. "God forbid" they tell the flock that the Genesis account actually allows for billions of years.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 06:10:04