1
   

Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:15 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Having experienced God I know He is no false idol. And I also know I have nothing to fear from Him.


With all due respect Foxfyre, all you really experienced was a feeling. All anyone can ever experience is a feeling (or an interpretation of our senses). You may interpret it as "God" and you may 'feel' it is God, but you have no external foundation upon which to guage those assumptions.


With all due respect my friend, you cannot with any credibility state what my experience is or is not. You can only state what you have experienced.

If you want to get fully Platonian about this, everything is imagery created by the mind. The ham sandwich you have for lunch isn't really real. You just think it is. The air you breathe into your lungs doesn't exist. Nor do your lungs that that matter.

At some point however, you most likely choose to accept that some things are real and can be believed. I can't tell you that you only imagined you had a sandwich for lunch or you only think you're actually breathing right now. Nor can you tell me that what I have experienced is not real.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If you want to get fully Platonian about this, everything is imagery created by the mind. The ham sandwich you have for lunch isn't really real.


The difference with the Ham sandwich is that it is externally verifiable. Many people can see it and describe the same ham sandwich.

The sandwich is not a good analogy to God, or any purely conceptual thing.

The only way for the sandwich to be a good analogy would be to argue that everything is a dream, and your thoughts are the only thing that exists at all, and that leaves no room for God.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:26 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
If you want to get fully Platonian about this, everything is imagery created by the mind. The ham sandwich you have for lunch isn't really real.


The difference with the Ham sandwich is that it is externally verifiable. Many people can see it and describe the same ham sandwich.

The sandwich is not a good analogy to God, or any purely conceptual thing.

The only way for the sandwich to be a good analogy would be to argue that everything is a dream, and your thoughts are the only thing that exists at all, and that leaves no room for God.


Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you. The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:35 pm
Foxfyre:
"Having experienced God I know He is no false idol."
"My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected."


Not having experienced God, fully, do you consider your concept of "God" to be an incomplete, inaccurate representation?



Foxfyre:
"And I also know I have nothing to fear from Him."

Are you sure? How sure are you?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you.


The Ham sandwich it also real to a lot of people, and it's not an extraordinary claim. You aren't really arguing that God and Ham sandwiches are equally validated in the real world are you?

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


So your argument is that if I don't see a ham sandwich, yet it still exists, then if I can't conceive of God, he must still exist (because the ham sandwich exists).

By that measure, toothfaries and unicorns must exist because ham sandwiches exist.

Now, if you had said "doesn't negate the possibility" of existance, rather than the "fact" of existance, then you would be correct.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:46 pm
echi wrote:
Foxfyre:
"Having experienced God I know He is no false idol."
"My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected."


Not having experienced God, fully, do you consider your concept of "God" to be an incomplete, inaccurate representation?



Foxfyre:
"And I also know I have nothing to fear from Him."


Are you sure? How sure are you?


I only know with certainty what God has revealed to me and I have absolutely no doubt that this is miniscule compared to all there is to know. So yes, my concept of God is of necessity incomplete. Inaccurate based on what I have experienced? I don't know, but it has all proved to be pretty reliable so far.

Experiencing God has shown me that I have nothing to fear with the same degree of certainty that I do not fear most of the people in my life. I certainly do not fear those I know love me and want the best for me and who would not do anything to harm me.
0 Replies
 
Mindonfire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:48 pm
Re: Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?
Eorl wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
echi wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
Because they believe that they have not seen enough evidence to satisfy their questions, who is responsible for the atheist's or agnostics unbelief?


Who is responsible for your unbelief?


What unbelief?


Your unbelief in all the gods/faiths that you don't believe in. Presumably you have chosen just one? Julunggul will not be pleased with you !!


Who said we didn't believe. There are many gods who proceed from the One God.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you. The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


You rattled my catholic roots with that one, Foxfyre. [ Scary! ]

Have you considered that you may not have yet conceived of the reality of God?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:53 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you.


The Ham sandwich it also real to a lot of people, and it's not an extraordinary claim. You aren't really arguing that God and Ham sandwiches are equally validated in the real world are you?

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


So your argument is that if I don't see a ham sandwich, yet it still exists, then if I can't conceive of God, he must still exist (because the ham sandwich exists).

By that measure, toothfaries and unicorns must exist because ham sandwiches exist.

Now, if you had said "doesn't negate the possibility" of existance, rather than the "fact" of existance, then you would be correct.


And so is God real to a lot of people. Remember the scene from "The King and I" in which the Siamese children disputed a notion of snow as they had never seen it and could not even imagine it? That certainly did not negate the fact that snow existed however.

Do you know what a ham sandwich looks like until you have seen at least a picture of a ham sandwich or something similar? Do you know how it smells until you smell it? Can anybody explain to you how it tastes or do you have to taste it? Can anybody fully explain how it feels against your palate until you actually experience it?

Something is fully real to us when it is experienced. And as I have said, I believe all can experience God as fully as they experience a ham sandwich. There only has to be the willingness to do so.
0 Replies
 
Mindonfire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:53 pm
maporsche wrote:

Don't you need 'blind faith' to truly have faith. Otherwise you have proof.

Proof is the opposite of Faith. They cannot exist together in the same place/at the same time.

According to Websters, faith means "belief that is not based on proof", so if you have belief that is based on proof, you lack faith.


No, there are two types of Faith. Maybe, you need to study the definitions for faith again.

Definitions Merriam Webster
Faith: (n) 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*
synonyms see BELIEF
-on faith : without question *took everything he said on faith*

Faith: (transvrb) archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:57 pm
echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you. The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


You rattled my catholic roots with that one, Foxfyre. [ Scary! ]

Have you considered that you may not have yet conceived of the reality of God?


No, because I have experienced God. So can you if you choose to do so. I believe that it has to be on His terms and timeline, however. and you cannot be privy to those. Too many people want to disbelieve so badly that they cannot relinquish that control.

Qualification: I am not presuming that you have not experience God, mind you. The 'you' in the previous paragraph is intended to be a generic you.
0 Replies
 
Mindonfire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:58 pm
echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.


LoL! This is exactly what the Bible states. Have you been sneaking off and reading the Bible.


Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 02:59 pm
Re: Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?
Mindonfire wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
echi wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
Because they believe that they have not seen enough evidence to satisfy their questions, who is responsible for the atheist's or agnostics unbelief?


Who is responsible for your unbelief?


What unbelief?


Your unbelief in all the gods/faiths that you don't believe in. Presumably you have chosen just one? Julunggul will not be pleased with you !!


Who said we didn't believe. There are many gods who proceed from the One God.


I am the last unicorn. Do you believe that?
0 Replies
 
Mindonfire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 03:02 pm
real life wrote:
echi wrote:
Foxfyre: "But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?"

Where is the truth in that statement? I would consider the opposite to be true.


Expecting the supernatural to be subject to natural observation may not be the most likely course to produce a satisfactory result.

It's like trying to smell the color 'nine'.

Nine isn't a color.

And even if it was , you can't smell colors.


Actually some people are able to smell colors. It is called synesthesia

Definitions Merriam Webster
Synesthesia: (n) 1 : a concomitant sensation; especially : a subjective sensation or image of a sense (as of color) other than the one (as of sound) being stimulated
2 : the condition marked by the experience of such sensations
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 03:03 pm
Mindonfire wrote:
echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.


LoL! This is exactly what the Bible states. Have you been sneaking off and reading the Bible.


Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. Romans 1:20

The operative phrase here is "that which may be known of God" don't you think? It certainly does not say all that God is is shown in nature.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Yes. This was an 'out' for those who were not able to hear the preaching of the Word. They could still experience it through God's creation. It does not imply more than that.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 04:58 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you. The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


You rattled my catholic roots with that one, Foxfyre. [ Scary! ]

Have you considered that you may not have yet conceived of the reality of God?


No, because I have experienced God.


You believe that your concept of God is incomplete, and that God is too complex to be fully comprehended. Your conceptual representation of God must therefore be inaccurate. I'm not saying that there is no God; I'm saying we have no way to know what "God" means. The idea is one size too big for our brains.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 05:02 pm
echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Real is real no matter what it is. The ham sandwich is real to you. The fact that I didn't see the ham sandwich, however, does not negate the fact that it exists. The fact that you can't conceive of the reality of God also does not negate the fact that God exists.


You rattled my catholic roots with that one, Foxfyre. [ Scary! ]

Have you considered that you may not have yet conceived of the reality of God?


No, because I have experienced God.


You believe that your concept of God is incomplete, and that God is too complex to be fully comprehended. Your conceptual representation of God must therefore be inaccurate. I'm not saying that there is no God; I'm saying we have no way to know what "God" means. The idea is one size too big for our brains.


LOL. Isn't that what I've been saying in some detail? But what we have personally experienced of God is neither unknowable nor inaccurate.

To not know all there is to know of something does not automatically extrapolate into a conclusion that what we do know about that something is inaccurate.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 05:21 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
You believe that your concept of God is incomplete, and that God is too complex to be fully comprehended. Your conceptual representation of God must therefore be inaccurate. I'm not saying that there is no God; I'm saying we have no way to know what "God" means. The idea is one size too big for our brains.


LOL. Isn't that what I've been saying in some detail? But what we have personally experienced of God is neither unknowable nor inaccurate.

To not know all there is to know of something does not automatically extrapolate into a conclusion that what we do know about that something is inaccurate.

No, but it leaves open that possibility.

And, if you are a limited, imperfect and corrupt being, by nature, then how can you rely on your interpretation to be a true representation?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 05:48 pm
echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
You believe that your concept of God is incomplete, and that God is too complex to be fully comprehended. Your conceptual representation of God must therefore be inaccurate. I'm not saying that there is no God; I'm saying we have no way to know what "God" means. The idea is one size too big for our brains.


LOL. Isn't that what I've been saying in some detail? But what we have personally experienced of God is neither unknowable nor inaccurate.

To not know all there is to know of something does not automatically extrapolate into a conclusion that what we do know about that something is inaccurate.

No, but it leaves open that possibility.

And, if you are a limited, imperfect and corrupt being, by nature, then how can you rely on your interpretation to be a true representation?


I believe that my relationship with my God is neither limited, imperfect, nor corrupt and that He is trustworthy. I do not ever attempt to 'interpret' God but know what I know to be good and perfect.

Do you think it is possible to know everything there is to know about anything? Is it necessary to know everything there is to know about whatever you will encounter before you will trust it or not see it as a threat to you? If so, how do you ever work up the nerve to get out of bed in the morning? Or get into bed at night?

If you trust any human being, as imperfect as we all are, why would it be so difficult to trust God?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 06:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I believe that my relationship with my God is neither limited, imperfect, nor corrupt and that He is trustworthy. I do not ever attempt to 'interpret' God but know what I know to be good and perfect.
If you believe that you are, by nature, imperfect and corrupt, then how do you know that what you believe is correct?

Quote:
Do you think it is possible to know everything there is to know about anything?
No.

Quote:
Is it necessary to know everything there is to know about whatever you will encounter before you will trust it or not see it as a threat to you?
It is necessary to know everything there is to know about 'whatever' in order to form an accurate concept. Any idea of "God" has to be incorrect, because the subject, "God", refers to that which is inconceivable. Why should a concept have authority over reason?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 11:35:04
▲ ▼