Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

"A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
By the evidence available in this and kindred discussions on these boards, one may conclude only that those participants in these discussions as who happen to be given to forwarding the Christian proposition are incapable of distinguishing between an argument for faith and a declaration of faith.

Explain please.

Your querry serves well to illustrate and validate the observation. The conclusion is forced by the evidence; from the subject set all that has been presented is declaration of faith, no argument for faith has been forthcoming. Given multiple specific, repeated, yet uniformly unmet, challenge to present argument rather than declaration, one may conclude only that those participants in these discussions as who happen to be given to forwarding the Christian proposition are incapable of distinguishing between argument for faith and declaration of faith.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
By the evidence available in this and kindred discussions on these boards, one may conclude only that those participants in these discussions as who happen to be given to forwarding the Christian proposition are incapable of distinguishing between an argument for faith and a declaration of faith.

Explain please.

Your querry serves well to illustrate and validate the observation. The conclusion is forced by the evidence; from the subject set all that has been presented is declaration of faith, no argument for faith has been forthcoming. Given multiple specific, repeated, yet uniformly unmet, challenge to present argument rather than declaration, one may conclude only that those participants in these discussions as who happen to be given to forwarding the Christian proposition are incapable of distinguishing between argument for faith and declaration of faith.

I'm not following your logic. I stated I was a Christian because I was asked flat out if I was and saw no reason to deny that. But my argument has been exclusively confined to a principle of experience as opposed to that accepted on faith. The principle I'm putting out there can apply to "God" or can apply to just about anything, religious or not.

The closest thing I think I've come up with that could be an argument for 'faith' was the illustration of a belief in Santa Claus et al.

If you think I'm wrong about that, I would be interested in hearing more, however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Sure, please do.

Meanwhile, if you want to use proof texting to show that God is "seen"; i.e. visible according to the scriptures, you should include other texts as well as the text in Romans which must be put into context:

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:13-15
He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Question: What or who did these people see?

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Judges 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

Why did Jesus say that these people shall see God if he is unseen

Matthew 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Lastly, do you know what it means to be invisible? Just because something is invisible does not mean that it can't be seen.

Foxfyre wrote:

The passage from Romans in context:
"1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people39 who suppress the truth by their40 unrighteousness,41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles."

It is God's 'invisible attributes' which are "seen", not God and they are 'seen' in the creation itself, not literally as the attributes they are.

LOL! First of all, when did they alter the text? When did they change it from "things" to attributes." Nevertheless, if you can understand what invisible means then you will understand that God can be seen.

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

Mindonfire wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Sure, please do.

Meanwhile, if you want to use proof texting to show that God is "seen"; i.e. visible according to the scriptures, you should include other texts as well as the text in Romans which must be put into context:

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:13-15
He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Question: What or who did these people see?

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Judges 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

Why did Jesus say that these people shall see God if he is unseen

Matthew 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Lastly, do you know what it means to be invisible? Just because something is invisible does not mean that it can't be seen.

Foxfyre wrote:
The passage from Romans in context:
"1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people39 who suppress the truth by their40 unrighteousness,41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles."

It is God's 'invisible attributes' which are "seen", not God and they are 'seen' in the creation itself, not literally as the attributes they are.

LOL! First of all, when did they alter the text? When did they change it from "things" to attributes." Nevertheless, if you can understand what invisible means then you will understand that God can be seen.

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:

The Old Testament is quite full of symbolism, metaphor, parable, allegory, and illustration and God was often described in Anthropomorphic terms.

The better newer translations of the Bible use the more accurate words in the translations. There is no passage in the New Testament that suggests God, the Father Creator, is seen face to face except some of the imagery in Revelations which has yet to have much agreement on its translation among the Biblical scholars except for those who say it cannot be translated.

Even in the passage you cite again from the KJV or derivative I read differently than you do. I do not see the "things of Him" being the same as God himself.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no passage in the New Testament that suggests God, the Father Creator, is seen face to face except some of the imagery in Revelations which has yet to have much agreement on its translation among the Biblical scholars except for those who say it cannot be translated.

3 John 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is no passage in the New Testament that suggests God, the Father Creator, is seen face to face except some of the imagery in Revelations which has yet to have much agreement on its translation among the Biblical scholars except for those who say it cannot be translated.

3 John 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

Well I'll admit this one is pretty close. But Paul was pretty explicit that all have sinned and fallen short. And if you want to be really technical it doesn't say that those who have done good have seen God either. And since the invisibile Spirit God is prevalent in the New Testament, we can conclude that this single reference does not presume face to face.

From presumably the same author: 1John 1:14
"No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us."

I think both the Old and New Testament writers strained to find words to describe something for which they had inadequate words to describe. They did the best they could.

I would like to qualify what I said earlier about no references to seeing God face to face in the NT though. There are references that in the next life we shall see God. Whether that means God the Christ or God the Father is not always clear, however.

This is my interpretation, however. If you wish to interpret it differently, I don't really think God will mind. (That's pure subjective opinion. Smile

)

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

You can't compare God to Santa Claus! Even when you were 5 years old you knew God could beat Santa's round red ass. Forget Santa.

Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre,

You can't compare God to Santa Claus! Even when you were 5 years old you knew God could beat Santa's round red ass. Forget Santa.

Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

No, I don't know what it's like to not believe in God.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

echi wrote:
Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

No, I don't know what it's like to not believe in God.

What do you think it would be like?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

No, I don't know what it's like to not believe in God.

What do you think it would be like?

It's wonderful!!

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

No, I don't know what it's like to not believe in God.

What do you think it would be like?

I would imagine it would be like being kidnapped at birth and never knowing ones parents or siblings or other members of a loving family. You wouldn't know what you had missed, but you would have missed out on something pretty terrific.

From a purely personal perspective, I also suspect there would be a sense of something missing. And it could possibly be this that draws so many professed Atheists to threads like this. But then, in defense of the Atheists, I check in on threads discussing things I think are bogus too.

Going back to the question starting the thread though, what do you think it would take to convince a present non believer of the existence of God?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

echi wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
Do you know what it's like to not believe in any gods, at all?... not even one?

How could you?

No, I don't know what it's like to not believe in God.

What do you think it would be like?

I would imagine it would be like being kidnapped at birth and never knowing ones parents or siblings or other members of a loving family. You wouldn't know what you had missed, but you would have missed out on something pretty terrific.

For me, it was like being kidnapped at birth, locked in a dungeon for ten years, before finally escaping with my mind still somewhat intact..........running barefoot through green, sunny pastures of warm joy to be reunited with my happy family.

Quote:

From a purely personal perspective, I also suspect there would be a sense of something missing. And it could possibly be this that draws so many professed Atheists to threads like this. But then, in defense of the Atheists, I check in on threads discussing things I think are bogus too.

Just because I am no longer a believer doesn't mean that I have stopped wanting to learn about God. In fact, I'd say that's exactly why I'm not a believer... too much learning about God.

Quote:

Going back to the question starting the thread though, what do you think it would take to convince a present non believer of the existence of God?

Is that what this thread is about? I thought it was to help "believers" come to their senses.

In order to convince me of the exisence of God I would first have to know what we're talking about. What is "God"?

0 Replies

Echi writes

Quote:

In order to convince me of the exisence of God I would first have to know what we're talking about. What is "God"?

Well if you have to have a complete answer to that, we have a problem because I don't think we mortals can comprehend what God is. I don't think He would be much of a God if we could.

But we don't have to know what something is to know that something exists. Would you agree with that?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Echi writes

Quote:
In order to convince me of the exisence of God I would first have to know what we're talking about. What is "God"?

Well if you have to have a complete answer to that, we have a problem because I don't think we mortals can comprehend what God is. I don't think He would be much of a God if we could.

Well, this is what I'm having difficulty understanding. We can't comprehend what God is. God cannot be represented in the form of a concept. I think we agree on that. But the mind can only deal with concepts; we can't even imagine what a "non-concept" might be (or not be).
I accept that you've had some kind of non-conceptual, transcendent experience. But I don't agree with your decision to attach that experience to a concept ("God").

Quote:

But we don't have to know what something is to know that something exists. Would you agree with that?

I disagree. How can we know something exists if we don't know what that "something" is?
That doesn't add up.

0 Replies

Sure you can. An infant has no understanding of genetics, family, parents, or what a human being is but responds favorably to loving stimuli and quickly bonds to the primary caregiver(s). In comparison to God we are like newborn infants with as limited knowledge comparatively about Him as a newborn has of his/her parent, but we still have a sense of presence and respond favorably to loving stimuli etc.

If you walk through the woods and see a creature that you never knew existed would you question its existence? Wouldn't you accept the reality of it though you don't have a clue what it is? If you found a substance left by some departing space alien and had no clue whether it was animal or mineral or what its function was or whether it was inert, beneficial, or harmful, would you question whether it existed at all?

I do accept that those who have not experienced God have difficulty believing those who have. And that's okay. I cannot prove the existence of God to you any more than you can disprove the existence of God to me. But I believe you can prove the existence of God to yourself.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

sandspider, welcome to A2K.

You make a lot of baseless assumptions. One of the most obviously wrong of which is....such pills already exist.

Are you basing a gods existence on your need to prove yourself to be a certain thing???[/quote

I haven't made any assumptions. Pills to balance chemicals in the brain to relieve depression are small potatoes. I'm talking about pills to fix greedy nature, pills to give us world peace, no such pills exist. No pill can make you love or happy or make others love you if criminals can be "cured" of criminal tendencies then why not give them a pill and a hug and we solve overcrowding in prisons.

0 Replies

Chemical castration
From Wikipedia,

Chemical castration is a form of temporary castration caused by certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and rapists.

and yes, you've made a bunch of assumptions, too many to deal with at once.

0 Replies

Re: Proof of God
OK, I'll try to help.

sandspider wrote:

if there were no God, how do we explain ourselves as individuals.

This assumes we must "explain ourselves as individuals", whatever that means.

sandspider wrote:

does creativity and talent and learning come from evolution?

Yes, of course. All these things are survival advantages. You ask with the assumption that this is obviously not the case.

sandspider wrote:

if love is a chemical reaction in the brain then it is possible to make a pill to balance the chemicals of all people so we all love or feel remorse .

Here you assume that if tomatoes are really fruit, then all fruit tastes the same. It's a senseless sentence.

sandspider wrote:

(just think one pill to stop crime)

One pill can mostly stop some kinds of crime. see above.

sandspider wrote:

one pill to balance all the chemicals in our brains.

One pill could not do that, you assume a static brain when it is part of a dynamic system. You also assume all brains are identical and react identically in every situation.

sandspider wrote:

someday maybe...but unlikely.

Nope, never. Not in the way you have suggested.

sandspider wrote:

God gave us freewill and thoughts and feelings, life is not an accident it's a gift.

You assume a god exists. You assume your particular god exists. You assume you know what it is and how it works and what it's intentions are. You assume that if this god did not make you, then you are an accident. You assume your god gives gifts.

There you go. Quite a bunch of assumptions to deal with in one small paragraph.

0 Replies

Could this thread get more inane? I'm guessing not.

0 Replies

Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know