Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I believe first and foremost God is real because He abides in me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate god is present.

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

What is God like? Please tell them to reveal to me, I seek them

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe it is because not everyone has received Jesus as Lord and Savior.

And I'm sure other people of other faiths will say you're the one who's got it wrong. That's exactly the problem, there is no objective means of deciding who is right.

I believe the same goes for God.

So where's the objective evidence?

I believe the contrary is true. I was best at Math which is a logical course and I worked as a Computer Programmer which is logic applied to a computer. I also took Logic as a course at the university.

Why are you making such obviously flawed arguments, then?

I believe there is only one God but there are many gods.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. I suggest you go back and reread what was said.

I believe that is a false conjecture on your part.

You offered answered prayer up as evidence, then when I pointed out that prayer actually doesn't make any measurable difference and that often people don't get answers, you just made up a load of excuses. The implication is that you'll believe in prayer despite any possible objective outcome.

I am not sure what you mean by that but I believe you can't turn a lie into the truth and you can't turn the truth into a lie.

I meant that you can't have objective evidence for something if there is nothing at all that would be objective evidence against it, i.e., something that could happen that would clearly prove it wrong. If there is no such thing, then it is compatible with every possible objective event or observation, so there can't possibly be any objective evidence for it.

 

[Muffled]

What do you call the Bhagavad Gita, then? What do you call the words in the Shiva Purana, Vishnu Purana, and Srimad Bhagavatam if not spoken by Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna, respectively?

Why do you speak about Hinduism and our beliefs when you know less than nothing about them, yet keep calling our God a false God, denigrating our scriptures and getting everything wrong? Please enlighten me. That’s why so many people dislike so many Christians, and IMO rightly so... the hubris, and denigrating and intolerance of others’ beliefs. I don’t know which of them is the worst.

I believe at first glance it appeared to be God by the claims made but the words didn't fit. The Vedas have nothing in them about God speaking. The others I haven't read yet so I can't comment on them.

I believe that was an assumption on your part.

I believe I do not recollect saying that anywhere but I do believe there are false concepts of God in Hinduism.

I believe you must think I have something against Hinduism. That is not the case. I simply wish to go by that which is true.

 

[Muffled]

What is God like? Please tell them to reveal to me, I seek them

I believe God is one so the idea of "them" does not fit.

To find out what God is like read the Bible but my suggestion is to start with the book of John.

As for personally I find it as Proverbs says:
Prov 18:24 A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

 

[Muffled]

In another post the question was: Do you believe anything without evidence. I said curses. There is something I have experience with but my experience is not evidence in that case. The difference is that I do not know the source of curses or even if they are a realty and not imagination. My experiences with God does have a source I know and it is not my imagination.

 

[Jainarayan]

I believe at first glance it appeared to be God by the claims made but the words didn't fit. The Vedas have nothing in them about God speaking. The others I haven't read yet so I can't comment on them.

Of course not, not from an Abrahamic POV that doesn’t allow for critical thinking. The Vedas don’t contain anything about God speaking, not directly with a booming voice from Heaven because that’s not what they are. They are hymns, prayers, mantras (another form of prayer). They are truths perceived by the rishis (sages, wise men and women) after centuries of intense meditation and austerities. Why do assume they’re supposed to be the spoken word of God?

I believe that was an assumption on your part.

I believe I do not recollect saying that anywhere but I do believe there are false concepts of God in Hinduism.

Are you serious? That’s the content of virtually every post you make about Hinduism.

I believe you must think I have something against Hinduism. That is not the case. I simply wish to go by that which is true.

That last line is suggesting Hinduism isn’t true. So would you like to revisit but I do believe there are false concepts of God in Hinduism?

 

[Muffled]

Of course not, not from an Abrahamic POV that doesn’t allow for critical thinking. The Vedas don’t contain anything about God speaking, not directly with a booming voice from Heaven because that’s not what they are. They are hymns, prayers, mantras (another form of prayer). They are truths perceived by the rishis (sages, wise men and women) after centuries of intense meditation and austerities. Why do assume they’re supposed to be the spoken word of God?



Are you serious? That’s the content of virtually every post you make about Hinduism.


That last line is suggesting Hinduism isn’t true. So would you like to revisit but I do believe there are false concepts of God in Hinduism?

I believe I do not wish to follow this path. As I said before it is not my purpose to denigrate Hinduism. So if I wish to explore the truth in this matter it appears to be just that and that is not what I want.

 

[Muffled]

And I'm sure other people of other faiths will say you're the one who's got it wrong. That's exactly the problem, there is no objective means of deciding who is right.


So where's the objective evidence?


Why are you making such obviously flawed arguments, then?


You seem to have missed the point entirely. I suggest you go back and reread what was said.


You offered answered prayer up as evidence, then when I pointed out that prayer actually doesn't make any measurable difference and that often people don't get answers, you just made up a load of excuses. The implication is that you'll believe in prayer despite any possible objective outcome.


I meant that you can't have objective evidence for something if there is nothing at all that would be objective evidence against it, i.e., something that could happen that would clearly prove it wrong. If there is no such thing, then it is compatible with every possible objective event or observation, so there can't possibly be any objective evidence for it.

I believe they will say it but they won't be able to back up what they say with experience.

I believe all you did was say something about statistics. Evidently I am one of the exceptions.

I believe my logic is sound. If you think there is something that isn't.

I believe you are right. Why would I disagree with what has already happened ie my recovery from Covid-19 after prayer.

I believe prayer only works if God is willing to make it work. You can 't wish for something to be so by prayer and expect to get a result just because you wish for it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would I disagree with what has already happened ie my recovery from Covid-19 after prayer.

I believe prayer only works if God is willing to make it work. You can 't wish for something to be so by prayer and expect to get a result just because you wish for it.

But it's simply contradictory to cite one 'answered' prayer that you recovered from COVID-19 but then say that any set facts following a prayer would not cause you to stop believing it. I'm glad you recovered, but many didn't, and I'm sure many of those also prayed, so it's worthless as objective evidence. I had a positive COVID PCR test at one stage, I didn't pray, but the next two came back negative, so is that evidence that not praying works just as well (or better; I never even got any symptoms) as praying?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe all you did was say something about statistics. Evidently I am one of the exceptions.

That's a special pleading fallacy.

I believe you are right. Why would I disagree with what has already happened ie my recovery from Covid-19 after prayer.

"As of December 8, 2021, there were over 267 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 241 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 5.3 million deaths."

That's a recovery rate of over 90%. The odds were greatly in your favour for a recovery, so assigning it to prayer without any evidence is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I believe my logic is sound.

Well you have used two known common logical fallacies, so your claims are irrational by definition. Also there have been studies into the efficacy of intercessory prayer for years, and they show no discernible effect.

"The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects."

Double blind clinical trials were conducted on post op heart patients, with some prayed for a more speedy recovery and others not. The results showed the prayer had no discernible effect, the only anomaly were some of the patients who were prayed for were told, while others were not, and these faired slightly worse with longer recovery and more complications. The researchers reasoned the stress of wanting the prayers to work were the most probable cause.

 

[Muffled]

The Pharisees didn't have you special connection.

I have an 8 digit number, a 9 digit number, three 4 digit numbers and one 5 digit number. All from a known transendental number. Get all 6 and that would be great.
So God is speaking to you, through you, giving you visions, among other things, great this should be no problem at all!

Now if all this conversation is not actual conversation then it's probably just in your mind. In communication you can get actual information you didn't have before. SO if you are having actual communication with a God outside of your imagination you will get the information.

I believe I would do that if God were willing to give me the winning Powerball numbers. The problem I have though is that you could lie about the numbers and simply say they were the wrong ones even if they wre the right ones. You would have to give the numbers in a private conversation to a Christian I trust to tell the truth. I believe Christians are more apt to tell the truth because Jesus is the truth. You could say Christians worship the truth.

 

[Muffled]

That's a special pleading fallacy.



"As of December 8, 2021, there were over 267 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 241 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 5.3 million deaths."

That's a recovery rate of over 90%. The odds were greatly in your favour for a recovery, so assigning it to prayer without any evidence is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.



Well you have used two known common logical fallacies, so your claims are irrational by definition. Also there have been studies into the efficacy of intercessory prayer for years, and they show no discernible effect.

"The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects."

Double blind clinical trials were conducted on post op heart patients, with some prayed for a more speedy recovery and others not. The results showed the prayer had no discernible effect, the only anomaly were some of the patients who were prayed for were told, while others were not, and these faired slightly worse with longer recovery and more complications. The researchers reasoned the stress of wanting the prayers to work were the most probable cause.

I believe you ar incorrect. Special pleading is for a general principle and statistics are not a general principle. For it could be 60% of the time it doesn't work and 40% of the time it does. That is why exceptions are valid.

I believe you do love your fallacies. I am not saying that every recovery is due to prayer, I am saying my recovery was due to prayer. Not simply because I got well but because the symptoms just completely went away. In case you are not aware of how this disease works the usual case is that a person in the advanced condition I was in has to fight valiantly for his life.

I believe you misunderstand and misuse logic similar to the way people misunderstand and misuse the Bible.

Improved outcomes associated with prayer - Indian J Psychiatry. 2009 Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

I believe that falls under the heading of fantasy or wishful thinking, something that is quite common among scientists.

 

[joelr]

I believe I would do that if God were willing to give me the winning Powerball numbers. The problem I have though is that you could lie about the numbers and simply say they were the wrong ones even if they wre the right ones. You would have to give the numbers in a private conversation to a Christian I trust to tell the truth. I believe Christians are more apt to tell the truth because Jesus is the truth. You could say Christians worship the truth.

Well there was an "epidemic" of priests who mostly lied to investigators about molesting children so your claim doesn't check out.
I have the numbers written down. If they are correct then I will know you are able to know the numbers and I will be compelled to share that information. Virtues such as being truthful in your world came from Jesus. What you have failed to understand is that in the real world Plato wrote about the importance of virtues in his Republic.
Most of the myths added to Judaism to form Christianity also are Greek inventions.

So can you get the numbers? There are 6 of them.

 

[Muffled]

Well there was an "epidemic" of priests who mostly lied to investigators about molesting children so your claim doesn't check out.
I have the numbers written down. If they are correct then I will know you are able to know the numbers and I will be compelled to share that information. Virtues such as being truthful in your world came from Jesus. What you have failed to understand is that in the real world Plato wrote about the importance of virtues in his Republic.
Most of the myths added to Judaism to form Christianity also are Greek inventions.

So can you get the numbers? There are 6 of them.

I believe most born again Christians view Roman Catholics as Christian in name only.

I believe that is fantasy on your part.

I have read the Republic and I don't remember much but I am sure that his idea of virtues comes from his own mind but God's virtues are likely different in some ways. It is always difficult to ascertain where ideas originate from.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe most born again Christians view Roman Catholics as Christian in name only.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

joelr said: ↑
Well there was an "epidemic" of priests who mostly lied to investigators about molesting children so your claim doesn't check out.

I believe that is fantasy on your part.

You're wrong.

I have read the Republic and I don't remember much but I am sure that his idea of virtues comes from his own mind but God's virtues are likely different in some ways. It is always difficult to ascertain where ideas originate from.

No it isn't, in every example we have they originate from a functioning human brain. What objective evidence have you that any deity exists? Until you can demonstrate something beyond bare assertion, and wishful thinking, the rest of your unevidenced assumptions about it are just begging the question fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
That's a special pleading fallacy.

"As of December 8, 2021, there were over 267 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 241 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 5.3 million deaths."

That's a recovery rate of over 90%. The odds were greatly in your favour for a recovery, so assigning it to prayer without any evidence is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I believe you ar incorrect. Special pleading is for a general principle and statistics are not a general principle.

They're not just statistics though are they, they reflect objective evidence, unlike your completely unevidenced claim that your recovery among hundreds of millions was the result of prayer?

I am not saying that every recovery is due to prayer, I am saying my recovery was due to prayer. Not simply because I got well but because the symptoms just completely went away.

Precisely my point, that is a special pleading fallacy, and the symptoms generally do completely go away when you recover, that's what recovery means here, and again this is an objectively evidenced fact in literally hundreds of millions of cases, and most importantly you have still not offered any objective evidence that prayer was the cause. Even were your recovery unique, which it certainly was not, your claim would remain nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Sheldon Well you have used two known common logical fallacies, so your claims are irrational by definition. Also there have been studies into the efficacy of intercessory prayer for years, and they show no discernible effect.

I believe you misunderstand and misuse logic similar to the way people misunderstand and misuse the Bible.

Believe what you want, your claims used known logical fallacies, and they're there for all to see.

Sheldon "The efficacy of prayer has been studied since at least 1872, generally through experiments to determine whether prayer or intercessory prayer has a measurable effect on the health of the person for whom prayer is offered. Empirical research indicates that prayer and intercessory prayer have no discernible effects."

Double blind clinical trials were conducted on post op heart patients, with some prayed for a more speedy recovery and others not. The results showed the prayer had no discernible effect, the only anomaly were some of the patients who were prayed for were told, while others were not, and these faired slightly worse with longer recovery and more complications. The researchers reasoned the stress of wanting the prayers to work were the most probable cause.

I believe that falls under the heading of fantasy or wishful thinking, something that is quite common among scientists.

Again you are free to indulge in any unevidenced fantasy you want, but that last claim is pretty hilarious. The evidence you are attempting to wave away was from rigorously conducted double blind clinical trials, the claims you are making are based on what exactly, your arbitrary claims your recovery was unique among millions? As preposterous as that bare claim is, even were it true, it would not represent objective evidence for your claim, it is another logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. A claim is not evidenced or proved because you can't think of an alternative.

Most telling of all is the obvious selection bias you're indulging, like all claims for the efficacy of prayer, you used a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and like all such claims you use selection bias to only cite what you consider positive results, while ignoring all failures, this type of selection bias is called a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[joelr]

I believe most born again Christians view Roman Catholics as Christian in name only.

I believe that is fantasy on your part.

I have read the Republic and I don't remember much but I am sure that his idea of virtues comes from his own mind but God's virtues are likely different in some ways. It is always difficult to ascertain where ideas originate from.

I found endless articles and studies about non-Roman Catholic child molestation in other Christian denominations. So you are engaged in a fantasy that it's just one group?
Child Sex Abusers in Protestant Christian Churches: An Offender Typology · CrimRxiv

Virtues are in Greek, Hindu and all cultures. There is no such thing as "Gods virtues", those books are myths written by people. The Israelite virtues were ideas written by men, taken from older cultures and what they thought just at the time. Probably very similar to Canaanite morals because they emerged from Canaanite cities as all archeology has demonstrated. Basic ideas (minus the slavery and killing and forced labor) in the OT are the same as Greek virtues. The golden rule, don't steal, lie, kill, these are standard ideas that existed since the dawn of writing. As if some God showed up and was like "Yeah and don't lie, steal and kill..."
Sorry, those already existed. In the Republic Plato describes the cycles a democratic society goes through.
They already understood all of the morals you would point to the Bible as being a source.
Plato also described the Noble Lie. A lie told to people about mythical religions used to control people. Non-believers would be called heretics and killed.
Funny that Christianity is an exact blend of Judaism and Hellenism.

 

[Muffled]

I found endless articles and studies about non-Roman Catholic child molestation in other Christian denominations. So you are engaged in a fantasy that it's just one group?
Child Sex Abusers in Protestant Christian Churches: An Offender Typology · CrimRxiv

Virtues are in Greek, Hindu and all cultures. There is no such thing as "Gods virtues", those books are myths written by people. The Israelite virtues were ideas written by men, taken from older cultures and what they thought just at the time. Probably very similar to Canaanite morals because they emerged from Canaanite cities as all archeology has demonstrated. Basic ideas (minus the slavery and killing and forced labor) in the OT are the same as Greek virtues. The golden rule, don't steal, lie, kill, these are standard ideas that existed since the dawn of writing. As if some God showed up and was like "Yeah and don't lie, steal and kill..."
Sorry, those already existed. In the Republic Plato describes the cycles a democratic society goes through.
They already understood all of the morals you would point to the Bible as being a source.
Plato also described the Noble Lie. A lie told to people about mythical religions used to control people. Non-believers would be called heretics and killed.
Funny that Christianity is an exact blend of Judaism and Hellenism.

I believe there are people who are Christian in name only in Protestant churches also.

I believe not but I do believe one is less likely to find a born again Christian in the RCC.

I believe they are not all the same. Christians do not follow virtues; they follow Jesus.

I believe that statement is a myth.

I believe that is evidence that scientists fantasize a lot about archeology.

I believe common ideas do not necessarily mean a common source. In fact I do not believe one may know a source for an idea although one may recognize a quote of a person who said it.

 

[Muffled]

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.




You're wrong.



No it isn't, in every example we have they originate from a functioning human brain. What objective evidence have you that any deity exists? Until you can demonstrate something beyond bare assertion, and wishful thinking, the rest of your unevidenced assumptions about it are just begging the question fallacies.

I believe you are incorrect. Anyone can call himself a Christian even an atheist but that does not mean that he fits the criteria. The Criteria is in the Bible.

 

[Sheldon]

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I believe you are incorrect. Anyone can call himself a Christian even an atheist but that does not mean that he fits the criteria. The Criteria is in the Bible.

This was your claim:

Muffled said: ↑
I believe most born again Christians view Roman Catholics as Christian in name only.

That is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and you can believe whatever you want.