aymen amir
peace
Did anyone on this forum change their belief(religion) after they have been provided with undeniable evidence ...
IF SO please share
IF SO please share
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
a small QUESTION??
- Thread starter aymen amir
- Start date
aymen amir
peace
excuse me, but undeniable evedence does exist
can u deny that the earth is round ?? no right?
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I don't think it does. People will argue over everything.
Sadly, some do.
The Flat Earth Society
In the case of undeniable proof and religions.. it doesn't work that way. Religions and undeniability don't seem to go together very easily.
Undeniable evidence does exist. But, naturally enough, it rarely has any religious significance. I would be very surprised indeed to hear of anyone who changed religious belief due to undeniable evidence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
As the word 'undeniable' seems key to this discussion.....
At what point would 'undeniable' kick in?
How about, your own ability to 'see' the argument expressed....
then decide to accept it.
Even if you have some unresolved details, even if the other guy is persistent,
even if it means you must change your own mind and heart and abide accordingly......
'Undeniable' as in beyond rebuttal?
Or maybe you refrain the discussion, because you would have to change who you are?
And if God is the Almighty....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced....
then He would be undeniable.
So is this thread just another...'I don't believe in God and I don't want to'
thread?
At what point would 'undeniable' kick in?
How about, your own ability to 'see' the argument expressed....
then decide to accept it.
Even if you have some unresolved details, even if the other guy is persistent,
even if it means you must change your own mind and heart and abide accordingly......
'Undeniable' as in beyond rebuttal?
Or maybe you refrain the discussion, because you would have to change who you are?
And if God is the Almighty....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced....
then He would be undeniable.
So is this thread just another...'I don't believe in God and I don't want to'
thread?
Kriya Yogi
Dharma and Love for God
Reading and writing will not give you undeniable evidence. You have to experience God for yourself. Only then will undeniable evidence come to you.
Your first problem would be finding any kind of evidence at all,religion is based on faith and little to do with fact.
Klaufi_Wodensson
Vinlandic Warrior
Well, I did change my belief since being on RF, although it wasn't from anything I learned on RF, and I got no "evidence" from it either. Not sure if any of you remember me, but my name used to be ApostleOfLucifer, back when I was a Satanist (About half a year ago). I'm glad I left that religion. Now I found one that totally works for me!!
My beliefs changed in the face of undeniable evidence, but the evidence was not undeniable due to its strength of argument. Rather, it was undeniable because it was never asserted. The only statements which cannot be denied are those never spoken.
"The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao,
The name which can be named is not the eternal name."
That cannot be asserted which has no name, that can have no name which cannot be identified, that cannot be identified which has no self, that has no self which has no substance, that has no substance which does not exist, and that cannot exist which is the firmament for existence.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
I left the Abrahamics nearly 40 years ago, and I've been a Gael for well over a decade.The term "undeniable evidence" is bandied about, in my experinces, by those long in their religion who cannot offer an example of, nor ever experienced, "undeniable evidence".
Nothing I have seen, witnessed, nor experienced personally would constitute anything approaching "undeniable evidence".
What is offered is more readily explained by science ("uncorrupted flesh" is a perfect example), and/or claimed "evidence" by sources that can hardy be considered self-supporting evidence, such as scriptures.
IMHO, you should've asked something closer to "Did anyone on this forum change their belief(religion) after they have been convinced by others ...
IF SO please share"
Muffled
Jesus in me
Yes but not from evidence that was presented. I read a post one day on an Islamic forum that said Chistianity doesn't have a mandated religion. I have heard Pat Robertson say ofr years that Christiniy isn't a religion but the question of whether Jesus required one was not one I had previously addressed. After researching the Biblical facts I came to the conclusion that Jesus did not mandate a religion.
TruthSpeaker
Member
from your reply i can understand that u r an Athiest? Ok. First i congratulate you for being an Athiest because many people are muslim as because their father and fore fathers are muslims, many ara hindus as their ancestors are hindus, u thought about the existence of God and bacame an Athiest. Ok. Can you tell me how the world and the entire universe is created???
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Yes, I did. I found the evidence that Buddhist practice made a difference in my life to be undeniable; especially the difference between practicing as prescribed and when I did not do so. The practice continues to prove itself to me to this day, almost 30 years later.
jonman122
Active Member
its funny i just watched the video called "how to deal with an atheist" where he said these things. Our universe was created by a singularity that expanded and cosmic dust coalesced to form our planet.
Can you tell me how you think the universe was created?
I just wanna point out that this understanding of the origin of the universe presents a view that is unnecessarily limited to the physical. That is, when we say "universe," we usually take that to mean "all of that which is," and abstractions--i.e., the metaphysical--also EXIST, just not as matter or energy, but rather as the associations between individual quanta thereof and as operations descriptive of the non-material negative space. That is to say, the abstract notion of "distance" is one that is non-material, but entirely real.
With that in mind, you have to be a bit more precise when you say our universe was created by a singularity that expanded. Is space Euclidean and infinite and the singularity a singularity of matter? Or was space itself compressed into that singularity? If the answer is the former, to determine the origin of the universe, we can't just ask about the origin of the matter (which was, as you said, compressed into a singularity [also, not the only extant initial state theory of Big Bang cosmology]), but the origin of the space itself.
If you argue instead that space itself was compressed into aforementioned singularity, then do you believe space to have finite measurements across its dimensional axes? If not, you're gonna have a hard time explaining how we went from "singularity" to "infinite space."
If you do believe that space has finite measurement, then you've run into a very weird problem. Namely: space can be understood as the condition of the possibility of juxtaposition, and if space is finite, then we can reasonably discuss that which exists BEYOND the space in question as a higher space. That is, the surface of a sphere is a finite, two-dimensional space, but it is understood in relation to a three-dimensional Euclidean space.
What say you, sir?