Evidence

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I own 14 guns. I enjoy hunting and target plinking. I also carry one.
Fact is I like guns.

Bob owns no guns. Thinks no one should own guns. Started a petition to try to ban all guns.
Fact is Bob doesn't like guns.

True, but totally trivial. Neither of your likes or dislikes can resolve any questions regarding whether universal gun ownership is a good thing or not.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don't think guilt and fear of hell is the Christian ideal. I've read a book The Way Of The Pilgrim where the Pilgrim met a man who began to fear hell and had lived a very ascetic life since then. The Pilgrim tried to help him:

So with the object of helping this brother and doing all I could to strengthen his faith, I took The Philokalia out of my knapsack. Turning to the 109th chapter of Isikhi, I read it to him. I set out to prove to him the use-lessness and vanity of avoiding sin merely from fear of the tortures of hell. I told him that the soul could be freed from sinful thoughts only by guarding the mind and cleansing the heart, and that this could be done by interior prayer. I added that according to the holy Fathers, one who performs
saving works simply from the fear of hell follows the way of bondage, and he who does the same just in order to be rewarded with the kingdom of heaven follows the path of a bargainer with God. The one they call a slave, the other a hireling. But God wants us to come to Him as sons to their Father; He wants us to behave ourselves honorably from love for Him and zeal for His service; He wants us to find our happiness in uniting ourselves with Him in a saving union of mind and heart.​

Hellfire and brimstone was certainly a popular topic taught in the Baptist churches I attended while growing up, and it remained so in the Nazarene churches I've attended over the thirty years I've been a Christian. My husband and I have been members of the same Nazarene church for nearly 20 years, and the current pastor and the pastor before him have both preached about God's wrath and hell. I'm still a member, but I don't attend the Sunday morning service with my husband that often anymore. I'm no longer a Christian.

 

[John53]

It depends. Are you wanting to discuss the truth of the matter? Or are you trying to give comfort?

If you are a gifted services coordinator, or an interviewer for a modeling agency, I would expect a factual account. If I am a friend that is concerned that you will make bad decisions based on your beliefs, then I would give a factual account.

If I am giving comfort and nobody would be hurt by my lie, I might paper over the truth momentarily.

And it depends on the place. If you make the claim on an internet debate forum expect it to be debated.

 

[Left Coast]

Oh my God this thread is on gun control now?

 

[Eric Hyom]

the current pastor and the pastor before him have both preached about God's wrath and hell.

It has been said that a theologian is anyone who has an opinion about God. Often the theologian reveals more of their own nature; than they do about God.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, they do.
We employ reason, in deciding that the Bible is true, for example.

False, there has been no use of reason by anyone who concludes the Bible, or related concepts, are true. Some stories do have some true elements, as do many works of fiction like A Tale of Two Cities. But the Bible is full of fantastic elements that are not plausible given our avaible knowledge. No evidence warrants belief. What we do see is believers using a similar form of debate that looks like reason, but their evidence is not founded on facts.

Some people might say that the Bible is inerrant, whilst others do not believe that.
They follow the discourse contained therein, and decide BASED ON REASON, that Jesus taught the truth about God, and that he is indeed the Messiah.
These same people do not believe every claim of being "a messiah" or prophet. They evaluate each claim on its own merit. That is employing reason.

Assessing religious texts via reason means to NOT make any assumptions about a supernatural, and look at what the materials say and whether they correspond to what we understand of the real world. A reasoned apvroach has revealed that many Bible stories are likely copied from Egyptian lore, and evolved through develoipng societies in the region called Caanan. So there is no factual and unique revelation, but an evolving set of narratives through time. There is no evidence that suggests what various religious groups believe is true.

..just because it cannot be categorically proved that God exists, does not in itself mean, that a person does not use their powers of reasoning to determine what is true and what is not.

Where it comes to God concepts it is more likely that they were invented, and evolved over time through various societies and cultures. Theists have failed to present any credible evidence that any of their many versions of God exists as believed, nor explain how and why the concepts of God has evolved and changed. Reason (academics) does explain how this occurred.

Some people might .. some people might be content with following tradition.
Others take more interest in religions, and embark on a spiritual journey, choosing to follow whatever they see fit, for a variety of reasons.

Humans are tribal and social animals, and as long as a religious framework isn't destructive the continuation of a tradition of belief will continue as an element of identity and meaning. We should not confuse a tradition of belief as if the beliefs are objectively true. Humans will beliueve in all sorts of non-rational and false concetps for the sake of social cohesion.

Some people might attempt to control others .. but why would 50% of the population allow themselves to be "controlled" in some way?

Because when you have a family that you care about you will go along with the flow of things and try not to cause trouble. In Islamic nations the authority use the trhreat of death to keep the people in line. Look at the massive crackdown the Russian police did on citizen protests against the war. they got rounded up and threatened with imprisonment if they continued. That threat worked to stop the protests. But in Iran there were more people than the "morality police" could arrest and threaten. They have executed a few protestors in hopes it will scare the rest, but it hasn't.
Look at your thrrats against those who "don't follow God's precepts", and how effective is it? It isn't. If you had a police force and were a leader of a nation would you force citizens to follow what you think God wants? Or do you acknowledge that Islamic laws are not absolute, and there is no God enforcing any of them, and people are allowed freedom?

No .. most believers see the argument of their Lord .. that sin is against our own souls, and that of the whole community.

Social conformity is a powerful influence over otherwise rational minds.

Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills.

According to the believer. Believers always have final say on what their Gods say. We never hear from actual Gods.

One does not get to "choose" in the context of which religion is the most accurate.
We choose to completely submit ourselves to God, and then God guides us.
It is possible to submit to God, but hold reservations.
Almighty God knows everything about us.

Theists have offered no evidence that this is true. What is more likely is that people will allow themselves to be influenced and indoctrinated into a religious framework, and the believer has a dual role as both believer and their God. If anyone "hears God" they are likely using their learned beliefs to create a narrative of what they want this God to say. This is why a verson who believes they need to help feed the hungry will hear God tell them to, and why Muslims who hear God tell them to hijack planes and fly them into office buildings will do that. Notice how God always agrees with the believer, even when believers disagree with each other.

No, of course not.
However, civil disobedience needs to be controlled.
Recently, here in the UK, some people decided to pull down statues, due to their being involved with slavery.
There should be a democratic process for deciding these things, and not mob-rule.

I can agree with your point here. Destruction is something that protestors will do.

So do you disagree with Russia from my reference above, how they threatened their citizens? And do you disagree with how Iranian leadership executed some protestors? If so, control needs to apply to authority, even if they claim God commands it, yes?[/quote]

 

[leroy]

Boatloads of observable, testable, consilient, productive, reproducible, objective evidence.
As above.
Moreover, we have living examples of each stage of eye development, from a light sensitive spot of pigment on a single celled protozoan, to a complex mammalian or cephalopod eye. Each step is functional.

Why would a step by step series of small, natural changes be less believable than a fully formed eye magically appearing out of nothing?

Sure if you can show that each step is functional then the darwinian mechanism would be the best explanation.

You will also become very rich and very famous for making such a discovery

 

[F1fan]

Until we start arguing the difference between belief and knowledge in an epistemological sense, we are doomed never to make further progress.

Here's a challenge to participants, a little "thought experiment:" Imagine that you have somehow managed to put together an absolutely impartial jury, with no preconceived notions of religion, nor of religious skepticism. What "evidence" would you put before that panel that would convince them that your religious beliefs represent the truth, or on the other side, what evidence would you put before them to convince them that religious beliefs can never be shown to be the truth?

I don't see this being effective for those who have well established religious beliefs. They have endured a lot of xpressure from questions in these discussions and the effect has been harder commitment, and even more absurd defenses and justifications.

I had a similar thought and would suggest if these believers were arrested for a murder they didn't commit but many jurors are not liking how they were acting and felt they werte guilty. Would believers suvvort a more rigourous and objectiove assess of evidence if their freedom hung in the balance? I think it would. If we can get these holdouts for subjective, weak evidence to value a high standard of evidence they might understand why a high standand is valuable.

I haven't done this because it seems the believers simply don't value reason or standards where it comes to beliefs they feel good about. I suspect they have a habit of belief that is emotionally satisfying, just as some have bad eating habits they make them feel good. It is apparent there is a deliberate blind spot for why they justify non-rational belief. Unless there is a real negative effect that results from this behavior they have no reason to chance. To my mind it is junk food for the mind that soothes anxieties just as the obese eat junk food to soothe their anxieties.

 

[F1fan]

Sure if you can show that each step is functional then the darwinian mechanism would be the best explanation.

You will also become very rich and very famous for making such a discovery

It is already available in college textbooks, and free on the internet. The question is why you avoid accessing these materials. Your motive isn't genuine if you ignore these free answers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

89 pages to say read the Bahai texts?

One has narrowed that to a single point, this OP did not do that and never intended to do that. That is what happens when one visits a topic with preconceived ideas.

Read the OP, it says it is applicable to all the Faiths.

If you want evidence of God, God has given

1) The Person - Prophet/Messenger
2) The Revelation - from those persons
2) The Word - The record of the Revelation.

So what are sources of evidence we have record of, I will name a few.

Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Noah, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab, Baha'u'llah

There was the Person, the Prophet/Messenger
There was the Revelation they gave from God
There was the recorded Word/ Message.

That Evidence is available to all of us, it is up to us to pursue that evidence, if we want to see it has any proofs and facts about God we see are trustworthy and truthful.

Regards Tony

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It has been said that a theologian is anyone who has an opinion about God. Often the theologian reveals more of their own nature; than they do about God.

The Nazarene Church has an official manual that details the tenets of the church, and the teaching of hell is one of them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Interesting - People, individual insight, and the articulation provided by them? I'd suggest you're correct in this assessment. Typically speaking, people lean on others as well as an individual pov. What we accept as true and just is ultimately up to us. This does not negate the messages provided by others - We csn accept others as "teachers/guides" or we can choose not to. Proof of God? I guess that depends on how a person defines "God".

Thank you for the balanced reply.

Yes indeed, I see it relies heavily upon our frames of references and our relative understandings about God and creation.

Jesus offered a key consideration, Jesus the Christ said we must be born again. That could very well be the key frame of reference needed when pursuing evidence of God.

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

I don't know that the eye formed that way

.

Ofcourse, nobody knows , that is my point......

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And what happens when the "evidence" is put into the Baha'i box? Can we go outside that box and evaluate it?

What is the Baha'is evidence that God exists? What is the Baha'i evidence that Baha'u'llah is God's manifestation? Any assumptions made? Anything that must be just taken on "faith"? If there is, and I think there is, then sure, it's all downhill from there. The Baha'i box looks pretty good. Peace, unity, all religions are one and all the rest of all that good stuff. What possibly be keeping people from believing it all? Maybe the assumptions and those things that can't be proven and must just be taken on faith and believed?

The same evidence all Faiths in God share CG, this OP is inclusive of them all.

The Evidence is.

1)The Messenger/Prophets -Their person and life

2) The Revelation - They offered they are giving a Message from God.

3) The Message - The Word they spoke that changed the reality of all things, bringing a new heaven and a new earth.

This OP is not about proving anything from the Evidence.

Is that clear CG?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But is that "higher" intelligence the God that Baha'is believe in? Again, different religions describe their Gods or God different than how the Baha'is describe God. Why are they wrong and the Baha'is right?

You get to choose CG.

Are you the product of a non intelligent accidental evolution , or the product of intelligent design based evolution?

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

It is already available in college textbooks, and free on the internet. The question is why you avoid accessing these materials. Your motive isn't genuine if you ignore these free answers.

Awesome, then you shouldn't have any problem in supporting the claim with a proper source.

 

[Secret Chief]

One has narrowed that to a single point, this OP did not do that and never intended to do that. That is what happens when one visits a topic with preconceived ideas.

Read the OP, it says it is applicable to all the Faiths.

If you want evidence of God, God has given

1) The Person - Prophet/Messenger
2) The Revelation - from those persons
2) The Word - The record of the Revelation.

So what are sources of evidence we have record of, I will name a few.

Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Noah, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab, Baha'u'llah

There was the Person, the Prophet/Messenger
There was the Revelation they gave from God
There was the recorded Word/ Message.

That Evidence is available to all of us, it is up to us to pursue that evidence, if we want to see it has any proofs and facts about God we see are trustworthy and truthful.

Regards Tony

Got it. "Applicable to all the faiths." Evidence of God, given by God. I'll trot out the usual: The Buddha was not a Prophet/Messenger and he gave no revelation from the upper case abrahamic god. There, saved you 92 pages.
PS Can we have the Buddha back that you stole, please?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's easy. It's called progressive revelation.

Also when we pursue the evidence, what we can find is the fundamental truths they all contain.

The key here is, all Faiths have the evidence, but will a person of one faith be willing to pursue the evidence provided by all Faiths?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I give up. You simply do not know the difference between knowledge and belief, and apparently are not ever going to. In this way, at the very least, some religious minds do not operate rationally.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief, but when it comes to belief in God, it isn't what you think it is.
Some people just halfheartedly 'believe' that God exists but other people 'know' since they have certitude that God exists even though there is no proof. They know in their mind and heart, they don't know it as a proven fact, since it is not a fact that God exists.

I know you cannot understand this because you are not thinking with the mind of a believer.
You are thinking belief is unwarranted since it cannot be proven that God exists and I am thinking that proof is unnecessary since there is enough evidence to hold a belief in God. Moreover, proof is not to be expected, since God has chosen not to provide proof, but that does not mean God does not exist since proof is not what MAKES God exist. God either exists or not.

Proof is just what atheists want, but there is no reason to think that God would provide proof and every reason to think He would not do so, since the scriptures say God wants our faith.

The reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God.

God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence they need to believe, but God will not force anyone to accept the evidence He has provided. That is a choice.

Everything I just said is rational, if you understand it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Got it. "Applicable to all the faiths." Evidence of God, given by God. I'll trot out the usual: The Buddha was not a Prophet/Messenger and he gave no revelation from the upper case abrahamic god. There, saved you 92 pages.
PS Can we have the Buddha back that you stole, please?

Evidence

The Buddha
The Revelation (Enlightenment)
The Record of that Revelation.

From the given evidence it appears that Nirvana is the goal.

Now the quandary is what do we each get from the evidence and what is Nirvana, which can mean many different things, to many different people.

Regards Tony