• 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!

How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...

chuck010342

Active Member
s2a said:
A modest proposal to redeem a few Billion souls...

As an atheist (with neither faith nor belief in any gods or supernatural entities and/or supernatural cause/effect), I have often been asked what would be considered undeniable empirical evidence and proof of the claims of (a) divine/supernatural presence and existence.

Focusing upon (simply because they tend to be more vociferous), but certainly not limited to the Christian faith, I wish to submit one scenario that would certainly make me an instant convert and devout believer in (a) God/Goddess.

Both in Old Testament and New, "miracles" (i.e. what would be deemed as humanly impossible acts) were performed on a somewhat regular basis to "prove" God's might and power to believer and non-believer alike. Of course the problem was then, as it is today, that natural skepticism would kick in amongst many...dismissing such "miracles" as: mere illusionist's trick; "mass hysteria"; singular delusion(s); or otherwise, as "extraordinary", but certainly not categorically implausible or erstwhile unexplainable/unattributable phenomena. Obviously, there are also people with beliefs in alternate supernatural deities, spiritual forces, etc. that remain equally unmoved by such Biblical "miracles".

Many would contend that "miracles" happen every day (spiritually speaking, not colloquially), and that it simply remains for the unbeliever to recognize/identify/concede such as "miracles". Arguably, the "degree" (and scope) of present day "miracles" is certainly lessened, not just in frequency alone; for we no longer "witness"...believer-induced/adherent-ascribed "partings" of the "water"; re-animation of "days-long-dead" folk; transformations of staffs into snakes; changing of water to human blood; royally ordained "first born" infanticides, etc. , etc., etc.

I leave it to others to explain why this is so.

In order to provide demonstrably incontrovertible; universally observable; independently falsifiable; and unequivocal "faith-specific" evidence and proof of an omniscient and all powerful god, the following suggestion is proposed:

1) God (meaning to represent any divine entity in question) "speaks" to a group of His followers/adherents (after they prayerfully beseech Him to "reveal Himself to unbelievers), commanding them to preach of an upcoming "miracle" and message in the sky from God Himself (this would provide the basis of a prophecy to be borne out as true). Such a caveat is *optional*. Either the miracle can be "foretold", or manifest itself as a complete "surprise" (it's just that "fulfilled" prophecy seems to hold more sway and cognitive superficial influence than "unannounced" miracles.

2) Afterwards, God arranges distant stars and galaxies (maybe even comets) to form a written message. Preferably, the message would be faith specific, ie. "I am Allah", or "I am Jehovah", "I am the God and Father of Jesus Christ", etc. (essentially to settle the debate as to which religion is "right"), but that is not critical to proving at least a supernatural entity causation. Maximum effect may be achieved by altering the message at least twice (to rule out any additional doubts as to whether the phenomena was natural or supernatural).

3) The message must be observable from both hemispheres of the planet (therefore two identical messages, for maximum exposure and continuity).

4) The "message" should be written in a modern earthly language (not symbols or untranslatable dead languages). The particular language doesn't especially matter, but for maximum impact, God could vary the message on a rotating weekly basis to eventually reflect all written human languages (time consuming, but what is that to God?)

5) When God is done with the message "miracle", He should return the cosmos to the state it was in prior to the "miracle" (don't want to interfere with any long term plan or purpose).

If the "miracle" were to be performed under the parameters stated above, I can virtually assure you a couple of billion converts in short order, with myself first at the altar in prayerful worship.

Why?

1)Because that proposed "miracle" is beyond any human (or even alien) capacity to hoax, regardless of technological prowess, and would defy every known law and theory of physics.

2) Because the miracle is readily accessible, observable, and potentially falsifiable by any and all humans (discounting any possibility of "mass hysteria", or selective uncorroborated eyewitness accounts, or singularly anecdotal "testimonies").

3) The Doppler shift of the utilized galaxies and stars could be measured and documented, with independently observable/verifiable results.

4) It's pretty darn impressive.

Resistance to this proposition is inevitable. I anticipate responses along the lines of, "If God proves His existence, then what would be the purpose of faith?", or "God doesn't need to prove Himself to you", or "All the proof you need is already here and available". Fine. If you wish to defend a position stating that your God need not prove His existence to unbelievers, please do so based upon the written tenants of your faith. Don't simply render an opinion; base your case in quotable, referenced, dogmatic/Scriptural text.

I've offered a sure fire way to convert a few billion heathens to your particular faith or beliefs with little more effort than prayerful request of your omniscient, all-powerful God to so enlighten, and consequently save these immortal souls for all eternity.

So I ask you, what's wrong with that?


wait a min you are an atheist and your 'providing proof for Gods exsistance' I'm a little lost here.
 

cmotdibbler

Member
I think he is just laying out the conditions that he would accept/believe in a deity. At the end he is asking why doesn't god do a few of these things.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello Michel,

You said:

>"You are falling into the typical 'pit' that most atheists and agnostics do."<

Would that be the one filled with brimstone and fire? ;-)

When I said:
>>"Heck fire, we can see Him crashing galaxies together; creating new stars, whilst destroying others; whizzing comets around; and generally having a fine old time occasionally aligning planets in our little ole' solar system. He could just take a few minutes and write His name in the celestial snow, don'tcha think?"<<

You said:
>"That portion of what you said is unfortunately 'skewed'; God isn't hanging around, using all the chess pieces that make up the universe - He doesnt crash Galaxies, create new stars, whatsoever............."<

I guess prayer for God's intervention is pretty pointless then.

Why then do believers pray that God will "protect" their loved ones from harm; heal their wounds/illness; spare them pain and suffering; or deliver them into salvation?
(Psalm 34:15-22 --as one of *many* other examples))

>"When he created all the tools necessary for the universe to develop, he left the Universe 'to get on with it' - the emergence of Man, his decline; his re emergence.etc."<

I've met a few "traditional" Deists that would echo that perspective...but not many Christians. I also don't find much corroboration in Scripture that God has taken a "Laissez-faire", or "hands-off" policy towards dealings with mankind or the cosmos.

>"If God really pushed us around the board, do you think he would WANT us to do evil? - just think about it - he wants us to find our own way to him; like a caring parent, he doesn't want to Brainwash his Children."<

I wouldn't pretend to speak authoritatively as to the "mind" of your God, or what His motivations/intentions may be. I can only address the behavior of His believers, and the claims they make on behalf of their God. Fair to say, I've seen and read quite a bit about the evil that men can do, and the very least of them as fine provisional examples as "believers" (but then, they can always say "The Devil made me do it").

As to the "brainwashing" of children...the indoctrination and inculcation of parent's children into their own belief system is, well...

"brainwashing", n. -
"The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation."
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

"Inducing a person to modify his or her beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure or torture."
-The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

"forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs"
-WordNet ® 2.0

If raising children from childbirth with mandated/imposed religious teachings and rituals isn't tantamount to brainwashing...then few other examples would provide better descriptor of such.

But then, Moses (after delivering God's Commandments) did kinda make such teachings mandatory for all believers...(Deuteronomy 11:18-20), so there's the rub.

>"He sent Jesus (others for other faiths) to give us a clue as to how we should behave; that was his sole act of 'manipulation' - he now sits back and sees how all the lonely lost sheep will finally find their shepherd."<

Suffice to say that your "revelation" of God sitting in His Eternal Barcolounger, eschewing all intervening interest or divine interventions in the programming of "The Humanity Show", differs from most other "interpretations" offered by self-professed Christians. To each their own.

>"When I said God was not a recruiting officer, I meant it in the context of his appearing in human form to say to you "I am God, I shall prove to you who I am, by whatever means you choose"."<

Mischaracterization of my premised proposal.

I asked for NO proof from your God. I suggested that His *believers* pray for such a qualified miracle (which seems to me, no more qualified in nature than specifically praying to God that Aunt Betty be healed of her cancer). I submit that such a miracle would:
1) Eliminate most, if not all doubt, as to whom (or what) the Almighty is, and which faith/sect/religion/myth/superstition is the "true" one.
2) Effect the nearly instantaneous "conversion" of (potentially) billions of human souls, sparing them the indignities of an eternity spent in damnation and Lawrence Welk elevator muzak. [I have earnestly and honestly stated that such a miracle would effect my own conversion and belief so there's at least ONE soul saved. What price a miracle be? What cost to God, or His believers?]

And...that remains the question before you, that you have YET to answer. Is it wrong for believers to pray for such a qualified miracle? Why, or why not? Can you not, or will you not answer?

[Note: Since you seem to espouse a position that God does not intervene in either human or cosmic affairs, or "move the pieces", may I correctly assume your unstated, undefined position that "God just wouldn't bother with such entreaties"? If so, of what benefit is prayer to believers? If I have incorrectly assumed your position, you are invited to clarify by *answering the question*, "What's wrong with that?"]

>"Unbelievers will be judged more on how they behaved in life; it is my belief (others may not agree) that a Catholic who sins will not be allowed into heaven, without some hefty forfeit..."<

What does one have left to "forfeit" once you're dead? First shot at box seats at the Cosmic Afterlife World Series? Just curious...

>"...while the atheist who lived a life of purity will be told "OK, you didn't believe in me, but you are a good soul - now you can come to me...if you want"<

Obviously, your perspective describes a "win-win" proposition for a kindly, generous, tax-paying and law-abiding citizen/atheist like myself, and reflects a viewpoint not unlike those espoused by "spiritualists" (ie., a "karmic" God, that evaluates each soul on it's own merits, and not by strict adherence to any dogmatic "eligibility standards").

But hey. If you, as a self-professed Christian, see a way beyond John 14:6, it's all gravy to me.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello NetDoc,

When you said:

>"Love and serve others. Their light will shine all by itself."<

I said:
>>"Oh I see...like, Mahatma Gandhi, or Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso?"<<
You then offered:
>"You have a problem with Mahatma? I surely don't. I don't know enough about the other two gentlemen or their lives to comment."<

Thank you for completely dodging the underlying point [John 14:6].

Either you believe these *two* ("Dalai Lama" is a title, like "the Pope") peacemakers will see Heaven without salvation through Christ, or you don't. Many Christians believe that Gandhi is righteously burning in the eternal fires of hell and damnation right about now. What's your take, and upon what Scripture do you base your conclusion?

>"So? I still see faith, especially with people espousing such tripe as yourself as pretty miraculous these days."<

Oh my.

"s2a - Peddler of Tripe".

Time to consult my rhyming dictionary, and compose an appropriate and especially offensive limerick (opportunity to perhaps to flex my inadequacies at anapestic meter once more). ;-)

>"I have even given biblical references as to how special faith is. Do you have any references that claim that faith is NOT miraculous? Didn't think so."<

You have demonstrated how faith is special ("miraculous") to believers...but such hardly seems "miraculous" to non-believers.

I even went so far as to offer some especial exegetical evaluations of the references you offered. You request instead that I provide "contradictory" Scripture as rebuttal that the concept of the "miracle of faith" (as you provided) is in fact, unspecifically defined in Scripture? Talk about shifting burdens of "proof"....

>"But let's cut to the chase:<"

That would be nice...and on-topic...

>"You seem to squander time just fine right here."<

Well met indeed, "Mister Twenty-one averaged posts-per-day."
Please don't allow my 2.24 (averaged) posts-per-day seem lessened in contrast as to time well-spent. May we each find profit and value in accordance with time/effort expended.

>"In fact as much as you decry the Christian's evangelism, you are at least as strident about your atheism. It's like the pot calling the china black."<

Thank you for that facile and irrelevant assessment. Please reference any claims (as to reward, benefit, or superior understanding) I have offered regarding atheism, or to/of an atheistic perspective that specifically countermands or invalidates a Christian perspective.

I question Christian evangelism (as stated beforehand) on it's merits (in support of claims/perspectives made/offered), not on the personalized "revelations" and "testimonies" of it's ascribed or self-professed individual adherents.

In reviewing our (albeit limited) exchanges, I can't recount any instances wherein I have "called" (or "labeled") you as anything beyond what you profess for yourself.

And...(notice, no big BUT in bluejeans), you STILL can't or won't address the simple and straightforward question put before you.

Evasion and expressed indignation are not especially compelling or convincing argument.

I have extended you the courtesy of pointed reply to every pertinent commentary offered (by you) for consideration (on my part). You have offered misdirection, evasion, and self-serving reinforcements of non-germane aspects of generalized "faith" in reply.

As I stated in my premised proposal that initiated this thread:

>"Resistance to this proposition is inevitable. I anticipate responses along the lines of, "If God proves His existence, then what would be the purpose of faith?", or "God doesn't need to prove Himself to you", or "All the proof you need is already here and available". Fine. If you wish to defend a position stating that your God need not prove His existence to unbelievers, please do so based upon the written tenants of your faith. Don't simply render an opinion; base your case in quotable, referenced, dogmatic/Scriptural text."<

You have yet to even answer the premised question at hand, "What's wrong with that?"

I will leave for others to evaluate the "squanderment" of time/effort expended in initiating a thread that has generated 41 responses and 534 views in 5 days, and your commensurate contributions in answer to the standing question.

C'mon, NetDoc. Let's "cut to the chase", as you suggest.

Is it "wrong" for believers to pray for a specified miracle so that (especially "hardened", or ebony cookware) unbelievers might/would "believe", or is it not? Can you not, or will you not (whilst evading/ignoring all other pointed inquiries put of you) answer the question?
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
hello chuck010342,

You quoted my entire initializing thread post at length, then said:

>"wait a min you are an atheist and your 'providing proof for Gods exsistance' I'm a little lost here."<

I note that your self-professed/assigned "religion" is..."trust".

Interestingly generic and unspecific. Care to elaborate upon that?

I would clarify in reiterating that my proposal is offered in response to believers that ask, "What would it take for you to believe?"

Asked, and answered.

Acknowledging your inferred incredulity of such an absurdity, do you have reply to offer to the concluding question at hand, "What's wrong with that"?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
s2a said:
Either you believe these *two* ("Dalai Lama" is a title, like "the Pope") peacemakers will see Heaven without salvation through Christ, or you don't.
There is nothing I could do for either gentleman but speculate their fate. I choose to preach the word of the LIVING God. I will let God and them determine their salvation.

Is it "wrong" for believers to pray for a specified miracle so that (especially "hardened", or ebony cookware) unbelievers might/would "believe", or is it not? Can you not, or will you not (whilst evading/ignoring all other pointed inquiries put of you) answer the question?
You already have ALL the evidence that a reasonable person needs. That you don't draw the same conclusions as I do has NOTHING to do with the quantity or qauality of the evidence; it has to do with the hardness of the heart. You blame God for not believing in him. How quaint.

Asking god for more "proof" is like my family asking for more turkey right after the Thanksgiving meal. If you seek him, you will find him. All the possible evidence you need is right here. If you have rejected this evidence already presented then you will reject stars aligned in a message or writing on the moon.

But this is my honest conviction that if you have rejected the evidence already given you, that you will also be able to dismiss celestial writings and a moon based message.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello NetDoc,

After referencing John 14:6 -- "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."; regarding the potential afterlife fates of Mahatma Gandhi (already dead), or current Dalai Lama (not dead yet), you offered:

>"There is nothing I could do for either gentleman but speculate their fate. I choose to preach the word of the LIVING God. I will let God and them determine their salvation."<

You could have just said..."I don't know". ;-)

Your personalized "revelations" (speculations) of what Scripture states are interesting, but do seem at odds with the rather definitive statement made by the person you proclaim as Savior. "No one comes to the Father except through me" seems pretty darn final and unequivocal, but that's just an unbelievers take.

I narrowed the focus (again), and asked you:
>"Is it "wrong" for believers to pray for a specified miracle so that (especially "hardened", or ebony cookware) unbelievers might/would "believe", or is it not? Can you not, or will you not (whilst evading/ignoring all other pointed inquiries put of you) answer the question?"<

>"You already have ALL the evidence that a reasonable person needs..."<

And so, in your estimation, all people that do not think and believe and conclude as you do, are therefore "unreasonable" in their conclusions regarding the veritable existence of your God. So be it.

>"That you don't draw the same conclusions as I do has NOTHING to do with the quantity or qauality of the evidence; it has to do with the hardness of the heart. You blame God for not believing in him. How quaint."<

How predictable.

As I prefaced within my originating post:
>>"I anticipate responses along the lines of, "If God proves His existence, then what would be the purpose of faith?", or "God doesn't need to prove Himself to you", or "All the proof you need is already here and available". Fine. If you wish to defend a position stating that your God need not prove His existence to unbelievers, please do so based upon the written tenants of your faith. Don't simply render an opinion; base your case in quotable, referenced, dogmatic/Scriptural text."

Which you oblige predictably once more in saying:
>"Asking god for more "proof" is like my family asking for more turkey right after the Thanksgiving meal."

How unreasonable indeed.
"Gee Mom, can I have "seconds" on some turkey?";
"NO! That's all you get!";
"But Mom, I'm still hungry.";
"I've said that's all you need, and that settles it! No more turkey or questions allowed!".
"But, *why* Mom?"
"Because...well because I say so."

>"If you seek him, you will find him. All the possible evidence you need is right here. If you have rejected this evidence already presented then you will reject stars aligned in a message or writing on the moon."<

Prophecy lent. Prophecy fulfilled. Hmmm. Maybe there's some merit to prophecy claims after all...

>"But this is my honest conviction that if you have rejected the evidence already given you, that you will also be able to dismiss celestial writings and a moon based message."<

Funny, isn't it?

I have not lent occasion to doubt/impugn your sincerity, or the earnestly imparted and heartfelt sentiments/beliefs that you have expressed (my moments of objective sarcasm conceded). I have in each occasion acknowledged and deferred to your exhortations of personal faith.

Yet in one fell swoop, you question the integrity and sincerity of my own earnestly stated position...and imply an inferred willingness (willfulness) on my part to dismiss the very evidence that I state/present would in fact, satisfy my burden of proof (as to the veritable existence of a supernatural deity) as established "beyond a reasonable doubt" (and enumerated my reasons why).

And, in the end...you would not even answer the initial...then repeated and reiterated invitations/opportunities to actually and specifically address the simple question at hand.

I am left but to wonder why...
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
s2a said:
but do seem at odds with the rather definitive statement made by the person you proclaim as Savior.
John 21: 20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
NIV

Speculating about others has been around for a LONG, LONG time. Pardon me while I choose not to join in.

And so, in your estimation, all people that do not think and believe and conclude as you do, are therefore "unreasonable" in their conclusions regarding the veritable existence of your God. So be it.
That would be a REASONABLE conclusion. :D

s2a said:
How unreasonable indeed.
"Gee Mom, can I have "seconds" on some turkey?";
"NO! That's all you get!";
"But Mom, I'm still hungry.";
"I've said that's all you need, and that settles it! No more turkey or questions allowed!".
"But, *why* Mom?"
"Because...well because I say so."
Perhaps we wouldn't be such an obese society if we only "listened to reason". But I have to admit that the whiney little child asking for more when they already have enough is very APPROPRIATE! Glad you made it and not me! :D

s2a said:
And, in the end...you would not even answer
Oh, I answered you. You just didn't like the answer and have couched it in such a way as to dismiss it... just as you have done with all of the evidence God has already given you.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
NIV

Amen!
 

Zaid

New Member
Dear All,
The following diagram show how to prove the existence and oneness of Allah (God) Almighty:
WaterC2.gif
Water has a hexagonal structure in its design and this is seen in every creature as shown below:​
MarkEn13.jpg
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello NetDoc,

After offering up:
>>"...referencing John 14:6 -- "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."<<

You offered:
>"John 21: 20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." NIV"

Speculating about others has been around for a LONG, LONG time. Pardon me while I choose not to join in."<

Um, Hello? What sort of unrelated and non-sequitur Scripturally-derived rebuttal is that?

C'mon. FOCUS.
What does John 14:6 say to you? What does John 14:6 mean to you? What does John 14:6 infer/imply as "truth" to you?

No need to SPECULATE upon that. What, SPECIFICALLY, does John 14:6 imply/foretell for non-believers?

C'mon NetDoc.

HE's your claimed Savior, quoted verbatim. Is Jesus equivocating in His statement? Is His Word (in John 14:6 ) left to SPECULATION?

C'mon. You won't even back up the words of Jesus Himself?

I didn't ask you to SPECULATE upon the "fates" of unbelievers. What does John 14:6 "say"...SPECIFICALLY?

I said:
>>"And so, in your estimation, all people that do not think and believe and conclude as you do, are therefore "unreasonable" in their conclusions regarding the veritable existence of your God. So be it."<<

>"That would be a REASONABLE conclusion."<

Remind me not to invite you to the next "critical thinkers" meeting. You should be in politics...or in door-to-door outside sales of vacuum cleaners.

When I offered the simplified metaphor:
>>"How unreasonable indeed.
"Gee Mom, can I have "seconds" on some turkey?";
"NO! That's all you get!";
"But Mom, I'm still hungry.";
"I've said that's all you need, and that settles it! No more turkey or questions allowed!".
"But, *why* Mom?"
"Because...well because I say so." "<<

You offered:
">Perhaps we wouldn't be such an obese society if we only "listened to reason". But I have to admit that the whiney little child asking for more when they already have enough is very APPROPRIATE! Glad you made it and not me!"

Only a "true believer" could misconstrue the metaphor and conclude that the mother's rationale of "...because I said so..." would trump a child's hunger for more, and a simple request for rationalized explanation. No doubt, you would readily conform to any totalitarian or theocratic form of government.

~Oliver, Oliver...Never before has a boy asked for more..."~

I said:
>>"And, in the end...you would not even answer"<<

>"Oh, I answered you. You just didn't like the answer and have couched it in such a way as to dismiss it... just as you have done with all of the evidence God has already given you."

NO, you didn't. An ANSWER would be constructed as..."Your premised 'miracle' is WRONG (assuming you take the negative position), and here's the Scriptural reference/support that succinctly illustrates 'why' it's WRONG"....

I "dismissed" nothing that was offered as Scriptural support. In fact, I offered up exegetical commentary (both unacknowledged and unrebutted) upon the C&V you did manage to provide.

I can not account, nor bear responsibility for, your inadequacies in this regard.


In irrelevant summation, you offered:
>"Romans 1:18-23"<

Dogmatic self-validation. "Unbelievers are no damn good, but we're OK. We SEE, but they "choose" NOT to SEE, therefore...unbelievers are...unwise fools, idolaters, and are exemplars of "darkened hearts".

Crap.

Pure, self-serving crap.

MOST of all, this C&V says NOTHING about why believers should or should not pray for a qualified, "delivering" miracle.

It is my concluding supposition, and allegation forthwith, that you either CAN NOT (through ignorance), or WILL NOT (by means of intellectually disingenuous evasion) address/answer the simple, straightforward question at hand.

Until you can actually ANSWER the question in some shape, form, or fashion...with preface of declarative statement ("It's OK"; "It's WRONG (and here's why)"; "I don't know, but I think..."), I see no profit or purpose in extending our one-sided "debate". I have put forth a premised, outlined, and qualified proposal - in invitation of enlightened/informed/supported acknowledgment/acquiescence/rebuttal of such a proposal.

Your replies are appreciated and acknowledged, but are most demonstrably "non-responsive" at best, and non-sequitur by any appreciable rational assessment of evidentiary support.

Your blatant evasion of what John 14:6 emphatically implies is evidence enough of your inability/unwillingness to actually answer the topical question at hand.

I readily acknowledge your piety, faith, and resolute belief(s)...but your capacity to defend/support such in light of such a simple and straightforward "proposal" is most notable, and readily referenced by those that might require evidence of such impotence and evasion as example of "what NOT to say/do" in future discussions/debates.

I confess that you are disappointing foil, after being rather highly recommended.

Best wishes,
s2a
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
S2a; I will respond to your 'taunts' to NetDoc - one one particular point:-14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This is the sixth of Jesus' great "I am" assertions and, no less than the others, is a clear claim of deity;He did not come to show us the way, teach us the truth, and give us the life, though He does all of this, because He is the Way to God, the Truth of God, and the Life in God.
The exclusiveness of this claim is a stumbling block to those who are supposedly searching for truth, or a different kind of life and prefer some other way. It is probably the main reason why Christians are persecuted by others. Nevertheless, one cannot be a Christian and believe otherwise, for "there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Christians are not being unloving when they try to win others to Christ, for they know that those others are eternally lost without Him.

(I have replied to your post to me three times running, but I think maybe I wasn't supposed to, because, by a miracle, the posts vanished somewhare in the guts of my (or the forum's) computer circuitry.:D
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
Why should God prove his existance to you any more then what He already has? It's your soul at stake here, not his. I could put a slice of lemon pie in front of you and ask you to try it. You could reply that there is no such thing as lemon pie. I ask you to look at it, smell it, taste it. You would say you do not smell anything and there is no need to taste it sense it does not exist. So what you are asking is for someone to take a piece of this pie and force it into you mouth, make you chew it, but even then you would not believe it was lemon. The pie has been placed before you. If you chose not to taste it, believe it is real, that is your choice. I know God exists because I have tasted 'The Pie' and now 'The Pie' is a part of me. Notice it states in Mark 6:11 "Whatever place does not welcome you or listens to you. leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them." It does not say anywhere to stay there and perform miracles until they believe.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
jgallandt said:
Why should God prove his existance to you any more then what He already has? It's your soul at stake here, not his. I could put a slice of lemon pie in front of you and ask you to try it. You could reply that there is no such thing as lemon pie. I ask you to look at it, smell it, taste it. You would say you do not smell anything and there is no need to taste it sense it does not exist. So what you are asking is for someone to take a piece of this pie and force it into you mouth, make you chew it, but even then you would not believe it was lemon. The pie has been placed before you. If you chose not to taste it, believe it is real, that is your choice. I know God exists because I have tasted 'The Pie' and now 'The Pie' is a part of me.
I take my hat off to you - you have managed to say what I have been trying to say for so long, eloquently.

Pass the pie around..........:clap
 

Pah

Uber all member
jgallandt said:
Why should God prove his existance to you any more then what He already has? It's your soul at stake here, not his. I could put a slice of lemon pie in front of you and ask you to try it. You could reply that there is no such thing as lemon pie. I ask you to look at it, smell it, taste it. You would say you do not smell anything and there is no need to taste it sense it does not exist. So what you are asking is for someone to take a piece of this pie and force it into you mouth, make you chew it, but even then you would not believe it was lemon. The pie has been placed before you. If you chose not to taste it, believe it is real, that is your choice. I know God exists because I have tasted 'The Pie' and now 'The Pie' is a part of me. Notice it states in Mark 6:11 "Whatever place does not welcome you or listens to you. leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them." It does not say anywhere to stay there and perform miracles until they believe.
Not to be personal, a lemon is not a pie but a pie can be "constructed" from a lemon. Wouldn't this indicate what is in nature leads to a construct entirely different from nature?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Dear s2a,

it appears that you are offended that I won't throw stones. How quaint. You can't goad me into starting to do so, just to placate your desire. Jesus felt the same way:

John 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
NIV

I imagine you would have the same frustration with Jesus as you have with me. It's probably because you have missed one of the most important verses in the NT:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
NIV

So important that Jesus quoted it twice. You try to paint Christianity as condemning the world... you have it backwards. We are already lost... Jesus has come only to save.

As for your "metaphor"... it's not MY FAULT that you chose something that was so OPEN to showing the falacy of your thinking. You should be mad at yourself for resorting to such a problematic metaphor, that could only show how wrong you are. PS: Please don't tell your cronies at the Critical Thinkers Society... they might laugh you out of the building :D

a highly upset s2a said:
It is my concluding supposition, and allegation forthwith, that you either CAN NOT (through ignorance), or WILL NOT (by means of intellectually disingenuous evasion) address/answer the simple, straightforward question at hand.
It amuses me that in your frustration you have turned to the only argument left to you... your squalid opinion of me. Instead of dealing with the fallacies in your arguments you have resorted to a classic ad hominem (if you don't understand the last term, you can ask your cronies in the "Critical Thinkers Society"). While it might seem a fun thing to denigrate you in return, I will just stick to pointing out the obvious errors in your logic.

Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. NIV

Thanks for the blessings. I look forward to more!
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
NetDoc;

Shhhhhhhh ! don't wake him up - he has been quiet for awhile - don't give him more reason to come back!;)
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Ah Michel,

for over two thousand years, the nay sayers have tried to prove that Jesus was NOT the son of God to justify their non-belief. s2a is in the company of many who tried and were just as frustrated.
 
Top