• 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!

Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
i was raised with the kjv 1611, and was taught it was the only inerrant word of God.

I never studied the wording differences from one bible to any other. I just know that there is.

death in the kjv 1611 is a very different story than in your version. At death your eternal soul goes either to heaven or everlasting hell.

I would want a direct translation from Hebrew. I don't know what the original manuscripts would be.

wording makes all the difference.

but I am not yet Christian.

although I'm sure there is some historical relationships in the old testament I am not in any position to understand fully their accuracy.

I actually accept evolution as the intelligent design of life. created through it by some kind of intelligent entity.

I merely wish that God exists, I wouldn't know though.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
i was raised with the kjv 1611, and was taught it was the only inerrant word of God.

I never studied the wording differences from one bible to any other. I just know that there is.

That explains a lot. Translations need to keep up to date with current language use, otherwise understanding is compromised.

death in the kjv 1611 is a very different story than in your version. At death your eternal soul goes either to heaven or everlasting hell.

Death to a Jew did not mean heaven or hell. Jesus was Jewish, so he did not teach something different to what all the Hebrew Bible writers had recorded.
If you go back to the beginning of man's creation, Adam was not told that he would go to heaven if he was good and to hell if he wasn't. The only choice Adam had was between life and death. If there was a hell of eternal torment awaiting him for plunging the entire human race into sin and death, then he should have been warned about it. But God simply told him that at death, he would return to the dust from which he was created.....nothing more complicated than that.

Other Bible writers like Solomon spoke about death too. (Solomon's wisdom came from God)
He said in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10...."For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.......Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, [sheol] where you are going."

"Sheol" is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek "hades" (translated "hell" in many Bibles) so it does not mean a place of eternal torment, but a place of rest. We all go to this hell. Jesus confirmed this when he was going to raise his friend Lazarus from the grave. (sheol)

John 11:11-14 says "After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.” 12 The disciples then said to him: “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well.” 13 Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly: “Lazʹa·rus has died"

Lazarus had not gone anywhere....he was still "sleeping" in his tomb.

The other word translated "hell" in the Bible is "gehenna". This does not mean a place of eternal conscious torment either.
It was a word the Jews understood well because it was alluding to the city's garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. (the Valley of Hinnom)
They used to throw the bodies of executed criminals into the flames to get rid of their bodies. What the flames missed, the maggots finished off. To a Jew, this meant someone not worthy of a decent burial tomb, seen by them as a suitable resting place to await the promised resurrection back to life (like Lazarus) under Messiah's kingdom rule. No tomb meant not being remembered by God in the resurrection. No Jew expected to go to heaven. That hope came later after Jesus died and the promised holy spirit anointed his disciples and gave them the hope of heavenly life. The number was limited however because like any government, there are only so many positions. But for mankind in general, their hope is to live on a cleansed earth under the best government, with the best ruler the world will ever have...Jesus Christ.

I would want a direct translation from Hebrew. I don't know what the original manuscripts would be.

wording makes all the difference.

Have you considered The Complete Tanach, which is a direct Hebrew to English interlinear.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 22 (Parshah Vayeira)

I find it helpful.

but I am not yet Christian.

Educate yourself and make informed choices....you will not be disappointed. Ask God to help you to find his truth....he will guide you if you are humble and sincere. Throw away all that you have been taught and start again from scratch. Go back to Genesis and ask yourself what God purposed for mankind at the beginning....what went wrong...and how he gets us back to where we were. Find out why Jesus came, and why his sacrifice opened the way for us to gain entry into a new arrangement with vital lessons learned how to use our free will to the benefit of others, rather than selfishly. Ask questions.

although I'm sure there is some historical relationships in the old testament I am not in any position to understand fully their accuracy.

The early parts of the Genesis account address so many things and answers so many questions.

Finding out about Abraham and why this man was mentioned so many times in scripture and why his descendants were chosen to be examples to the rest of us....both good and bad, is important too.

The story of the Jews is an interesting lesson in obedience and disobedience. God's blessings and his punishments tell us a lot about God's expectations of us as humans and what we can expect from him as our God. It is very much give and take, but God is by far the superior giver.

I actually accept evolution as the intelligent design of life. created through it by some kind of intelligent entity.

I believe that science has gotten carried away with its own importance....it has become a substitute religion for some.
The Bible allows for an old earth and a gradual process of creation over a very long period of time. God's intelligence is seen in the complexity of his systems that all work in perfect harmony. I don't believe for one moment that the natural world (including us) is a gigantic accident.

I merely wish that God exists, I wouldn't know though.

Then make it your business to know....we live in an information age, so search for understanding and evaluate what you are reading. Your gut should tell you if something rings true or not. Listen to it with an open mind and ask God to guide your thinking. No one should be spiritually "lost" in this day and age. Ask question and listen to the answers......you will know the truth when you hear it. It will liberate you from all falsehood and excite in you a hunger that will demand satisfying.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Exactly. The point you repeatedly miss is that all real things, all things that have objective existence, are physical ─ including the concepts of maths, which are brain patterns hence material.

They exist as concepts in brains.

Do you honestly, truly believe there are uninstantiated twos running around out there with objective existence? If you do, then since they have objective existence, exist independently of any brain holding that concept, you MUST be able to show us one.

But you can't ─ because the abstraction 'two' exists only as a concept in each brain that holds that concept. If there is no brain in the universe that holds this concept, then "twoness" ─ the abstract uninstantiated number 2 ─ is found nowhere in the universe.

And to say that X is 'immaterial' is the same thing as saying X exists only as a concept in a brain, and concepts are material. (However, as I've said, the contents of a concept need not be of something that has objective existence, just as the drawing on a piece of paper can be of something imaginary like a unicorn or a god.)

And that's why you can't tell me an objective test to distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary. The 'immaterial' does not have objective existence.

Cool so without humans there could be no quantities of two anywhere in the universe, we are literally magic gods. The genius of materialism flows ever onward! Have fun pretending math and logic are subjective and bend to your will.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Cool so without humans there could be no quantities of two anywhere in the universe
You get it at last!

There are NOT two stones / two examples of granite / two bits of gravel, until a brain comes along and interprets the sensory data that way. A brain must determine the field of reference, interpret the perception of that field in such a manner that, the brain says, it contains objects, attribute distinctions between the objects so that it sees them as kinds, attribute relevance to one kind of objects above another, and from the objects of that kind select this one and this one : and only then, again by the attribution of the brain, are the particular objects 'rocks' and their quantity 'two'.
Have fun pretending math and logic are subjective and bend to your will.
Why are all your responses jeers? Why do you never address the questions?

WHERE are these uninstantiated numbers you say have objective existence?

WHAT distinguishes the 'immaterial' from the imaginary? WHAT can an immaterial being be except imaginary?

If each of the uninstantiated number and the immaterial being has objective existence as you claim, WHY can't you give us a satisfactory demonstration of it in reality?
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
That explains a lot. Translations need to keep up to date with current language use, otherwise understanding is compromised.



Death to a Jew did not mean heaven or hell. Jesus was Jewish, so he did not teach something different to what all the Hebrew Bible writers had recorded.
If you go back to the beginning of man's creation, Adam was not told that he would go to heaven if he was good and to hell if he wasn't. The only choice Adam had was between life and death. If there was a hell of eternal torment awaiting him for plunging the entire human race into sin and death, then he should have been warned about it. But God simply told him that at death, he would return to the dust from which he was created.....nothing more complicated than that.

Other Bible writers like Solomon spoke about death too. (Solomon's wisdom came from God)
He said in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10...."For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.......Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, [sheol] where you are going."

"Sheol" is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek "hades" (translated "hell" in many Bibles) so it does not mean a place of eternal torment, but a place of rest. We all go to this hell. Jesus confirmed this when he was going to raise his friend Lazarus from the grave. (sheol)

John 11:11-14 says "After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.” 12 The disciples then said to him: “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well.” 13 Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly: “Lazʹa·rus has died"

Lazarus had not gone anywhere....he was still "sleeping" in his tomb.

The other word translated "hell" in the Bible is "gehenna". This does not mean a place of eternal conscious torment either.
It was a word the Jews understood well because it was alluding to the city's garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. (the Valley of Hinnom)
They used to throw the bodies of executed criminals into the flames to get rid of their bodies. What the flames missed, the maggots finished off. To a Jew, this meant someone not worthy of a decent burial tomb, seen by them as a suitable resting place to await the promised resurrection back to life (like Lazarus) under Messiah's kingdom rule. No tomb meant not being remembered by God in the resurrection. No Jew expected to go to heaven. That hope came later after Jesus died and the promised holy spirit anointed his disciples and gave them the hope of heavenly life. The number was limited however because like any government, there are only so many positions. But for mankind in general, their hope is to live on a cleansed earth under the best government, with the best ruler the world will ever have...Jesus Christ.



Have you considered The Complete Tanach, which is a direct Hebrew to English interlinear.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 22 (Parshah Vayeira)

I find it helpful.



Educate yourself and make informed choices....you will not be disappointed. Ask God to help you to find his truth....he will guide you if you are humble and sincere. Throw away all that you have been taught and start again from scratch. Go back to Genesis and ask yourself what God purposed for mankind at the beginning....what went wrong...and how he gets us back to where we were. Find out why Jesus came, and why his sacrifice opened the way for us to gain entry into a new arrangement with vital lessons learned how to use our free will to the benefit of others, rather than selfishly. Ask questions.



The early parts of the Genesis account address so many things and answers so many questions.

Finding out about Abraham and why this man was mentioned so many times in scripture and why his descendants were chosen to be examples to the rest of us....both good and bad, is important too.

The story of the Jews is an interesting lesson in obedience and disobedience. God's blessings and his punishments tell us a lot about God's expectations of us as humans and what we can expect from him as our God. It is very much give and take, but God is by far the superior giver.



I believe that science has gotten carried away with its own importance....it has become a substitute religion for some.
The Bible allows for an old earth and a gradual process of creation over a very long period of time. God's intelligence is seen in the complexity of his systems that all work in perfect harmony. I don't believe for one moment that the natural world (including us) is a gigantic accident.



Then make it your business to know....we live in an information age, so search for understanding and evaluate what you are reading. Your gut should tell you if something rings true or not. Listen to it with an open mind and ask God to guide your thinking. No one should be spiritually "lost" in this day and age. Ask question and listen to the answers......you will know the truth when you hear it. It will liberate you from all falsehood and excite in you a hunger that will demand satisfying.
I couldn't be honest and say we exist by chance, and I didn't think evolution happened by chance.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I couldn't be honest and say we exist by chance, and I didn't think evolution happened by chance.

It is important to understand the difference between what science can prove and what it only assumes. It can prove adaptation (what they call micro-evolution) because it can be observed and repeated in a lab, but macro-evolution is a whole other kettle of fish. They have no proof for that....all they have is biased interpretation of their evidence. Those who believe in Intelligent Design do not have to rely on the whims of unproven science to see what is right under our noses. What is designed demonstrates purpose. What demonstrates purpose requires planning and planning requires intelligence. That's not rocket science.
blush.gif
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wow, a materialist who thinks all reality is mind dependent. Thats my new record for stupid positions. Enjoy the ignore list!
Still only jibes.

No addressing the questions.

You demonstrate by your fleeing from the issues that it's indeed inconceivable that you might come to theism by way of evidence & reason.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Yes. Theism can be reached by evidence if depending on the religion, the opposite party stretches their criteria for evidence based on experiences and not just tangible things they can test with a microscope.

A lot of theist arguments (positions of where they stand of a topic against their opposing party) are logical, I would say, rather than reasonable. For example, it is logical why a five year old will think that Fall and Physical have different sounds F and Ph. However logical, the reason based on English grammar makes their answer incorrect. Religion has to do with morals not degrees of accuracy. This is another issue anti-theist aren't taking into consideration.

Being a theist doesn't equate to being a failure. You just have a different intangible means of finding and living truth in life which is reasonable by your or your god(s) criteria and logical. Someone who has failed is someone who did something that is not correct. Since religion doesn't work on right and wrong terms regardless of what some religions say (they don't speak for all) it's impossible for you to be a failure for being a theist.

Everyone has different views and they are all plausible for the people who work with them. To some, it is illogical that I do not believe a god-external entity and creator-exists regardless the religion but I do believe in people who have died exist as spirits such as my grandmothers and spirits in general. They aren't deities but they were humans not an invisible entity.

So, if you can find reason and logic behind your belief, it's not a failure and it is plausible.

I have not heard a supposed logical apologetic argument that does not contain fallacies or rests on unsubstantiated premises which have been pointed out long ago. If you have a new one, It would be refreshing to hear it.

The word "evidence" is a rather "stretchy" kind of word, like Spirituality". It is commonly said that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. When someone postulates an invisible, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful being that resides outside of time and space and can create things just by speaking them into existence, it requires one hell of a lot of hard evidence to support the claim.

All that being said, I fully support anyone's right to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to base laws on it others must follow or introduce it into public schools.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I honestly don't know how your reply related to my post.
I have not heard a supposed logical apologetic argument that does not contain fallacies or rests on unsubstantiated premises which have been pointed out long ago. If you have a new one, It would be refreshing to hear it.

The is the issue. I'm an atheist myself, but I accept the evidence that religions give me that justify their faith. It makes sense or it's logical. Whether it is fact or fiction is besides the point, in my view since religion does not work that way. That's like saying because I'm an atheist, I know more about life than a Christian does.

All that being said, I fully support anyone's right to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to base laws on it others must follow or introduce it into public schools.

I agree. I don't see the relation to what I said... somewhat at a loss.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't know how your reply related to my post.


The is the issue. I'm an atheist myself, but I accept the evidence that religions give me that justify their faith. It makes sense or it's logical. Whether it is fact or fiction is besides the point, in my view since religion does not work that way. That's like saying because I'm an atheist, I know more about life than a Christian does.



I agree. I don't see the relation to what I said... somewhat at a loss.

Hi, Carlita....didn't know you were still on the board!!!! (I don't get out often LOL)

I personally don't think the very skimpy evidence that theists gives justifies their belief. Faith, on the other hand, requires no justification because it does not require evidence. There is nothing I can think of that cannot be believed on faith alone. Therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. If there is substantial strong evidence for a position, faith becomes irrelevant.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Haha. I've been on for awhile, :oops: unfortunately. I have no life and the catch is, I do get out often but wish I could leave my phone at home sometimes.

Hi, Carlita....didn't know you were still on the board!!!! (I don't get out often LOL)

I personally don't think the very skimpy evidence that theists gives justifies their belief. Faith, on the other hand, requires no justification because it does not require evidence. There is nothing I can think of that cannot be believed on faith alone. Therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. If there is substantial strong evidence for a position, faith becomes irrelevant.

Faith without evidence is spiritual growth in a religion. For example, I have no clue what a deva is. I'm pretty sure Avici Hell goes right over my head whenever I hear it. However, devas are part of my belief system. Avici Hell.. I don't know if Zen Buddhist believe that. Anyways, the former are deities and the latter are realms in which people go depending on what they did in this life.

It's not something you can test and find evidence for as a convert. It's something you have to learn about. You find connections between this factor and that. You test it. If it works out (spirituality is personal not objective) than it lays out a path of practice. When I converted to Catholicism, I didn't get that rush to spiritually grow in the faith by applying concepts and beliefs foreign to me into my life. I figured that I already have what I believe, why do I need more. I don't believe in god; I do believe jesus as spirit. What more do I really need?

:leafwind:

But it's a lot more than that. Most supernatural religions (I guess) you have to have some sort of faith without evidence. It may not make sense to the rest of the crowd and that does not mean its false or silly or anything like that. It's justifiable within that religion for that person.

So, as a former Catholic who tells me Jesus is god and they give me rational evidence and logic, I understand their view. It makes sense. It helped that I experienced it too. If a Hindu could tell me more than the basics, I'd probably say I understand. It makes sense. That does not mean in both that I believe in a creator or know how to describe an experience of Brahman, but it does mean by their talk what they say is logical and justifiable for them.

:leafwind:

When you get someone who can talk to you more about it, it's pretty nice. I never had a deep conversation with any religious person. It's like religion is a secret but then if they welcome someone to their home, they'd invite them to sit at their table. To me, that's all ego. If I don't know a person, I won't invite them to my home. In a Dhamma talk I heard years ago and something I read, it said that we don't own anything. We don't own our words. We don't own our feelings.

It was a book, that's right. The author said he didn't mind people using his material because he disagreed with America's copyright laws. I can't remember where he was from.

:leafwind:

Anyway, people have different ways to justify their religion and sometimes it's just they have to trust you to get beyond the fallacies and repeated evidences to understand why they believe what they do and how it makes sense to them.

But.... both parties need to change ya'll perspective. "Christian-you'll never understand how god does not exist.".... "atheist-You'll never understand that god does exist." Let it rest.

I'm generalizing.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
"Christian-you'll never understand how god does not exist.".... "atheist-You'll never understand that god does exist." Let it rest.

Either a god exists or a god does not exist. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Without compelling evidence, the default position is to assume a god does not exist.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Either a god exists or a god does not exist. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Without compelling evidence, the default position is to assume a god does not exist.

I'm a strict atheist. That's like saying. "Either a elephant is in front of me or it is not in front of me."all because millions of people have faith that it is and I know it is not in front me.

Unless a person is agnostic or agnostic atheist? Maybe. I don't see how something non existent can either be existent or non existent.

That's like saying a pencil in my hand or not in my hand just because millions of people say it is, and you know it does not. Yet, for some reason, you pose a "yes it is or no it is not" question when none exists.

Unless someone gives you a reason to believe there may be a pencil in my hand, what is the motive behind thinking their could be one when you know there isn't?

What is so strong about the other party's claim to make you question your knowledge otherwise?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

Not sure how many ex-atheists are here, but speaking as one..

I think the vast majority here are rational and capable of critical thought on both sides, The sticking point for me as an atheist, for many decades, was that I refused to acknowledge my own beliefs as such. By definition 'a-theism' meant I lacked belief- the burden of proof was someone else's problem.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Either a god exists or a god does not exist. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Without compelling evidence, the default position is to assume a god does not exist.

"Either a naturalistic mechanism capable of creating the universe exists or does not exist. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Without compelling evidence, the default position is to assume that it does not"

This argument of course works at least as well the other way around, which is to say- not very well. Because there is no default, no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created.

I don't believe in God simply because there is no evidence for 'multiverses' or 'string theory' or big crunch' or steady state' or any atheist creation story you can mention, but because as long as you don't try to declare any 'default truth'... God ends up winning out logically, on an even playing field, as the least improbable explanation
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
"Either a naturalistic mechanism capable of creating the universe exists or does not exist. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement of fact. Without compelling evidence, the default position is to assume that it does not"

This argument of course works at least as well the other way around, which is to say- not very well. Because there is no default, no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created.

I don't believe in God simply because there is no evidence for 'multiverses' or 'string theory' or big crunch' or steady state' or any atheist creation story you can mention, but because as long as you don't try to declare any 'default truth'... God ends up winning out logically, on an even playing field, as the least improbable explanation

Yes, it certainly works both ways. Everything we see happening around us our entire lives ends up having a natural cause when we bother to seek it. Nothing ever happens that can be shown with equally valid evidence to have been caused by any supernatural causes. Yes, there are things we do not know the cause of, but there is no reason to insert the supernatural into the knowledge void. That is why the default is to reject supernatural causes until sufficient evidence can be provided to demonstrate those supernatural causes exist.

How other hypothetical universes may or may not be created has no bearing on our local reality. None of these theories ( some to me are still hypotheses) bear on the question, either. It matters not how the universe may have been created. We currently only know of natural causes.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I'm a strict atheist. That's like saying. "Either a elephant is in front of me or it is not in front of me."all because millions of people have faith that it is and I know it is not in front me.

Unless a person is agnostic or agnostic atheist? Maybe. I don't see how something non existent can either be existent or non existent.

That's like saying a pencil in my hand or not in my hand just because millions of people say it is, and you know it does not. Yet, for some reason, you pose a "yes it is or no it is not" question when none exists.

Unless someone gives you a reason to believe there may be a pencil in my hand, what is the motive behind thinking their could be one when you know there isn't?

What is so strong about the other party's claim to make you question your knowledge otherwise?

No, it is a fact that something (gods or pencils) either exists or they do not. There is not third option. What millions of people believe is not relevant. Believing something exists does not make it exist.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
No, it is a fact that something (gods or pencils) either exists or they do not. There is not third option. What millions of people believe is not relevant. Believing something exists does not make it exist.

How can something non existent be considered existent or non existent?

What is the motivation to think there is a pencil in my hand when I know there is not any?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
How can something non existent be considered existent or non existent?

What is the motivation to think there is a pencil in my hand when I know there is not any?

Carlita...something that is non-existent by definition does not exist. It falls into the category of things that DO NOT EXIST as opposed to the category of things that DO EXIST. Non-existence is not a third category of things.
 
Top