Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it's a futile endeavor, wouldn't it be best to set the whole religion thing aside and live happy, secular lives?

Even as an atheist, I learned that that "best" is without evidence, truth and/or proof. So as long as I follow the rules of a secular society, it is not to do deicide what is best for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you prove that mankind does not need religion?

"Prove" still? I made my argument, which I found compelling. You had no rebuttal. That's the end of that sub-debate. I hope that I don't need to remind you again that debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim or argument. That's how we know that we are done and have arrived at a sound conclusion.

When two critical thinkers are debating - dialectic - they are applying the same standards of reasoning to the same evidence in a cooperative and constructive effort the arrive at correct ideas, kind of like a ping-pong volley between competent players - back and forth until a shot is made that cannot be returned (successfully rebutted). When one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut, the other recognizes that, accepts his collocutor's conclusion, and is grateful to have learned something.

However, when only one critical thinker is involved, the other party generally just serves up a comment, has it returned (rebutted), and then watches the ball go past him ending the volley. The volley ends with the last valid shot that is not returned.

There is nothing to rebut

Then the debate is resolved.

What would constitute evidence for God is what God provides as evidence for His existence.

Tautology.

I don't think you can actually specify what would constitute evidence for a god. I've told you what would need to be true about a passage to consider it evidence for a god - words that no man could have written. True, even if the thoughts are transhuman, that need not have come from a supernatural universe creator, but it makes the likelihood that one exists greater, which is the definition of supporting evidence. What you call evidence of a god is the ministry of an ordinary man with an ordinary religious message claiming to speak for an unseen god. You just say, "I have evidence of a god" and then toss in weasel words ("but not proof"), and when asked what that evidence is, your answers are vague, also weasel words:

"Weasel words are used when the speaker wants to make it seem like they've given a clear answer to a question or made a direct statement, when actually they've said something inconclusive or vague."

Messengers are objective evidence for God since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

That is incorrect. Messengers are objective evidence that messengers exist, but not that they are emissaries of a deity or that their messages are correct. That's true for all scripture. That's true for all text about reality. It all needs empiric confirmation to be justifiably believed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when mankind makes up his own values and way of life, it is not sustainable.

Disagree. Humanist values are constructive and life-affirming.

no, I shall not attempt to prove it, because I know where it will lead.
You will just deny all the points that I make.

If I disagree with them, I will tell you so and why. Go ahead and rebut my argument for why mankind doesn't need religion if you can, and make your best case for why he does if you can. If you can't do either successfully, you're probably wrong.

climate-change and economic collapse etc.

Are you saying that mankind needs religion to counter to tackle these problems?

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

 

[dybmh]

According to my understanding, (2) is not payment for the lost property being the child, it is payment for loss of potential lifetime earnings and income, and payment for psychological damage caused to the parent by the loss of a child.
I agree that in (1) the child is treated similar to property, but the purpose of that is to protect the child, not to engage for example in sexual relations with them nor to use them as child labour, so the context is clearly different to Exodus 21:7-11 (inclusive).

There is protection for the child, "he shall not diminish her food, her clothing", that at least implies that the daughter's food and clothing are provided for the duration. Yes, there is child labor involved. I admit that. But that is an employee. And there is an expectation for relations, after marriage. But not simply due to being designated. This describes a future engagement, not slavery nor property.

I think we are getting a little lost here divorcing words from their contexts, so it may be helpful to re-quote Exodus 21:7-11 (RSV) to remind us of what is going on;

'7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[a] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.'

So the "master" being the person the daughter is *transferered* to decides whether she be "designated" as a wife for either "for himself" or "for his son", but if she was a free woman why is it not up to her to decide whether she prefers to marry the man or his son? Why is it up to "her master" to decide who she marrys?

She has agreed to work for a specific family in return for room and board and a marriage proposal from someone in the family. The expectation is that she will have the opportunity to parent children.

And why if he does not do any of these three things is there even an issue of her going "out" (which I understand to mean going free) "without payment of money" if she is a free person right from the start?

Because she is a minor. Can children "go free" where you are without some sort of legal procedure?

His dealing faithlessly "with her" is in the form of not being pleased with her after he has designated her to himself as a wife, and there is nothing which says this is an "agreement with her", rather the agreement is between the father and the master.

If that's true, it would say, she goes free because the master "dealt faithlessly with him". But it says "with her".

ETA: I think you are misunderstanding the English phrase "dealt with"/deal with. I asked google "define deal with" and the top definition that came up was from merriam-webster which states;
'to do something about (a person or thing that causes a problem or difficult situation) The government dealt harshly with the rebels. I'll deal with you later.'
Source: Definition of DEAL WITH.

IOW it doesn't necessarily imply an agreement has been made, it can simply mean doing something about a person or thing. It is a phrase whose meaning changes with context.
End of edit.

Sure, but that is not "dealing falsely with her." The qualification of "falsley" shows that a deal was made with her. It's an agreement because that is what it means to "deal truly" compared to "deal falsely".

Are you referring to software here? I believe that would simply be another example of a conditional sale.

But it's still not my property. I do not own the software. I am licensing it.

As for an employee, you are paying *them* for what their time and labor produce you, not paying their *father* to give you the right to decide whether you wish to marry them to yourself or your son.

The payment for the labor is room, board, and a marriage proposal in the family.

I consider it an irrelevant hypothetical in this case as I believe Exodus 21:7-11 does not require the consent of the daughter.

In order to show that marriage requires consent, one needs to go outside these 4 verses and go back to Genesis 24. There one can see that the marriage proposal involves payment to the father and the girl's consent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Disagree. Humanist values are constructive and life-affirming..

All "isms" are man-made and imperfect.

We have known about the problem of climate-change for decades, and we
are still on course for disaster .. in fact, it is already happening.

What's your "humanist" solution?

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears to me that you do not know the meaning of the words you are using, for example in post #525 you claim it is "destructive" "for society collectively". Now you are asking how it destroys society, which appears to be essentially asking me to explain your claim.

In my opinion.

I said: I don't know what you mean by society being destroyed. Destroyed how?

What you mean by destructive is not necessarily the same as what I mean by destructive. Destructive how?

I mean materialism really messes things up. Maybe you are thinking of something else.

If something causes a lot of damage, you can talk about its destructive force or power. Something is destructive when it really messes things up. The word destructive comes from the Latin destruere which means literally to unbuild.

Destructive - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com​

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's a futile endeavor, wouldn't it be best to set the whole religion thing aside and live happy, secular lives?

No, because nobody needs to 'find God' in order to believe in God and adhere to a religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like it? What does it matter if I like it or not? I only care about its veracity.

That is correct. Whether they like it or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not...
My evidence is accurate and conforms to facts but still no Atheists believe it is evidence.

 

[nPeace]

This is my favorite inconsistency in the Bible.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Are we good now?

Not yet.

1. How is that inconsistent with the message?
2. How is your interpretation a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not yet.

1. How is that inconsistent with the message?
2. How is your interpretation a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent.

You asked for one example of an inconsistency in the Bible and I gave you what you wanted.
I gave you Bible verses that are contradictory.

My interpretation is not a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent, the Bible does that all by itself.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You asked for one example of an inconsistency in the Bible and I gave you what you wanted.
I gave you Bible verses that are contradictory.

My interpretation is not a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent, the Bible does that all by itself.

You're chasing your tail, Trailblazer, because no matter what you say, some Christians will always object to what you say about the Bible. If Christians can't even agree with each other about what the Bible says, then, it stands to reason that they'll argue with non-Christians over their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[metis]

My interpretation is not a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent, the Bible does that all by itself.

An example I often use is the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb as no two of the four gospels agree.

 

[nPeace]

You asked for one example of an inconsistency in the Bible and I gave you what you wanted.
I gave you Bible verses that are contradictory.

My interpretation is not a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent, the Bible does that all by itself.

No. Sorry. You did not give me any example of inconsistency in the Bible. You gave me what you interpret as an inconsistency.
Are you going to deny that you interpreted it? Are you now saying the Bible does something? Is that not contradicting yourself?

 

[Trailblazer]

No. Sorry. You did not give me any example of inconsistency in the Bible. You gave me what you interpret as an inconsistency.
Are you going to deny that you interpreted it? Are you now saying the Bible does something? Is that not contradicting yourself?

You asked for Bible verses that are inconsistent and I gave you verses that I think are inconsistent.
Everything we read has to be interpreted.

Now, are we done playing games?
If you disagree with me and don't think those verses are inconsistent tell me why you disagree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All "isms" are man-made and imperfect.

That doesn't rebut my comment, which was, "Disagree. Humanist values are constructive and life-affirming" following your, "when mankind makes up his own values and way of life, it is not sustainable." Can we assume that you have given up on that claim?

We have known about the problem of climate-change for decades, and we are still on course for disaster .. in fact, it is already happening. What's your "humanist" solution?

Listen to the climate scientists, and make changes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I'll bet that you could have guessed that yourself. Also, don't listen to any of the theists I quoted (I guess that you'd prefer to ignore than address those comments; I understand).

nobody needs to 'find God' in order to believe in God and adhere to a religion

The empiricist does.

You asked for one example of an inconsistency in the Bible and I gave you what you wanted. I gave you Bible verses that are contradictory. My interpretation is not a demonstration of the Bible being inconsistent, the Bible does that all by itself.

Yeah, well that's just your opinion. You don't know that for a fact. She has her evidence, maybe from a message in a dream. All opinions are equal:

opinion - an idea, judgment, or concept that a person has or forms about something or someone.

equal - being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

message - a communication, usually brief, from one person or group to another

 

[danieldemol]

Because she is a minor. Can children "go free" where you are without some sort of legal procedure?

They can't go free with or without payment, its a non-issue unless she was owned. Legal procedure according to my understanding would simply involve oversee-ing that the child was going into the care of a responsible parent/guardian.

Sure, but that is not "dealing falsely with her." The qualification of "falsley" shows that a deal was made with her. It's an agreement because that is what it means to "deal truly" compared to "deal falsely".

I think you are simply asserting something you want to be true here.

But it's still not my property. I do not own the software. I am licensing it.

Perhaps, but software licensing is an entirely different concept and context to designating someone for marriage in my view.

In order to show that marriage requires consent, one needs to go outside these 4 verses and go back to Genesis 24. There one can see that the marriage proposal involves payment to the father and the girl's consent.

Genesis 24 in my view shows an instance of the family being reluctant to let their daughter go, not a law. You will note that in Genesis 24:55 it says;
'Her brother and her mother said, “Let the maiden remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.”' (RSV)

That is before they change their minds in Genesis 24:57 and decide to ask the girl if she will go with them.

Which means even if this where a law as opposed to an instance of something (which its not according to my understanding) they were only permitted to keep her 10 days without her consent.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

The empiricist does.

Good luck on 'finding God' with your GPS tracker. Nothing could be more absurd.
Happy hunting!

Yeah, well that's just your opinion. You don't know that for a fact.

Did I say it was a fact?
I did not say: I gave you verses that are inconsistent.
I said: I gave you verses that I think are inconsistent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Listen to the climate scientists, and make changes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions..

..that's it?
We've had about 40 years to do it, and yet we have not yet succeeded.
Is that because we are not all humanists? Of course not!

We have been doing what you say, but it is too vague.
It will not succeed, due to imbalance.

The financial system is responsible .. climate-change, "natural" disasters and war are inevitable.

 

[danieldemol]

All "isms" are man-made and imperfect.

True, Muhammadanism is man-made and imperfect after all as I see it.

We have known about the problem of climate-change for decades, and we
are still on course for disaster .. in fact, it is already happening.

True, and we have had Islam around for a lot longer than decades, so clearly Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.
In my opinion

 

[muhammad_isa]

Good luck on 'finding God' with your GPS tracker. Nothing could be more absurd..

Agreed. Completely ridiculous.