muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
That is absurd .. G-d created mankind, so it's impossible.
-
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!
Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
When I said 'everyone' I meant that as a figure of speech. I meant 'many people.'
No, not everyone knows there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Most Christians deny that.
It is not a fallacy since I was not making a logical argument. Better luck next time.
You are just preaching here, I reject a God that is creator of the material realm, and in my view have already demonstrated that humans were the first to come up with the idea.
In my opinion.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How could the Bible NOT have inconsistencies, given how many men authored the Bible? That would be logically impossible.
So sayeth the fallible believer.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You won't find Santa on Christmas eve with GPS, but not for the same reason.
If you think it is for the 'same reason' you will be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.
The fact that things that are invisible and undetectable don’t exist does not mean that God does not exist, just because God is invisible and undetectable. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered the 'reason' why God is invisible and undetectable.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia
Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
- Santa Claus is invisible and undetectable so he does not exist
- The flying spaghetti monster is invisible and undetectable so he does not exist
- The Invisible Pink Unicorn is invisible and undetectable so he does not exist
It is true that nonexistent things are invisible and undetectable, but that does not mean that God does not exist just because God is invisible and undetectable, since there can be another reason why God is invisible and undetectable.
I mean the definition related to excess greed, wanting more than one really needs, and being attached to material things and material enjoyments. No, I do not call you worldly just becaue you reject religion since that would be illogical, since believers can be worldly or not and atheists can be worldly or not. Whether someone is worldly or not depends upon how they relate to the material world. That might be influenced by religion but it is not determined by religion.
When I said that religion is needed to bring man closer to God I was not implying that religious people ever find God. Nobody ever finds God. Closer to God does not refer to physical distance. I meant closer to God in their mind and heart.
Religion is not absolutely necessary but it can be a factor that leads to decent moral people.
Yes, some people do that without religion, but not everyone. Religion is what binds people together. For example, I just returned from my weekly GriefShare group at a church and even though I am a Baha'i, I am bound together with those Christians, not only because we all share grief, but also because we all share the same love for God and hope in God.
It is not a claim, it is a personal opinion, just like your opinion that religion is dispensable.
Religion NEVER been demonstrated to be dispensable. That could never be proven since religion has always existed so that means we cannot know if humans could do without it.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
That would be impossible to prove..
In any case, it is academic.
The global financial system is usurious, and Islam, the second most populous religion,
strongly denounces usury.
Furthermore, until the Reformation, usury was outlawed by the Catholic church.
Do you agree, or not, that man-made climate-change commenced at the industrial revolution,
which was funded by usury?
Disagree. I can generalize about both nonexistent things and things that exist and compare the two. Things that exist can be detected somewhere in time and space interacting with other things that exist, and nonexistent things, which will never be detected by GPS, are none of those things.
Yeah, I know. There is no reason to believe that you are getting closer to anything but your own mind and an ideology.
But those who could within religion could do so as well if they didn't have religion.
No, cooperative social interactions, common history, and common values do that. Religion isn't part of the formula. It's just another reason to congregate cooperatively.
A personal opinion expressed is a claim.
Yes, that's also a belief and a claim. I think I made that case.
I disagree. I think that I just showed it. I live it. You also could have lived a good life without religion. I'd say better based on my own experience. I'd have been fine to never have found Christianity, and I've been fine without it. That's typical of those maturing outside of religion.
Are you still arguing that "Science and religion are like two wings of a bird and humanity cannot fly with only one wing."? I responded, "Mankind doesn't need religion," to which you replied, "You state that as if it was a fact, yet it is only a personal opinion, and a biased one at that."
It would be impossible to prove that God didn't have the idea first or independently of man, however i believe it is demonstrated that man came up with the idea and communicated it to other men prior to the man Muhammad communicating it to other men in the seventh century - hence there was never a need for God to intervene (if God even did which has not been demonstrated).
I agree with that, however the industrial revolution was a necessary stage in the progress of humanity as it allowed us to produce robots - thereby ending the necessity of slavery.
Industry need not excessively pollute the environment if number of humans is managed and environmentally friendly industrial options are chosen.
In my opinion.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Right..
..highly debatable.
Nevertheless, it happened .. it's all about the direction that mankind takes now.
Unfortunately, it looks as though there is no way of avoiding the pending disaster.
I doubt VERY MUCH whether the majority of mankind will heed God's warning about usury.
..not until the apocalypse, that is .. which incidentally, has already started.
Need not? Ha!
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Money can be a contract agreeing to shared common values. It doesn't necessarily have to amount to usury.
Good, so debate it, do you have compassion for slaves or not? If you do how do you propose the poorer classes gain access to affordable goods without machines mass producing them in the absence of slaves?
You are preaching here, the apocalypse is an anti-scientific idea in my opinion.
You are handwaving away what I said rather than refuting it in my view.
In my opinion.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
OK, we can be done. We have reached the point where the words "he dealt falsely with her" are being ignored. The simple meaning of these words is considered an empty assertion without proposing a viable alternative. The attempt to define the word "deal" without the qualification "falsely" failed. Now, it's "sour grapes, I don't need to refute that anyway".
It's as I said, in order to portray the father selling his daughter into slavery, a person has to ignore the details. As one includes the details, it points away from anything that is understood as slavery. This is a consistent trend. If it were slavery, then each of the details on analysis would backup that conclusion. Instead, the opposite occurs. The trend points away from slavery. And now a specific phrase in the text is being excluded because there isn't another way to read it other than, "he made a legally enforceable consensual agreement with her". And that describes an employee, not a slave, not property.
They are not being ignored, in my view i gave you the contextually correct interpretation of them in post #490 when I said, "'to do something about (a person or thing that causes a problem or difficult situation)"
In the past tense he has become displeased with her, she has become a problem for him. Agreement is not necessarily implied (contrary to your empty assertion) and as per the context it is clear to me that the agreement is between the father and the master.
In my opinion.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Never mind, you seem to not be pondering this very closely.
joelr
Well-Known Member
You have not ever posted any such evidence. And you are wrong, historical scholarship, non-bias, is in consensus that there are very few facts in the NT that are reliable. None of the supernatural things are on that list. For you to even suggest that you are not simply relying on faith is either incredibly dishonest or massive cognitive bias.
So you say. On what evidence? They make the same claims as you....a revelation from a divinity. They claim to be backed up by more scientific facts and historical data. I don't agree, you are both making equal claims and both are equally unreliable and easily shown to be mythology.
But why would you say the Quran does not qualify? A man claims messages from God through a divine being. The NT Paul claims messages from a divine being. Then mythic stories from one Greek writer that qualifies as myth in several different ways. There are literal earlier demigods who suffered, died and rose for salvation of followers. SO sketchy, yet the Quran doesn't qualify???????? The confirmation bias is insane.
No, not "one opinion". The gospels are a mythology, that is consensus. The only thing historians disagree on is weather there was an actual Rabbi human named Joshua or the entire thing is made up wholecloth.
Everything else is complete agreement on the basics. None of those scholars, or any historian believes there is evidence that Jesus was a demigod who did miracles and resurrection. We have been over this, you cannot debunk any scholarship and you usually stop replying to later emerge and say I'm "quote mining" and pretend something that isn't even close to true (like right now)
Let's see.
-The Synoptic problem, Mark is the source for the other gospels. Agreed by all historical scholars.
-Gospels names given late 2nd century, all historians agree and the internal and external evidence is massive.
- Christian theology is Hellenism and some Persian myths. 100%. David Litwas latest book deals with this.
Carrier, Ehrman, Lataster, John Collins speaks about the Persians in the Yale Divinity lectures, no one disagrees with this.
The Mesopotamian origins of Genesis, full consensus. It's in every college textbook on the subject. Taught in Yale Divinity lectures.
The only real debate is historicity vs mythicism. But historicity means a human Rabbi was made into a Greek/Persian demigod modeled after older savior deities.
Even early apologists agreed with this. Justin Martyr in dailogue 169, a fictional conversation with Trypho hs admits Jesus is just like all the older Greek deities, in many ways, it's just that Satan set it up that way to fool Christians.
There are a few areas where some historians haven't studied certain aspects of bible scholarship and don't have a strong opinion.
For example Goodacre is an expert on the Synoptic problem. He doesn't study Mark in terms of what are his sources.
Scholars who have can show he was using the OT and the Epistles without a doubt, but a few specialists have shown Mark was using
Mimesis and syncresis which was part of the Greek school and using the Odyssey and The Iliad as a guide. But no historians disagree, it just isn't their area of expertise.
So this is new. I imagine you have seen some of the information I gave and twisted it in your mind that there is some sort of debate going on? No. Bart Ehrman was asked recently in an interview about apologists and their information and he said "it's all the same old material, completely inaccurate and has been debunked over and over.....we don't pay attention to them". Although some scholars do, Carrier and Josh Bowen write counter apologetics works.
The main points are consensus, you are completely incorrect with this. Ironic because you now say I "quote mine" yet you have dramatically misrepresented scholarship showing you don't even get the basic messages this scholarship posting provides.
Oddly, you have NEVER ever ever given any refutation of anything I have posted, so where you formed these bizaree ideas (that's the point of confirmation bias I guess). Articles by Pastors with an MA in writing is not a refutation.
You don't know this, because you don't ever look at real biblical scholarship.
One small example, Odyssey 9 and 10 /Mark 5:1-20
O - Odysseus and his crew sailed to the land of the Cyclopes.
M - Jesus and his disciples sailed to the region of the Gerasenes.
O - On the mountains of the Cyclopes innumerable goats grazed
M - On the mountain a large herd of swine grazed
O - Odysseus and his crew disembarked.
M - Jesus and his disciples disembarked
O - Polyphemus usually was depicted nude.
M - The Demoniac was nude.
O - Circe recognized Odysseus and asked him not to harm her. The giant asked if Odysseus intended to harm him.
M - The demoniac recognized Jesus and asked him not to harm him
O - The giant asked Odysseus his name.
M - Jesus asked the demoniac his name.
O - Odysseus answered “nobody is my name”
M - The demoniac answered “Legion is my name”
O - Odysseus subdued the giant with violence and trickery
M - Jesus subdued about 2000 demons with divine power and sent them into the swine and then drove the swine into the lake.
O - Polyphemus the Shepard called out to his neighbors.
M - The swineherds called on their neighbors.
O - The Cyclopes came to the site asking about Polyphemus’s stolen sheep
M - The Gerasenes came to the site to find out about their swine.
O - Odysseus and crew embarked.
M - Jesus and his disciples embarked.
O - Odysseus told the giant to proclaim that he had blinded him.
M - Jesus told the healed demoniac to proclaim what God had done for him.
O - The giant asked Odysseus, now aboard ship, to come back.
M - The demoniac asked Jesus, now aboard ship, if he could be with him.
O - Odysseus refused the request.
M - Jesus refused the request
O - Odysseus and crew sailed away.
M - Jesus and disciples sailed away.
O - Odysseus awoke during a tempest in the episode immediately following the story of the Cyclops.
M - Jesus awoke during a tempest and calmed the wind and sea just before exorcising the demoniac.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
When someone’s beliefs in general -not limited to the spiritual sort- change, they change [behaviour, priorities/choices, interactions with others, etc.] and that change in them is visible to all who know them. That change is non-subjective “evidence” (to self and others); but of what precisely…? Not of the accuracy of their actual beliefs, surely, but of a change in what they believe, yes.
In the changed person’s life, there will be people who feel that their changes are for the worse and others who feel that they’re for the better. Those “feelings” are mainly subjective. Those “feeling” are opinions.
Not so subjective is that the life of a person who has changed with a change in their beliefs, will significantly change too.
When it comes to significant changes in spiritual beliefs, such changes affect a person’s entire worldview and will likely have an impact on most things in that person’s life, but also in the lives of those around them.
This is proof of our beliefs having impact on circumstances and of spiritual beliefs being of tangible significance to people’s way of life.
“Evidence” of a certain spiritual belief’s accuracy can only lie in its long-term results. Take for instance the concept and practice of “turning the other cheek”:
At first, it only feels like you’re sacrificing yourself: letting another get the better of you, you walk away bitter and full of despise; deep down knowing that you could’ve crushed them really, had you wanted to.
Next time, it’s as if you’re role-playing: pretending to be the bigger person while actually, passive-aggressively implying that they’re not worth your energy.
But eventually, if you keep “turning the other cheek” at people, something within your perspective of things changes.
You’ll begin to notice the surprise in the other person, when they get no push-back.
You may see that their guard comes down, that their arrogance softens. It may in the beginning give you a sense of satisfaction; as if you suddenly are in charge of the interaction. You may find yourself smirking somewhat within.
If so, keep at it because before you know it, you will have reached the point that “proves” to you that “turning the other cheek” really does do what it claims to.
Your smirk will be replaced by a genuine joy over others feeling comfortable enough with you to abandon their guards and arrogance and let their better qualities show through. You may discover that really, all they wanted was a chance to shine for a minute, for all the “hard work” they put in to getting to where they’re at and that you can afford to give them that minute without it costing you anything.
Until suddenly, you realise that you are wholeheartedly rejoicing in another’s accomplishments and pride and there is nothing but happiness in your “well done” to them.
When you later reflect on the process of change within you and on your interactions from practicing “turning the other cheek”, you’ll know why it is said to “work miracles”.
Humbly,
Hermit
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
This is not a thread a\bout politics, but one about the spiritual aspects of faith.
I mentioned the industrial revolution, as it was funded by usury.
Usury benefits the rich and enslaves the poor .. so..
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
That is not "to deal falsely with her". There is the verb, the qualifier, and the target. You are ignoring 2/3 of the phrase. As I said, I agree that the word "deal" doesn't always mean an agreement. But, dealing truly or falsely does.
Past tense... that's not what the translation you provided says.
If she does not please her master, in the present or in the future, after she has been designated, then she is returned to her family ( redeemed ). That is not a slave. If she chooses to stop working or do anything which is displeasing, she goes back to her original home.
It's not an empty assertion to use the simple straight forward meaning of "deal falsely with her"
What context? Please demonstrate using the words in the text. Like this:
'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.'
"If she does not please her master" - she can change her behavior
"then he shall let her be redeemed" - she is returned to her home
"he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people" - if a slave is a person who is property that can be sold, then she is not a slave
"he has dealt faithlessly with her" - it is impossible to deal faithlessly with a slave, this describes an employee
"he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights" - a slave owner can diminsh any of these things for any reason
etc...
Here is what you said:
"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."
You didn't bring any context showing that the agreement is with the father. It's assumed. If the agreement was with the father, then "he has dealt faithlessly with him" not "with her".
Science is like both wings of the bird. Religion is like the bird's hat.