What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Thanda]

You are operating with a very disfunctional understanding of "faith", I fear. Otherwise you would not say such a patently meaningless thing.

What is your functional understanding of faith? And does that understanding match up with your average dictionary?

 

[Bunyip]

What is your functional understanding of faith? And does that understanding match up with your average dictionary?

According to scripture, faith is blind. Hebrews 11.1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is your functional understanding of faith? And does that understanding match up with your average dictionary?

Is there any particular reason to consider this average dictionary you propose? I'm not quite seeing the point right now.

Anyway:

Faith is running a risk of being wrong out of a lack of knowledge joined by a necessity or convenience of taking a decision nonetheless.

Faith is different from belief because belief is even less rigorous when it comes to requiring foundations. Faith is also supposed to have inspirational meaning, while beliefs often won't.

Knowledge is consistently superior to faith and expected to remove the need for it, though, or even to dissolve it entirely.

Proper religious practice is supposed not to glorify faith to the point of neglecting knowledge. Nor is it supposed to raise simple belief to article of faith, although it is obvious that it is not all that rare for exactly that to happen, which IMO badly hurts the value of the so-called religions that indulge on that.





You said this in post #215:

Except that you operate by faith in all you do. You know very little, when we get down to it, about anything. All you have is belief. So it is no use pretending you are too good or advanced for faith.

Faith is not "all we have to operate by". There is such a thing as actual knowledge, even direct experience.

Much less is it true that belief is "all we have".

I do not know why exactly you want to deny that people may actually know things; that belief is a poor substitute for actual faith; and that faith is not to be wasted when actual knowledge is available, but it does not help your argument when you make those specific choices.

 

[ether-ore]

At the least you could be honest and admit that the main reason you belief what you do is because you WANT to believe it, not because it makes logical and reasonable sense to believe it.

I consider reason to be a verb, an activity which every mind does to some degree or other. The problem comes when people using disparate methods of reasoning and different items of evidence to apply that reason to, attempt to tell others what they should be reasoning on and how to go about it. Just because you have limited the objects of your reason to the five senses doesn't mean that others aren't using their reason appropriately. If I reason that what prophets have said to be cohesive, coherent and valid; for you to say that I should not reason upon those items of evidence simply because they do not fit with your method of reasoning, is really kind of arrogant. That you may belong to a class or group of people that use the same method doesn't in and of itself make you right. It simply means you are not likely able to communicate with those who think differently.

 

[psychoslice]

If I ever found out that the old testament god was real, I would have to shot him with my heavenly ray gun, that's for sure.

 

[JustWondering]

I consider reason to be a verb, an activity which every mind does to some degree or other. The problem comes when people using disparate methods of reasoning and different items of evidence to apply that reason to, attempt to tell others what they should be reasoning on and how to go about it. Just because you have limited the objects of your reason to the five senses doesn't mean that others aren't using their reason appropriately. If I reason that what prophets have said to be cohesive, coherent and valid; for you to say that I should not reason upon those items of evidence simply because they do not fit with your method of reasoning, is really kind of arrogant. That you may belong to a class or group of people that use the same method doesn't in and of itself make you right. It simply means you are not likely able to communicate with those who think differently.

You mentioned before that you determined what religion was right for you based on their "answers" concerning people's souls. Where did you get the idea that you have a soul to begin with? The existence of a soul seems to be the center of your belief system, did you come to this belief before excepting your current religion or after? What is your belief in the existence of souls based on if souls exist beyond our five senses? If you can't verify something exists, how do you know it exists?

As for your prophets. Why are your prophets for your beliefs credible and to be taken seriously and prophets for other beliefs not considered to be credible? They all have the same amount of evidence and logic supporting them (none).

These are all reasonable questions that I don't think you can answer using logical arguments or evidence. If that is the case than your beliefs are primarily supported by your desire to believe. If REAL evidence existed that proved a religion true than there would be one religion and no use for this forum. However, there is NO evidence for ANY religion, which is why this forum even exists. If there is a flaw in MY reasoning, please demonstrate it to me.

 

[JustWondering]

You have inserted the word blind for your own convenience.

Any faith I have in anyone or anything is based on personal experience. I do not have blind faith in invisible things whose existence cannot be verified.

 

[Koldo]

The only thing I can say to that is that if I do like you have done, and reduce the probabilities of what is real to the strictly empirical and totally ignore the written record evidence of eye witnesses to a God that ought to have some influence in our lives, then that completely eliminates any conception of the eternal life of the soul. You may consider that to be rational, but I do not. It seems to me that if it were only one individual who made some weird claims about some god, (as other religions have done) then I might believe as you do and be very skeptical. But this is not the case. In spite of the admittedly strange and inexplicable things recorded in scripture, all the prophets have stated that they have witnessed God and that men ought to obey His laws. To me, the fact that all of these eye witnesses (over millennia) have said the same thing about the nature of God and all of them, without any contact between themselves have provided a cohesive and coherent testimony concerning Him... the fact of these witnesses... tells me that I am more than a biological machine and that I existed before I came here to mortality, and will exist after the trial of this life is over.

For example; this is why I myself do not consider Islam credible. It relies on the report of one man, Mohammed, It is true that they have coopted Jewish and Christian scripture, but they have altered what those records have said to fit their narrative. Buddhism (in its pure form) does not claim the existence of a god... the Buddha himself did not claim to be a god. Buddhism's claims for progressive reincarnation; where each life supposedly gains for the soul more enlightenment until at some unspecified time, in eternity (who knows when and after how many lives of suffering in mortality), one enters Nirvana... that strikes me as way too uncertain and un-necessarily long and labored to me. Pretty much the same thing goes for Hinduism. Of course, these are my evaluations. The point is... I have considered them. I just find them wanting in the cohesive and coherent narrative in terms of what eternity means for the individual soul. The difference between you and I, is that I believe in the eternal nature of the soul, where you do not.

As I have stated elsewhere; I find it curious that atheists reject the concept of faith, when (unless they have performed all science themselves) they are taking it on faith that those who have... have got it right. It appears to me, whether atheists like to admit it or not, that they are exercising faith in science or scientists. Empirical science by itself comes up short in explaining anything concerning the eternal nature of the soul.

So, men who have influenced each other through history have been saying the same things about God?! How can this be?! A miracle, I must say!

 

[ether-ore]

As for your prophets. Why are your prophets for your beliefs credible and to be taken seriously and prophets for other beliefs not considered to be credible? They all have the same amount of evidence and logic supporting them (none).

Before I make my comments about prophets, I want to recognize that you have tacitly already rejected them, so I recognize there is no amount of reasoning I could do that will have any value to you. So. I'm defeated before I start. However, for me in evaluating what the other "prophet" has said, I find his answers lacking in terms of the eternal destiny of the soul. I said prophet in the singular sense because the only faith system with multiple prophets is the Judeo-Christian ethic and consequently it is the only system which has the necessary element of corroboration. I accept Christianity over Judaism because as I read the Old Testament, I believe it prophesies of Christ. Islam's prophet alters what Jewish and Christian scripture says to the point where it ceases to be credible to me by comparison. I reject this concept of jihad among other things. Buddhism has no prophet as such and does not even believe in a god. the Buddha himself did not claim to be a god. Similar things could be said about Hinduism. Anyway, these are my evaluations.

My concept of souls comes from the wittings of the prophets. Because I find their collective report to be cohesive and coherent, I give what they say credibility concerning souls.

 

[Curious George]

You mentioned before that you determined what religion was right for you based on their "answers" concerning people's souls. Where did you get the idea that you have a soul to begin with? The existence of a soul seems to be the center of your belief system, did you come to this belief before excepting your current religion or after? What is your belief in the existence of souls based on if souls exist beyond our five senses? If you can't verify something exists, how do you know it exists?

As for your prophets. Why are your prophets for your beliefs credible and to be taken seriously and prophets for other beliefs not considered to be credible? They all have the same amount of evidence and logic supporting them (none).

These are all reasonable questions that I don't think you can answer using logical arguments or evidence. If that is the case than your beliefs are primarily supported by your desire to believe. If REAL evidence existed that proved a religion true than there would be one religion and no use for this forum. However, there is NO evidence for ANY religion, which is why this forum even exists. If there is a flaw in MY reasoning, please demonstrate it to me.

Soul came from Plato. Are you suggesting Plato didn't use reason?

 

[LuisDantas]

Soul came from Plato. Are you suggesting Plato didn't use reason?

It would depend on how much he believed in its literal existence and on how much and which information he had to sustain such a belief, would it not?

 

[Curious George]

It would depend on how much he believed in its literal existence and on how much and which information he had to sustain such a belief, would it not?

No I do not think it would depend on his belief in its literal existence, though I am sure he believed quite firmly.

As to your second part that is tricky. But I will go with yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm pretty sure Plato was capable of conceiving hypothetical constructs and concepts.

 

[JustWondering]

Before I make my comments about prophets, I want to recognize that you have tacitly already rejected them, so I recognize there is no amount of reasoning I could do that will have any value to you. So. I'm defeated before I start.

Fair enough. I would like to point out that I don't play favorites. While you hold certain prophets as credible when they have the same amount of evidence to back their claims as prophets you do not consider credible, I hold them ALL to the same standards.

However, for me in evaluating what the other "prophet" has said, I find his answers lacking in terms of the eternal destiny of the soul.

Again, how can ANYONE know that souls/spirits exist? You speak as if the "answers" to what happens to souls is what sold you on your current religion correct? However, you also say that the prophets of your current religion sold you on the notion of souls. So according to your own words, the prophets of your religion said souls exist and this and that happens to them and you said "Sold!". However, souls cannot be observed or proven to exist, anyone can say anything about souls, it's not like they can be disproven. So what kind of possible reasoning and logic led you to believe what your prophets said is true? Or is it that you WANT to believe it is true?

I said prophet in the singular sense because the only faith system with multiple prophets is the Judeo-Christian ethic and consequently it is the only system which has the necessary element of corroboration.

What does the number of prophets have to do with anything? If you discovered another religion that had "answers" about souls you didn't LIKE but it had more prophets and "the necessary element of corroboration" would you switch religions?

I accept Christianity over Judaism because as I read the Old Testament, I believe it prophesies of Christ.

When I read the old testament I realize that it has talking snakes, talking burning bushes, mystical beings, and magic just like ALL the other religions at the time, religions that reasonable people today consider nothing more then silly mythological stories and not factual. What rational, logical reason is there for me to honestly consider the god of the bible more likely to exist than Zeus? None.

Islam's prophet alters what Jewish and Christian scripture says to the point where it ceases to be credible to me by comparison. I reject this concept of jihad among other things. Buddhism has no prophet as such and does not even believe in a god. the Buddha himself did not claim to be a god. Similar things could be said about Hinduism. Anyway, these are my evaluations.

Why the fascination with prophets? Since I haven't bought into your religion you will have to explain to me why their claims are so compelling to you.

My concept of souls comes from the wittings of the prophets. Because I find their collective report to be cohesive and coherent, I give what they say credibility concerning souls.

Of course their claims coincide! They all belong to the same religion and have the same beliefs! All that proves is that they belong to the same religion, it has no bearing whatsoever on if their claims are true.

 

[JustWondering]

Soul came from Plato. Are you suggesting Plato didn't use reason?

I'm sure he was talking about the human psyche not an immaterial spirit floating around.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sure he was talking about the human psyche not an immaterial spirit floating around.

Nevertheless, this is where the concept of soul originates. His concept of the human psyche was more akin to our concept of soul as it was eternal.

 

[JustWondering]

Nevertheless, this is where the concept of soul originates. His concept of the human psyche was more akin to our concept of soul as it was eternal.

Today we know the human psyche exists due to the brain, a physical organ. The human brain is not eternal. Hence, our "soul" dies when our physical body dies.

 

[Curious George]

Today we know the human psyche exists due to the brain, a physical organ. The human brain is not eternal. Hence, our "soul" dies when our physical body dies.

Which is fine.

But that is not what I am discussing. I am suggesting that Plato used reason to essentially justify that the soul exists. Something I believe you suggested cannot be done.


Logical arguments are quite enjoyable, but do not necessarily lead to truth. My point is that people can certainly use logic and reason to justify the soul. Assuming they cannot, well that is just not logical.

 

[ether-ore]

Fair enough. I would like to point out that I don't play favorites. While you hold certain prophets as credible when they have the same amount of evidence to back their claims as prophets you do not consider credible, I hold them ALL to the same standards.

Again, how can ANYONE know that souls/spirits exist? You speak as if the "answers" to what happens to souls is what sold you on your current religion correct? However, you also say that the prophets of your current religion sold you on the notion of souls. So according to your own words, the prophets of your religion said souls exist and this and that happens to them and you said "Sold!". However, souls cannot be observed or proven to exist, anyone can say anything about souls, it's not like they can be disproven. So what kind of possible reasoning and logic led you to believe what your prophets said is true? Or is it that you WANT to believe it is true?

What does the number of prophets have to do with anything? If you discovered another religion that had "answers" about souls you didn't LIKE but it had more prophets and "the necessary element of corroboration" would you switch religions?

When I read the old testament I realize that it has talking snakes, talking burning bushes, mystical beings, and magic just like ALL the other religions at the time, religions that reasonable people today consider nothing more then silly mythological stories and not factual. What rational, logical reason is there for me to honestly consider the god of the bible more likely to exist than Zeus? None.

Why the fascination with prophets? Since I haven't bought into your religion you will have to explain to me why their claims are so compelling to you.

Of course their claims coincide! They all belong to the same religion and have the same beliefs! All that proves is that they belong to the same religion, it has no bearing whatsoever on if their claims are true.

We don't 'know' or claim to 'know' concerning souls... we have faith. What we have here is a glass half full versus a glass half empty perspective. It is impossible for me to explain a spiritual confirmation to you. But attempting to use what is available from a reasoning standpoint, multiple prophets agreeing over time and without collusion give credibility (at least for me) to what is being said. I start with the same questions all humans have... why are we here, where do we come from, and what will happen to me when I die? As I receptively meditate on these things, I feel... I sense a level of undefinable comfort and hope. Then, as I read the testimonies of the many and what has been revealed to them concerning the soul in answer to those questions we all have; I get confirmation for the comfort and hope I felt earlier... that I am a child of God. So, yes, I'm sold.

There are many things which are strange and inexplicable in the Bible such as "talking snakes, talking burning bushes, and 'mystical' beings". Since I cannot explain those incidentals, but nonetheless, having found the core message concerning the soul and the atonement to be compelling, I am able to hold those other things in suspense until such time as God sees fit to provide further information (and I believe He will... to those who seek it). What is important in scripture is not all the 'mystical' stuff; it is how we should behave relative to God's laws so that we can have the atonement applied to us if we do indeed and sincerely repent.

As near as I can determine, from reading (to answer your other question), it is the uncorroborated and isolated writings from singular original sources that cause me to reject other creeds. Neither do they provide for me with what I consider reasonable or satisfactory answers to my original questions.

 

[thau]

Let me do some edit to the op. How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of religion X's God of him peforming his miracles?

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach religion X's Holy book? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the religion X's Holy book teaches - law, moral etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of religion X's God and the accuracy of religion X's Holy book and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

A fair question, but not so easy to answer. The OP asked if one was totally convinced this god is God and given all I know or believe about Jesus Christ and Christianity it would take much more than a bevy of miracles and apparitions of some spirit or deity to change my mind about who is God.

I do not even see how it’s possible? (for me)

So given that, I suppose I can understand some Hindu or Muslim not allowing themselves to change their mind about the heavens even if Jesus returns to earth in glory and thunder. They may simply tell themselves it is of the Evil One.

But if Jesus does return in such a manner, I have a feeling God will put it upon men’s hearts some frightening realities along with enthralling ones.