What is your belief in regards to God?

[Rick B]

I'm asking for evidence. Surely, if we HAD reliable evidence for the veracity of the Bible, I would not be asking for it.



But no evidence. Just these boring arguments. Doesn't convince people outside the faith, and apologetics IS NOT EVIDENCE... It's what we get INSTEAD of evidence.



That's what I mean exactly.

That sentence is provided as if it were evidence. What a sad thing. You would need EVIDENCE to prove that there is a "created order" and you don't have it, but you claim it. And you would also need some EVIDENCE for a soul of man ... but you don't give any evidence, you just proclaim that , too. Well, proclaim away but don't pretend to me that you have GIVEN any evidence. You simply have not. Apologetics is messing with your ability to think.



That's good thinking on his part. The ONLY time it's reasonable to believe something is AFTER we have the evidence for it, and not one SECOND before.



How many false assumptions about me can you pack into a single sentence?

I think 7. It's hard to count, really. But you are OH SO WRONG on many counts. Care to provide some EVIDENCE that what you say about me is true? OR would you rather TRUST that you are correct? Because to you, FAITH that you are correct MAKES you right. And to me, that's pathetic.

To each his own. I'd rather deal with reality than fantasy. But go ahead, make things up about me and my beliefs. You don't really care about what is true.



I lost the debate by merely DISAGREEING with you. Wow.. you are such a winner!

No. What's happening here is that you think very poorly and are incredibly closed minded in your views about ... well.. a whole LOT of things. Including your views about what your opponents must be thinking. Wow.. must be nice to be such a mind reader!

Well, in your way of thinking, you won the debate because you claimed victory.
I wonder if OTHERS will agree with you.

I know that I'm a bit underwhelmed by your reasoning here.

It is a sure that a person has lost the debate and knows it when they avoid addressing a coherent proposition refuting their position and they resort to an ad hominem response.

 

[Ingledsva]

The bible is evidence with witnessed accounts in it, you know that; but you will also equally ignore it but still except other history books because you can understand them and can't understand the bible. Is there any point mentioning other evidenced if you can't accept something as simple as that? I doubt it.

Both Tanakh and New Testament - were written from verbal stories long after the supposed events, and perhaps some fragment accounts written along the way, long after the events.

If we accept your book as proof of invisible beings - then we have to accept all religion's books claiming invisible beings, and first hand accounts. Yours is no different to us.

Thus Mithras, and Kali, Dianna, Zeus, Asherah, Baal, etc., would all be real Gods and Goddesses.

The Bible is just another book claiming knowledge of an unknown.

There is no way to actually know these invisible beings exist, - thus it is just belief in their existence.

*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Surely you're not pretending to know that no evidence exists for the existence of God and veracity of the Bible? There has been a long history of evidential apologetics engaging this very issue. It's not the lack of, or according to you the absence of, evidence that's the problem. It's the willful rejection of the evidence given in the created order of that which exists and in the soul of man.

Moreso a determination of what one is willing to accept as compelling evidence. Evidence, in and of itself, can be found for all sorts of things I don't currently believe in.

Even Bertrand Russell, in an honest revelation, when asked how he would reply if he were to die and find himself facing God asking him why he refused to believe, said "not enough evidence."

As if that is surprising. What would you expect an atheist to say? Consider the following Russell quote which is a little more expansive in terms of his approach to religion and god(s);

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Having science as your ultimate authority so that only that which can be observed by the senses and attempting to impose your fallible man-centered standard as that which you admit cannot account for the non-physical realm is an absurd demand for you refuse to accept my ultimate authority (the Bible); a glaring double-standard.

It's actually not. It's more of an agnostic argument that a truly atheistic one, but acknowledgement of our own inability to discern that which is outside our sensory experience is merely admittance of ignorance. Where it gets more interesting is how you can verify that your version of what happens outside those natural bounds are accurate, given your own sensory limitations.

And by attempting to engage in a logical discussion you lose the debate because your worldview, having science as your ultimate standard of truth, cannot account for the non-physical, universally true Law's of logic which Christianity does account for. You are evidencing the truth of Christianity by borrowing the truth explainable by my worldview to refute my worldview. Irrationally inconsistent and so self-refuting.

Christianity is not the only explanation for that which lies outside our own senses, even assuming a hardcore materialist view is wrong. Nor is religion the only mechanism for thinking about, discussing, and guessing what lies beyond.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In terms of voting, I should have said, I have declared myself an atheist. The Bertrand Russell quote I used in my post (above) resonates, so I generally go with agnostic atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Many today claim there is no God. Atheists mock the Bible and it's believers constantly. They think themselves wise because no one can prove God. Well,, the door of probation will soon close. Atheists will be followers of Satan, just like the other Apostates that rejected the love of the truth. The Bible tells us that Satan shall deceive the world thru sorcery, Revelation 18:23. So,,while Atheists mock today,, the time is soon coming when they will change their tune. When they see the miracle working power of Satan, they will immediately discard their former beliefs and attribute the miracle working power displayed as that of God. So,, Atheists are deceived now, and they will be deceived later, all because they refused to believe in the truth. Unbelief,,a terrible thing.

I don't mock Christians, and I have friends who are Christians. If God exists, he understands my brain and my reasoning far better than this parody you seem to believe, and I'll happily wait for his judgement rather than yours.

 

[Thief]

Then you mistakenly believe that anything at all that has a good line of thought is also TRUE.
As long as it makes sense it's true?

Is that how you judge what is true and what is not?

no error that you can point out.....
I'm doing just fine.

 

[Thief]

I'm asking for evidence.

and there won't be any

when it comes to discussion God.....
develop a good line of reasoning and then choose.....

Spirit first?....or substance.

substance does not beget the living

 

[Rick B]

In terms of voting, I should have said, I have declared myself an atheist. The Bertrand Russell quote I used in my post (above) resonates, so I generally go with agnostic atheist.

Well that's interesting, even unique, if not inexplicable. You are asserting to not know if God exists and reject the existence of God at the same time. No wonder you're so confused.

 

[Thief]

I noticed the same thing

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well that's interesting, even unique, if not inexplicable. You are asserting to not know if God exists and reject the existence of God at the same time. No wonder you're so confused.

I'm not confused at all, big fella.
There are lots of things I don't know. At a certain point, it becomes ridiculous to try and shape my ignorance into some sort of form with no apparent evidence.

You really should read the Bertrand quote more carefully. He's quite explicit about being a philosophical agnostic, and the practical outcome of this (atheism, in terms of common parlance).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I noticed the same thing

Then to you I'd point to my post immediately above, and request some sort of extrapolation of your thoughts.

 

[Thief]

Then to you I'd point to my post immediately above, and request some sort of extrapolation of your thoughts.

and you already 'know'....there will be no evidence.

all you Can do is think about God....and then decide....
Spirit first?....or substance?

and substance is not 'self' starting nor does it beget the living

(did you just remove 'agnostic' from your avatar?)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

and you already 'know'....there will be no evidence.

No evidence, no belief. If there is a God(s), I haven't the faintest clue of his/her nature, nor on what form of worship they would prefer. Perhaps they LIKE me using the brain I was so kindly provided to judge the evidence as best I am able.

all you Can do is think about God....and then decide....
Spirit first?....or substance?

Sure, so you always say. That might mean we disagree (since we are obviously at odds on what we decided) but it doesn't at all make my line of thought 'inexplicable'.

and substance is not 'self' starting nor does it beget the living

Which doesn't do a damn thing to tell me what God is like.

 

[Thief]

No evidence, no belief. If there is a God(s), I haven't the faintest clue of his/her nature, nor on what form of worship they would prefer. Perhaps they LIKE me using the brain I was so kindly provided to judge the evidence as best I am able.


Sure, so you always say. That might mean we disagree (since we are obviously at odds on what we decided) but it doesn't at all make my line of thought 'inexplicable'.



Which doesn't do a damn thing to tell me what God is like.

I have no evidence....none required for belief.....see Webster's
all you need is a better line of thought.

Someone had to be First!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have no evidence....none required for belief.....see Webster's
all you need is a better line of thought.

Someone had to be First!

Again, I am fine with you believing whatever you believe. That doesn't make my line of thought 'inexplicable'. Far from it. I was never under the illusion, nor running with an attempt to convert anyone to my way of thinking, but rather to explain it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no evidence....none required for belief.....see Webster's
all you need is a better line of thought.

Someone had to be First!

Surely you have some evidence that has convicted you of your belief in God?

 

[Blastcat]

and there won't be any

when it comes to discussion God.....
develop a good line of reasoning and then choose.....

Oh, it's just a choice. Great. Pick your god. Pick and choose what's real. What a fantasy you live in!
But things that don't leave a trace of evidence are called.. NOT REAL.

Spirit first?....or substance.

substance does not beget the living

Please, you can pretend that there is a spirit.. all you like. You can even pretend that you know what you really don't know.
I was asking if you had any proof that your religious beliefs are true. You don't seem to care about the truth, you pick and choose what you consider true based on.. what.. the roll of a dice?

 

[outhouse]

lol. Believe as you desire.

It is not up for debate. Not one bit of biblical creation took place as written. It was mythology.

The bible is full of mistakes and a literal reading ruins its beauty.

 

[LuisDantas]

As of late, I have come to wonder if even calling myself an atheist isn't giving the god-concept way too much credit.

 

[sunray]

Page 22 Hours and counting

Sometimes it's better to be a Non-believer:
I can easily put myself in a non-believers shoes, and see the logic the reasoning in the fact that there is no God, there's only one dimension, the here and now. I can see the righteousness in the fact that there is no heaven, no Hell, angels are a myth, as are gods, and the Bible is just for kids. I can say, 'right on',and stay Zen or calm, because there are no religions either. All those Churches, Temples, places of prayer, Holy books are nothing to me, as the Spiritual dimension doesn't exist.
That's just, that's reasonable, and that's right too. As in Ps2.4 God sits on His throne and laughs at the nations.
We are all his creations whatever attitude we have. And it is Written in the Bible " I shall call those people, who are not my people, my people. And I shall call My people, those who are not my people". Believers and non-belivers have been equalised.

We all came from the same source, nature, God, Brahma, Shiva, the Frog, call it what you like, be philosophic, but God made everyone equal, or sort of, (He has some favorites, which really do suffer).
Personally, I like a good laugh, humour is next to Godliness or nature or whatever; it's also nice to sit on the throne with God and see it's all a real illusion.
The Potter is not so potty, after all, he makes what is necessary at the time it is necessary, and really doeas love all His works.
That means, 'o' God is Good to us all. So just get out of life what is good as you surely will according to Good's Plan.
So my friends, Have a nice day.

sunray