New Orleans Modern Day version of "Sodom and Gomorrah"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Well explain to me why religious beliefs are held to a smoking gun principle then? How does one know that God does not exist? What of the cures to people that there is no medical explanation for? What about the sites where people have documented miracles taking place? I realize there are debates over how the Bible is translated but did none of those things ever happen?

People come up with many reasons why miracles and visitations and the like do not exist but they cannot prove those reasons. They just chalk them up to being unexplainable because they have to do with God and they can't see God so God cannot exist so there has to be some reason for those things - just one they can't figure out yet.

Yet for science you're willing to accept that. The research and theories produce things they can prove that support their argument that man evolved from ape but they can't say with 100% certainty that it happened that way, can they? But for science like you said, you don't need a smoking gun. I'm asking why do you need a smoking gun then to believe in God?

I'm not trying to disparge science - I don't believe that one day an airplane just magically flew off the ground. I'm only trying to point out that an opposition to religion is that you can't prove it - that things we believe to be miraculous events are just dismissed as odd occurances because there is no readily available scientific explanation for it. Those things are our proof that God exists just the same way as fossils and DNA studies and whatnot are the way a scientist proves evolution. I'm not saying thier studies are invalid and complete rubbish - I just don't see or accept a concrete link between ape and man just the way you don't accept that God created man.

First, apologized for the delayed response. Work and lunch called.

"Well explain to me why religious beliefs are held to a smoking gun principle then? How does one know that Allah/Shiva/Zeus does not exist? What of the cures to people that there is no medical explanation for? What about the sites where people have documented miracles taking place? I realize there are debates over how the Koran/Vedas/Iliad is translated but did none of those things ever happen?"

You see the problem.

There is a huge difference, evidence-wise, between believing in some vague, deistic, "god-of-the-gaps", and believing in a specific religious tradition. I can only speak for myself, but I don't hold religious beliefs to a smoking gun principle. I hold them to the same test I use in evaluating every other claim to knowlegde I encounter in my life: logical conclusions based on observable evidence.

To me, it's not just that there is no "smoking gun" in favor of religious claims, it's that there is no evidence AT ALL in their favor. Saying "goddidit" in these situations is no different from saying "it was magic" (and trust me, after playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was 6 years old, nothing would make me happier. )

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Faith as definied by Websters "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

How can it be more than what it is? Faith is not about being able to prove whether it exists or not. Either you believe in it or you don't. If you do not believe God exists then you don't believe - if you do then you do. If it has to be proven to you then its not faith and even if it was proven to you would that make you believe? If God appeared before you would you believe in God if you didn't already? My guess is not without having the original faith that He exists.

Now see, this is exactly my point, IF god were to actually appear before me I couldn't really deny him now could I? He would be there. As someone quoted eariler, you can't prove something DOESN'T exist. but you certainly can prove if something DOES. If something is there and real, it exists. FAITH on the other hand doesn't allow that proof, it requires blind acceptance of something that cannot BE proven.

That is what I just can't come to grips with in my life. Blind Faith is acceptance of ignorance. Ignorance is not acceptable.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Okay...this is a perfect example of how religion doesn't work. What proof is there that there is a purgatory? We believe it because a man said it was so? Even other Christian religions disagree with this concept. So who's right, or is neither right?

Well to take the side of all these descriptions, as I say above, if there is indeed a God creator of the Universe it would seem necessary that God is greater than the universe, for a something can not create something greater. To look at this from the "God as a person" point of view, if God created the universe as greater than himself, how could he run things? Would be pretty tough. So basically as a human exsisting as a speck of dust in the wind of a universe who's sum doesn't even equal God, would not our brains be incapable of fully understanding the real world of God? Therefore it would seem necessary(edit: or at least understandable) that our understanding of God(edit: even if given by some voice of God) be variable and, well, odd.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The whole concept of being a "believer" I think is the hardest thing for me to understand. I just cannot come to grips with giving up my "free will" to accept something that seems to me, to be so profoundly ludicrous.

Again, I am not trying to insult anyone, I'm seriously trying to understand how and why FAITH can be so powerful. It is based on..nothing, it is founded on words transcribed by men a million times over. Inneffibly falible at that point, let alone the specific intervention and editing done by man over the eons.

I really WANT to understand, to at least have a glimmer of why people would simply brush off what is physically before them, and isntead embrace a philosophy that offers nothing substantial and answers none of the real questions of the world with anything concrete.

Again, not trying to be snippy or anything, I'm sincerely wanting to get a grasp of this FAITH thing.

I think faith is so powerful because its love. Its a love for God. Two people could see a woman - one might think she's ugly, dumb and has stupid interests while the other might think she's the closest thing to perfection on earth. Why? How can you explain how one person can think such a profoundly different thing than another about the same person?

Can you explain love? Can you describe it? If you ask for 100 descriptions you might get 100 different answers. Do some people look at the person in love and think he's an idiot for being with that woman? Sure but to him being with that woman gives him happiness, comfort, security, safety and love. I think having faith is the same thing - its a love for God that gives you those things in your life. Why doesn't everyone have faith then? Why doesn't everyone have love? For some people it just doesn't bring those things so they don't understand why other people can find it so great and so powerful.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I read those posts and I can pretty much agree that they are not in conflict. I apologize if I was unclear. What I'm trying to grasp here is WHY someone should accept one reason for existance instead of the other.

If they're not in conflict, then what do you mean by that?

I'm not going to talk about evolution because I'm not a scientist. For the most part I accept evolution, although I think there is still a lot of controversy in the scientific community as to how it works and how much we know.

Science tells us about the world we live in. On the other hand, God IS the world we live in, and is also OUTSIDE the world we live in. God defies logic, reason, comprehension.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I think faith is so powerful because its love. Its a love for God. Two people could see a woman - one might think she's ugly, dumb and has stupid interests while the other might think she's the closest thing to perfection on earth. Why? How can you explain how one person can think such a profoundly different thing than another about the same person?

Can you explain love? Can you describe it? If you ask for 100 descriptions you might get 100 different answers. Do some people look at the person in love and think he's an idiot for being with that woman? Sure but to him being with that woman gives him happiness, comfort, security, safety and love. I think having faith is the same thing - its a love for God that gives you those things in your life. Why doesn't everyone have faith then? Why doesn't everyone have love? For some people it just doesn't bring those things so they don't understand why other people can find it so great and so powerful.

Please note: I TYPE IN CAPS to stress individual words, not to show emotion here. I am seriously seeking personal understanding of the whole faith thing, so please don't let my own meager attempts to grasp a concept and iterate my own feelings below cause outrage..I'm not aiming to do so.
**********************************************************


Again, LOVE at least has a very REAL focus, how can you LOVE something that isn't real? line up everything you love in a row, add GOD to that row, now how many of those things are real viable items? All but GOD.

How can that be justified? It honestly sounds like a mental illness more than love. There is a part of me that this very idea frightens. To love something you can't touch or see or feel, to LOVE the imaginary, is a definition of Mental distress.

Please, i really am trying to understand this, but whenever an answer comes up it just sounds like believing Merlin is going to conjure a dragon for me. I need more, but I honestly don't know where to find it.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Now see, this is exactly my point, IF god were to actually appear before me I couldn't really deny him now could I? He would be there. As someone quoted eariler, you can't prove something DOESN'T exist. but you certainly can prove if something DOES. If something is there and real, it exists. FAITH on the other hand doesn't allow that proof, it requires blind acceptance of something that cannot BE proven.

That is what I just can't come to grips with in my life. Blind Faith is acceptance of ignorance. Ignorance is not acceptable.

But if you don't accept that God exists how can He appear before you? All that appears before you is someone who says he is God but if you don't believe there is a God then why would you believe him? If you do believe him to be God then it must be you accept the existence of God and that you have faith that God exists.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again, LOVE at least has a very REAL focus, how can you LOVE something that isn't real? line up everything you love in a row, add GOD to that row, now how many of those things are real viable items? All but GOD.

How can that be justified? It honestly sounds like a mental illness more than love. There is a part of me that this very idea frightens. To love something you can't touch or see or feel, to LOVE the imaginary, is a definition of Mental distress.

Please, i really am trying to understand this, but whenever an answer comes up it just sounds like believing Merlin is going to conjure a dragon for me. I need more, but I honestly don't know where to find it.

How about harmony and or existence beyond our known universe? I mean you get down to the big bang and the singularity that lead up to it. Was it just there? How did it get there? Monotheistic Gods are almost always the creator, its easy(not saying its the truth) to believe that all this had to be created. And science can't disprove the notion. Its hard not to love the thing that created you, no? Unless you are self hating of your existence to the infinite level.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If they're not in conflict, then what do you mean by that?

I'm not going to talk about evolution because I'm not a scientist. For the most part I accept evolution, although I think there is still a lot of controversy in the scientific community as to how it works and how much we know.

Science tells us about the world we live in. On the other hand, God IS the world we live in, and is also OUTSIDE the world we live in. God defies logic, reason, comprehension.

You have stated that you don't have a real problem with evolution, but the VAST majority of believers do, that was where my comments were aimed.

I don't accept your last sentence. Nothing is beyond comprehension, humanity may be slow on the uptake, but given time humans come to discrern and even accept and comprehend things quite readily.To say GOD is incomprehensible is a very easy avoidance mechanism to use instead of answering questions or even having an interest in answering them.

I'm a cynic, I truly believe that organized religion as it currently stands is little more than a control system. I won't argue that religious people CAN and DO do many good things, but that is people doing things, not the religion.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

How about harmony and or existence beyond our known universe? I mean you get down to the big bang and the singularity that lead up to it. Was it just there? How did it get there? Monotheistic Gods are almost always the creator, its easy(not saying its the truth) to believe that all this had to be created. And science can't disprove the notion. Its hard not to love the thing that created you, no? Unless you are self hating of your existence to the infinite level.

Why is there a requirement to love that wich created you? I can understand and accept such creation, that does not require love. It simply IS. There is nothing emotionally required of that.

I am certainly open to a universe that WAS created by a "god", I can accept perhaps that something or someone triggered the BIG BANG and the universe has moved on since then. I find it rather rediculous that in a universe so UNDENIABLY vast that such a figure would dain to spend his time on the third rock from the sun. its this arrogance that pushes me away from religion as a whole. or one of the things at least. The hypocrasy is another. but thats for another discussion.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But if you don't accept that God exists how can He appear before you? All that appears before you is someone who says he is God but if you don't believe there is a God then why would you believe him? If you do believe him to be God then it must be you accept the existence of God and that you have faith that God exists.

He must present to me two forms of picture I.D. and a water or electric bill with his home mailing address on it. Then he can get a membership card....er, I will believe him.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I don't accept your last sentence. Nothing is beyond comprehension, humanity may be slow on the uptake, but given time humans come to discrern and even accept and comprehend things quite readily.

Well, that is our divide then. I accept that there is that that I will never be able to comprehend (starting with my checkbook); you refuse to accept that.

I see God in all things.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But if you don't accept that God exists how can He appear before you? All that appears before you is someone who says he is God but if you don't believe there is a God then why would you believe him? If you do believe him to be God then it must be you accept the existence of God and that you have faith that God exists.

That whole post makes no sense, you're requiring belief PRIOR to physical viewing, thats not realistic in any sense.

If GOD is real he CAN appear before me, it requires no belief on my part for that to happen, if he is in FACT a real being he can appear before anyone he wishes, be they believer or not. He can also offer enough to convince someone that he IS in fact GOD. This is an assumption I made when I say "If he appeared" If he exists, and he is all powerful as FAITH persistantly suggests, he would have no trouble connvincing me of his reality.

You're argument here is faulty.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again, LOVE at least has a very REAL focus, how can you LOVE something that isn't real? line up everything you love in a row, add GOD to that row, now how many of those things are real viable items? All but GOD.

How can that be justified? It honestly sounds like a mental illness more than love. There is a part of me that this very idea frightens. To love something you can't touch or see or feel, to LOVE the imaginary, is a definition of Mental distress.

Please, i really am trying to understand this, but whenever an answer comes up it just sounds like believing Merlin is going to conjure a dragon for me. I need more, but I honestly don't know where to find it.

If your wife dies do you stop loving her? You can't line her up in a row anymore - she's not a real viable item - she's physically gone from the Earth. After she is dead your wife no longer exists in the physical world yet you can still love her. You can no longer touch, see or feel her but you can still love her. Is the only reason you love her because you can prove she existed? Other women exist - do you love them and not your wife cause she no longer exists?

Love is a feeling - you can't bottle it and sell it the same as faith is a feeling. If you love something or someone you feel a special way about it - a way other people do not. Some people may not be able to comprehend how you can love something or someone. Some people may say love doesn't exist - does it? Can you prove that love really exists or is there just some chemical reaction in your body to certain items or people? If its just a chemical reaction then its not love - its a chemical reaction. If love is just a chemical reaction then maybe love doesn't exist. But lots of people say they have love. You could show them tests that try to prove love is just a series of chemical reactions but they may not believe you because they feel those reactions are caused by love - not by your body.

I hope you get what Im getting at - how can you define something like that? If I believe to be in love am I? What if there aren't enough reactions in my body to really be "in love" does that mean I'm not in love even though I think I am? If I think I am aren't I in love regardless of whether I am or not? "I think therefore I am", right? If I think God exists then He does - if you don't think so he doesn't. If I think I love a woman then I do - if you don't think you love a woman then you don't, right?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, that is our divide then. I accept that there is that that I will never be able to comprehend (starting with my checkbook); you refuse to accept that.

I see God in all things.

Doesn't that seem a bit limiting to you? you accept that you cannot go beyond your current limitations? It is my belief that humanity can and will overcome its obstacles and shortcomings (as evidenced by our continued existance and survival) that gives me the thing we all need to survive...Hope.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

If your wife dies do you stop loving her? You can't line her up in a row anymore - she's not a real viable item - she's physically gone from the Earth. After she is dead your wife no longer exists in the physical world yet you can still love her. You can no longer touch, see or feel her but you can still love her. Is the only reason you love her because you can prove she existed? Other women exist - do you love them and not your wife cause she no longer exists?

Love is a feeling - you can't bottle it and sell it the same as faith is a feeling. If you love something or someone you feel a special way about it - a way other people do not. Some people may not be able to comprehend how you can love something or someone. Some people may say love doesn't exist - does it? Can you prove that love really exists or is there just some chemical reaction in your body to certain items or people? If its just a chemical reaction then its not love - its a chemical reaction. If love is just a chemical reaction then maybe love doesn't exist. But lots of people say they have love. You could show them tests that try to prove love is just a series of chemical reactions but they may not believe you because they feel those reactions are caused by love - not by your body.

I hope you get what Im getting at - how can you define something like that? If I believe to be in love am I? What if there aren't enough reactions in my body to really be "in love" does that mean I'm not in love even though I think I am? If I think I am aren't I in love regardless of whether I am or not? "I think therefore I am", right? If I think God exists then He does - if you don't think so he doesn't. If I think I love a woman then I do - if you don't think you love a woman then you don't, right?

Again you are using a fallacy in your argument, If my wife dies, she is still there, her body lies within the coffin that we bury her in. in time she may degrade to a pile of dust, yet that dust is still VERY real and viable.

Again, you can't prove something DOESN'T exist, but I sure can prove what DOES, my dead wife certainly DOES exist, does GOD?

this is where I come up short of being able to understand the "love of God" thing, God in not a real and viable thing, GOD is a concept a "dream of what some wish him to be" so to speak, and as such he is imaginary. And loving the imaginary doesn't seem healthy to me.

love is indeed a feeling, I'm not arguing what love is, I'm saying you can't LOVE something that doesn't exist. If someday we can prove that GOD exists, I'll be completely able to accept the "love of GOD"

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Doesn't that seem a bit limiting to you? you accept that you cannot go beyond your current limitations? It is my belief that humanity can and will overcome its obstacles and shortcomings (as evidenced by our continued existance and survival) that gives me the thing we all need to survive...Hope.

Well, accepting one's limitations is an important part of maximizing one's potential. This is not a theological argument; this is a common sense philosophy that even applies to, for example, playing FOF.

One area where I differ from most Christians is in their essentially pessimistic view of human nature; I think not enough is made of the fact that we reflect and embody the divine spark. But this is a tangential argument that perhaps doesn't interest you.

I certainly am very optimistic about mankind. I think we are kinder to one another than we were 100 years ago; I think in 100 years we will be that much kinder. I think in the same way that we can engineer computers to be smarter and smarter, we will soon be able to engineer our own brains to be smarter and smarter.

But God exists, not just *in* the world we live in, but *outside* the world we live in. That is an obstacle we just can't conquer.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But God exists, not just *in* the world we live in, but *outside* the world we live in. That is an obstacle we just can't conquer.

How do you KNOW this. Its obviously not something you can PROVE, so..To accept something you don't have a valid and reliable reasonging for rings of training and manipulation. Can you explain to me WHY you believe this statement you just made?

*thank you all for keeping up with this with me, its very helpful to get the responses*

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

That whole post makes no sense, you're requiring belief PRIOR to physical viewing, thats not realistic in any sense.

EXACTLY!!!

That's where faith comes in. You have to believe in God's existence. If you don't then how can you believe God is appearing to you if you don't believe He exists?

Originally Posted by RendeR

If GOD is real he CAN appear before me, it requires no belief on my part for that to happen, if he is in FACT a real being he can appear before anyone he wishes, be they believer or not. He can also offer enough to convince someone that he IS in fact GOD. This is an assumption I made when I say "If he appeared" If he exists, and he is all powerful as FAITH persistantly suggests, he would have no trouble connvincing me of his reality.

You're argument here is faulty.

But my argument isn't faulty. God CAN appear before you if He chooses to do so. But if you don't believe God exists then what appears before you is just a being claiming to be God. If God were to appear before you in human form and tell you that He is God would you believe Him? What if He performed a miracle in your presence as proof? Would you believe that God existed then?

If the above is yes then does that mean that all it takes for someone who doesn't believe in God is for someone to come up to them, say they are God and perform some act that they cannot understand how it was done and they will believe that God exists? What if it was just some very talented magician who did a magic trick? Would you require a greater feat like the flooding of a city? What if this being told you New Orleans would be flooded? Would you now believe God exists or would you say that a certain combination of forces in nature combined to cause the flood or would you say that people have predicted for years that New Orleans could flood?

My point is this - if you don't believe God exists then how could He possibly prove it to you? You would find other explanations for things. The only way God can exist is if you have FAITH that He does. You have to accept His existence before you are able to contend that God is appearing to you. Tricky, isn't it?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

How do you KNOW this. Its obviously not something you can PROVE, so..To accept something you don't have a valid and reliable reasonging for rings of training and manipulation. Can you explain to me WHY you believe this statement you just made?

*thank you all for keeping up with this with me, its very helpful to get the responses*

Because God is the primary cause OF the world, and is therefore OUTSIDE it; the world can't cause itself to happen.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

EXACTLY!!!

That's where faith comes in. You have to believe in God's existence. If you don't then how can you believe God is appearing to you if you don't believe He exists?



But my argument isn't faulty. God CAN appear before you if He chooses to do so. But if you don't believe God exists then what appears before you is just a being claiming to be God. If God were to appear before you in human form and tell you that He is God would you believe Him? What if He performed a miracle in your presence as proof? Would you believe that God existed then?

If the above is yes then does that mean that all it takes for someone who doesn't believe in God is for someone to come up to them, say they are God and perform some act that they cannot understand how it was done and they will believe that God exists? What if it was just some very talented magician who did a magic trick? Would you require a greater feat like the flooding of a city? What if this being told you New Orleans would be flooded? Would you now believe God exists or would you say that a certain combination of forces in nature combined to cause the flood or would you say that people have predicted for years that New Orleans could flood?

My point is this - if you don't believe God exists then how could He possibly prove it to you? You would find other explanations for things. The only way God can exist is if you have FAITH that He does. You have to accept His existence before you are able to contend that God is appearing to you. Tricky, isn't it?

As I said in the post, if he were real and did appear there is the assumption that he would have convincing evidence of his identity. So no prior belief is needed there.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Because God is the primary cause OF the world, and is therefore OUTSIDE it; the world can't cause itself to happen.

you just restated your belief, I want to know WHY you believe it. What reasoning brought you to that belief?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

you just restated your belief, I want to know WHY you believe it. What reasoning brought you to that belief?

You're looking at it backwards, I think.

There is a primary cause of the world (unless you deny that); that primary cause is what I call God.

[Subby]

Just an aside - interesting how this thread has smoothed out since a certain event took place...

Curious.

[rkmsuf]

This thread needs more David Lee Roth.

Or Travolta.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But my argument isn't faulty. God CAN appear before you if He chooses to do so. But if you don't believe God exists then what appears before you is just a being claiming to be God. If God were to appear before you in human form and tell you that He is God would you believe Him? What if He performed a miracle in your presence as proof? Would you believe that God existed then?

If the above is yes then does that mean that all it takes for someone who doesn't believe in God is for someone to come up to them, say they are God and perform some act that they cannot understand how it was done and they will believe that God exists? What if it was just some very talented magician who did a magic trick? Would you require a greater feat like the flooding of a city? What if this being told you New Orleans would be flooded? Would you now believe God exists or would you say that a certain combination of forces in nature combined to cause the flood or would you say that people have predicted for years that New Orleans could flood?

After reading this two paragraphs I just couldn't get the line from Star Trek V out of my head. "What does God... need with a starship?"

Man did that movie suck.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

My point is this - if you don't believe God exists then how could He possibly prove it to you? You would find other explanations for things. The only way God can exist is if you have FAITH that He does. You have to accept His existence before you are able to contend that God is appearing to you. Tricky, isn't it?

I don't think it's that tricky. Perhaps I am not as much of a skeptic as some, but I seriously believe that it could be proven to me that god exists. Heck, as I have hinted at earlier, part of me sort of wants to believe. Not because I feel any sort of empitness in my life or feel as if something's been missing since I stopped believing in god (it's actually been quite the contrary), but simply because I think it'd be kinda cool if such a being did exist. It opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

As for what sort of proof would it take? Hard to say. I think it'd be a situation of observable evidence meets faith I suppose.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There is a primary cause of the world (unless you deny that); that primary cause is what I call God.

In my judgment, this phrasing (and well done, I'd add, st.cronin) is the sort of thinking that has the potential to find some general common ground between the state believers and non-believers in such a discussion.

There are quite a lot of non-believers out there who basically and irretreivably reject the Sistine Chapel verion of God -- flowing white beard, sitting on a cloud, created-us-in-His-image and so forth. However, once you get past the notion that this whole "God" thing has to be an actual personification -- and might instead have a form that is more ethereal, or even incorporeal, then you might get closer to finding that you're not all that far away from some agnostics out there.

I know a fair number of people who have "lost faith" but are still open to the idea that there are powers or forces beyond our understanding (either current or even potential), and that perhaps those things are themselves what some people call God.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again you are using a fallacy in your argument, If my wife dies, she is still there, her body lies within the coffin that we bury her in. in time she may degrade to a pile of dust, yet that dust is still VERY real and viable.

this is where I come up short of being able to understand the "love of God" thing, God in not a real and viable thing, GOD is a concept a "dream of what some wish him to be" so to speak, and as such he is imaginary. And loving the imaginary doesn't seem healthy to me.

love is indeed a feeling, I'm not arguing what love is, I'm saying you can't LOVE something that doesn't exist.

So who/what do you love? Do you love your wife or do you love a pile of dust? The remains of your wife physically exist on the earth but do you love the soul and spirit of your wife, all the good times you had together, the happiness you shared - or do you love a pile of dust? Is that what love is? A reaction to an object? Would you feel happiness thinking back to your wedding or looking at a pile of dust? I can look at your pile of dust and think "wow its a pile of dust" whereas you would think about the love you shared with the woman who's physical presence has turned into that pile of dust. Don't you think I should think it a bit strange that you love a pile of dust? But you don't love the pile of dust - you love the woman and the things that made her who she was - those things continue to exist to you even though nobody can see or touch them.

Your wife's spirit and soul would not physically exist in this world nor would your memories yet you could love her just the same - or do you love a pile of dust? And what would happen if that pile of dust ceased to exist? Would you have to stop loving your wife because there are no physical remains of her on the earth?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In my judgment, this phrasing (and well done, I'd add, st.cronin) is the sort of thinking that has the potential to find some general common ground between the state believers and non-believers in such a discussion.

There are quite a lot of non-believers out there who basically and irretreivably reject the Sistine Chapel verion of God -- flowing white beard, sitting on a cloud, created-us-in-His-image and so forth. However, once you get past the notion that this whole "God" thing has to be an actual personification -- and might instead have a form that is more ethereal, or even incorporeal, then you might get closer to finding that you're not all that far away from some agnostics out there.

I know a fair number of people who have "lost faith" but are still open to the idea that there are powers or forces beyond our understanding (either current or even potential), and that perhaps those things are themselves what some people call God.

EXACTLY! The anthropomorphic God is ludicrous and preposterous. To imagine that God thinks as we do is equally ludicrous - God is both before and beyond thought. God is what makes your thought thought.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

This thread needs more David Lee Roth.

Or Travolta.

How about some new imposing, black unis?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

How about some new imposing, black unis?

The guy with his hands up in the back looks like he's going to swoop in and squeeze Farve's ass with all his might.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by RendeR

you just restated your belief, I want to know WHY you believe it. What reasoning brought you to that belief?

I am not a scripture expert where I can bust out verses (and really I think that annoys people more than anything), but...

There is a verse that says something to the effect of... If you come to me (me being God) with a sincere heart and a desire to know and understand, it will be revealed to you.

I think I'm like many here in that I was brought up in a particular church and questioned and reasoned everything away. I even went as far as convincing my parents that if I took some classes on religion and investigated outside of their faith, I'd no longer have to attend their church. I went a long time without participating in any type of church or believing in God or Jesus Christ.

A few years ago I started reading scriptures again and I wanted to know for sure and came across the passage I mentioned above (again, I could look it up if you want). I asked and I know that I received an answer in my heart. I have never been more sure in my life that God does exist. I know I cant prove it to you anymore than you can prove that you love your family. Thats my personal relationship with God.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I am not a scripture expert where I can bust out verses (and really I think that annoys people more than anything), but...

There is a verse that says something to the effect of... If you come to me (me being God) with a sincere heart and a desire to know and understand, it will be revealed to you.

I think I'm like many here in that I was brought up in a particular church and questioned and reasoned everything away. I even went as far as convincing my parents that if I took some classes on religion and investigated outside of their faith, I'd no longer have to attend their church. I went a long time without participating in any type of church or believing in God or Jesus Christ.

A few years ago I started reading scriptures again and I wanted to know for sure and came across the passage I mentioned above (again, I could look it up if you want). I asked and I know that I received an answer in my heart. I have never been more sure in my life that God does exist. I know I cant prove it to you anymore than you can prove that you love your family. Thats my personal relationship with God.

This could have been written by me. Nicely put, heybrad. Enjoyable discussion the past couple of pages. I'm still trying to catch up.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Perhaps I am not as much of a skeptic as some, but I seriously believe that it could be proven to me that god exists. Heck, as I have hinted at earlier, part of me sort of wants to believe. Not because I feel any sort of empitness in my life or feel as if something's been missing since I stopped believing in god (it's actually been quite the contrary), but simply because I think it'd be kinda cool if such a being did exist. It opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

As for what sort of proof would it take? Hard to say. I think it'd be a situation of observable evidence meets faith I suppose.

So you need to witness first-hand something with no possible explanation other than God (like the Lions winning the Super Bowl ) ? But would you believe even then? I guess that's hard for me to imagine looking at it that way because it defeats the purpose of faith. If a fat man in a red suit came down your chimney with toys and reindeer on the roof on Christmas Eve would you believe that Santa Claus exists? I would suspect you would think the guy is some nut breaking into your house and call the cops because you don't believe Santa exists.

You could witness a miracle before your eyes and attribute it to something else (science, medicine, nature...). Unless you believe that God exists you would have no reason to attribute that observable evidence to Him.

Take my cancer patient example from earlier - lets say its someone you know and friends and family are praying every day for what looks like to be a bleak situation. The patient is undergoing treatment and the cancer goes into remission and disappears - well? Who do you give thanks to? The doctor for treating the cancer? Do you thank God for His help? Did God help? Do you believe He helped? I would thank God and certainly the doctor for his efforts but I would attribute the cure to God. Someone with no faith will think that's ludicrious but those with faith understand. Unless you want God to exist and be part of your life He won't because even if He did you are likely not to recognize and attribute anything to Him.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Because God is the primary cause OF the world, and is therefore OUTSIDE it; the world can't cause itself to happen.

But then what caused God? And if there can be a god who just IS and has no cause, then why couldn't there be a world that just IS and has no cause?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just an aside - interesting how this thread has smoothed out since a certain event took place...

Curious.

It's taken every ounce of willpower to keep it that way.

My point of view is being lifted straight out of mind from others, they are just much more patient than I am while expressing it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

So who/what do you love? Do you love your wife or do you love a pile of dust? The remains of your wife physically exist on the earth but do you love the soul and spirit of your wife, all the good times you had together, the happiness you shared - or do you love a pile of dust? Is that what love is? A reaction to an object? Would you feel happiness thinking back to your wedding or looking at a pile of dust? I can look at your pile of dust and think "wow its a pile of dust" whereas you would think about the love you shared with the woman who's physical presence has turned into that pile of dust. Don't you think I should think it a bit strange that you love a pile of dust? But you don't love the pile of dust - you love the woman and the things that made her who she was - those things continue to exist to you even though nobody can see or touch them.

Your wife's spirit and soul would not physically exist in this world nor would your memories yet you could love her just the same - or do you love a pile of dust? And what would happen if that pile of dust ceased to exist? Would you have to stop loving your wife because there are no physical remains of her on the earth?

Love may compare to faith, as they are both emotions. But love of a tangible person does not compare to faith in an intangible god.

Death does not erase memory of tangible events. Therefore love can exist, quite rationally in a godless schema, postmortem.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by RendeR

As I said in the post, if he were real and did appear there is the assumption that he would have convincing evidence of his identity. So no prior belief is needed there.

I appreciate your willingness to bring these ideas to the table. I asked this question a few pages back and HB did alright in addressing it, but I'm still not sold on his answer.

Why do we privilege tangible, physical evidence when the assumption that this is the only kind of evidence that counts cannot be tested through tangible, physical evidence? Can someone work through a logical chain of reasoning using tangible, physical evidence to prove that the only evidence of truth is what is tangible and physical? It seems people get hung up on the idea that if science can't explain the existence of something through physical evidence, then it cannot be true. But I'm still trying to figure out how science can justify itself using this criterion.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Telle

But then what caused God? And if there can be a god who just IS and has no cause, then why couldn't there be a world that just IS and has no cause?

The world around is is clearly governed by causality (hence, the need and use for SCIENCE ); the primary cause, having no cause itself, must then be fundamentally different from the world we observe, and therefore UNKOWABLE by science.

I think I have addressed your point; also keep in mind I speak for no church and nobody but myself.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I know that springs the inevitable question "what kind of God allows suffering and possibly death just so that you will pray to Him" and that's fine it people want to see it that way and some people can't get a handle on why they should worship a supreme being and that's fine too. I don't expect everyone to understand that. But if you look back to stories in the Bible, Jesus didn't walk around going door to door asking if anyone needed healing. People came to Him and asked to be healed. The point is that I believe you have to make God important and you have to keep God as the center of your life. God is not just there when its convienient for you or when you need something and sometimes He sends a reminder that you're forgetting about Him.

I think this starts to cross a line where non-believers would say, "this is just too convoluted a rule system."

At this point, you can't have it both ways. Either your God works in mysterious ways and prayer is irrelevant. Or your God answers prayer, and if he helps a non-believer instead of your son, you have a right to question that belief.

In many ways, it's far less painful to be an atheist. I don't question the motivation of hurricanes, I just want to get out of the damned way, so to speak.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The world around is is clearly governed by causality (hence, the need and use for SCIENCE ); the primary cause, having no cause itself, must then be fundamentally different from the world we observe, and therefore UNKOWABLE by science.

I think I have addressed your point; also keep in mind I speak for no church and nobody but myself.

I once read a book that really went in detail about this ("God and the New Physics"), but I cannot for the life of me recall what it said to refute this argument of yours...

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I appreciate your willingness to bring these ideas to the table. I asked this question a few pages back and HB did alright in addressing it, but I'm still not sold on his answer.

Why do we privilege tangible, physical evidence when the assumption that this is the only kind of evidence that counts cannot be tested through tangible, physical evidence? Can someone work through a logical chain of reasoning using tangible, physical evidence to prove that the only evidence of truth is what is tangible and physical? It seems people get hung up on the idea that if science can't explain the existence of something through physical evidence, then it cannot be true. But I'm still trying to figure out how science can justify itself using this criterion.

I think this relates back to the Fiath or Science debate earlier on, its not so much that the ONLY way to prove something is through science, but that using science we can build a superior case for defining our universe than FAITH can ever attempt to offer. So when people look at both options and want to follow one or the other, Science at least has supporting evidence to correlate its position, Faith does not, it brings nothing but a requirement that you trust what you are told. Therein lies one of my biggest problems. I can't trust people's word, because people lie, people cheat, and people take advantage of others. So weighing the two sides I am forced to go with the mundane rather than the ordained.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Atheism, by my definition at least, is the rejection of theism.

A - theism. The prefix A- means "lack". Lack of theism doesn't mean rejection.

What you are descirbing are people who are called "Strong Atheists". They reject the idea that dieties exist. "God does not exist"

Then there are "Weak Atheists", which is what Jim and I are. "I do not beleive in God". But that doesn't mean we beleive God doesn't exist.

The modern definition for agnostism is someone who is not sure if God exists or not (essentially a weak atheist). I don't even know how it came to be defined as that, but that really wasn't the original definition of agnostism. It originally meant beleiving the true nature of God could not be known.

But, as I said, the term has (like many other words over time) gone through redefinition through modern use and now basically means a Weak Atheist. A lot of people who are weak atheist call themselves agnostic mainly because most people think of Strong Atheism when they think of the word "atheist".

And then there are people who are agnostic that are really close to beleiving in God, but just need one final push to fully beleive (for whatever reason, when I think agnostic, I think of those people, not people who are "fully" weak atheist)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

The guy with his hands up in the back looks like he's going to swoop in and squeeze Farve's ass with all his might.

And could you blame him if he did? I mean, it's Brett Farve!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think this relates back to the Fiath or Science debate earlier on, its not so much that the ONLY way to prove something is through science, but that using science we can build a superior case for defining our universe than FAITH can ever attempt to offer. So when people look at both options and want to follow one or the other, Science at least has supporting evidence to correlate its position, Faith does not, it brings nothing but a requirement that you trust what you are told. Therein lies one of my biggest problems. I can't trust people's word, because people lie, people cheat, and people take advantage of others. So weighing the two sides I am forced to go with the mundane rather than the ordained.

That's not the kind of faith believers are talking about.

It's faith that your life has a purpose. Faith that you are cared for. Faith that you don't have to be afraid.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's not the kind of faith believers are talking about.

It's faith that your life has a purpose. Faith that you are cared for. Faith that you don't have to be afraid.

Really...see I BELIEVE that all those things are part of what you must find as an individual in this life, in society, to be happy. Persuit of happiness, life, love, liberty, security. These are all tangible things that one works for in life.

You mean I can just believe in GOD and *pift* I get all that?


*sorry, not trying to be snarky there, just typed up that way*

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sabotai

A - theism. The prefix A- means "lack". Lack of theism doesn't mean rejection.

What you are descirbing are people who are called "Strong Atheists". They reject the idea that dieties exist. "God does not exist"

Then there are "Weak Atheists", which is what Jim and I are. "I do not beleive in God". But that doesn't mean we beleive God doesn't exist.

The modern definition for agnostism is someone who is not sure if God exists or not (essentially a weak atheist). I don't even know how it came to be defined as that, but that really wasn't the original definition of agnostism. It originally meant beleiving the true nature of God could not be known.

But, as I said, the term has (like many other words over time) gone through redefinition through modern use and now basically means a Weak Atheist. A lot of people who are weak atheist call themselves agnostic mainly because most people think of Strong Atheism when they think of the word "atheist".

And then there are people who are agnostic that are really close to beleiving in God, but just need one final push to fully beleive (for whatever reason, when I think agnostic, I think of those people, not people who are "fully" weak atheist)

Sab, thanks for bringing up that distinction. Been meaning to get to it for a few pages now, just haven't had the time. Good explanation too. I also consider myself a weak athiest, which is why I think I could certainly believe in God if there was proof of his existence.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

The guy with his hands up in the back looks like he's going to swoop in and squeeze Farve's ass with all his might.

Speaking of Favre and an "ass"....

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Speaking of Favre and an "ass"....

I knew there was hanky panky going on up at Ford Field.

Now that's a double team!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Then there are "Weak Atheists", which is what Jim and I are. "I do not beleive in God". But that doesn't mean we beleive God doesn't exist.

No, I quite firmly believe God doesn't exist. I'm most definitely a strong atheist.

I accept that there's a difference between belief and fact. You can't prove the God concept false any more than you can prove that invisible dragons don't live in my neighbor's garage.