(August 12, 2014 at 9:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yeah that last part is a huge problem I have with a lot of theologian's attempts at explaining God. Apparently if he gave us undeniable evidence of his existence, we would no longer need faith because we would have evidence...which is somehow bad? But, if you speak to theists, many will say they do have incontrovertible and undeniable evidence of God, either through looking at creation or through a personal experience. So..apparently they get to have the revelation that cannot be denied, but I can't?

Also, I don't know why God changed his policy on revealing himself to us, since the number of miracles and godly acts in the Bible is so high. Maybe he just got tired.

The primary problem you are having is that you use terms like evidence and miracle, and default to fiction to give you your definitions.

For example what does undeniable evidence of God look like in this world?

Define what a miracle is.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 9:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yeah that last part is a huge problem I have with a lot of theologian's attempts at explaining God. Apparently if he gave us undeniable evidence of his existence, we would no longer need faith because we would have evidence...which is somehow bad? But, if you speak to theists, many will say they do have incontrovertible and undeniable evidence of God, either through looking at creation or through a personal experience. So..apparently they get to have the revelation that cannot be denied, but I can't?

Also, I don't know why God changed his policy on revealing himself to us, since the number of miracles and godly acts in the Bible is so high. Maybe he just got tired.

I agree there is a huge problem in what you have pointed out. However I do not agree to the source of said problem.

Define miracle and out line what indisputable evidence of God looks like.

(August 13, 2014 at 8:35 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 12, 2014 at 9:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yeah that last part is a huge problem I have with a lot of theologian's attempts at explaining God. Apparently if he gave us undeniable evidence of his existence, we would no longer need faith because we would have evidence...which is somehow bad? But, if you speak to theists, many will say they do have incontrovertible and undeniable evidence of God, either through looking at creation or through a personal experience. So..apparently they get to have the revelation that cannot be denied, but I can't?

Also, I don't know why God changed his policy on revealing himself to us, since the number of miracles and godly acts in the Bible is so high. Maybe he just got tired.

The primary problem you are having is that you use terms like evidence and miracle, and default to fiction to give you your definitions.

For example what does undeniable evidence of God look like in this world?

Define what a miracle is.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 9:52 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yeah that last part is a huge problem I have with a lot of theologian's attempts at explaining God. Apparently if he gave us undeniable evidence of his existence, we would no longer need faith because we would have evidence...which is somehow bad? But, if you speak to theists, many will say they do have incontrovertible and undeniable evidence of God, either through looking at creation or through a personal experience. So..apparently they get to have the revelation that cannot be denied, but I can't?

Also, I don't know why God changed his policy on revealing himself to us, since the number of miracles and godly acts in the Bible is so high. Maybe he just got tired.

I agree there is a huge problem in what you have pointed out. However I do not agree to the source of said problem.

Define miracle and out line what indisputable evidence of God looks like.

Hah, not my problem man. It's the Christians that say they have indisputable evidence or revelation of God through his miracles, not me. I'm just making the point that apprently they have had experiences that make it impossible for them not to believe in God, which blows free will out of the water.

(August 12, 2014 at 10:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 11:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Why can't God confirm He exists *and* teach us about his true self? I mean, c'mon.. the atheist made it this far already by choosing to humble themselves and sincerely search for God. Is God really going to be that tight and still refuse the atheist a chance at being saved based on a technicality?

It makes more sense for God to not exist, than for this benevolent being with a will to be in relationship with us to continually deny us the knowledge of his existence unless the planets align, and we are in this perfect state of mind while knowing precisely the nature of God such that our view of Him isn't flawed.

We're only human, after all.

Bump

Their is only one of me and many of you. I am about 4 pages behind. I answer all posts in order.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 10:04 am)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(August 12, 2014 at 8:53 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I asked him to clear this up pages ago. No answer.

Edit: got ninjaad there. Please disregard.

And edit 2:
Read his answer. I'd say he is being deliberately obtuse.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 9:51 am)Drich Wrote: So.. You can't provide the collaborating evidence I asked for to support your "quote" of what I said? Rather you moved to a red herring tactic to try and take the spotlight of your intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry sport it's not going to be that easy. The reason you will not be able to support your quote is because you are not quoting anything I would actually say In The context you were using it. Where you failed was that you were representing a general understanding of Christianity, and assuming I would agree.

I don't, therefore your efforts can be labeled at best inaccurate/creator of straw men in your initial post, but your follow up work and this red herring tactic escalates you to the level of intellectually dishonest.

What does it say about your character if you have to resort to intellectual dishonesty to 'win' a foolish argument?

I didn't realise admitting I may have misunderstood and asking what you do mean qualifies as a 'red herring' and 'intellectual dishonesty'.

see above post

---

(August 12, 2014 at 10:28 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This is why I said why can't he reveal himself and also teach us about his *true* self? It's like me saying my friend exists, and you say 'oh, your friend John?' and then my friend speaks for himself and says 'my name is actually Bob'.

Simple.

What road blocks do you experience teaching a YEC about evolution?
Typically if a 'truth' seemingly conflicts with what the bible says or does not say then for the devoute this is a sign of the devil trying to trick them.

If the Devil is real by evidence of this misidentified trickery, then that would mean their version of God is also real.

As it is, God has us come to terms with our false versions and abandon them on our own, and if we are to simply to keep seeking/knocking we will find Him.

simpler.

Quote:I remember you stating that the 'true' Christian teaching is that God is merely benevolent and not quite in the ranks of omnibenevolence. Therefore I'm stating back the things that you believe in my argument, so as to be on the same page with you.

But, the truth is. 'Benevolence' is and will always be a matter of perspective.

Quote:Yes, we have to humble ourselves, I get that. And that is where my argument began; some atheists do indeed humble themselves and so.. etc etc.
Read my post again perhaps.

P.s. Hi Drich!

And when they do they get their prayers answered. In that they have their faith taken from them by the trials of life.

Again, all of this is outlined in scripture in the very teachings of Christ. We are all told these parables and meanings in sunday school. Across the board in all forms of Christianity a parable of Christ is generally left as it reads, as Christ Himself gives them explaination.

If said atheist turns from God completely because the faith of his fathers will not work for him, then that shows a distinct lack of Humility.

Also good to see you chime in.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 10:58 am)KUSA Wrote: If someone had a false (XYZ) view of me I would want to reveal the true (123) view of myself to them and clear the confusion up. I certainly would not avoid them hoping that one day they would have a 123 epiphany of me. That would be retarded.

There are literally billions of views of god. I would think he would want to clear the air up some but it doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because God is imaginary.

If some one has a False XYZ it is because that particular XYZ is what they want inorder to live their life.

You were a Christian right? You had a false XYZ, what did you do with once you identified as false? Did you continue to live your life under XYZ? Or, did you move on to another XYZ? Are you happy with what you have now? Or do you still seek God?

This life is not about being confronted with the known Glory of God. This life is a prooving ground. We have been given this short time span to proove to our selves where our Hearts truly lie. If they yern for God will will A/S/K until we find what our hearts want. If not our hearts will find what ever it is looking for, so that we may know that God's judgement is just once it is pronounced.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:01 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Drich, are you God? You sure do speak for him a lot.

I speak where the Spirit gives me utterance. (A Spiritual Gift) If at any point any of you want BCV to back up what i have said simply ask for it.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:15 am)Chuck Wrote: What is the point of describing god by analogy when you can't demonstrate god exists, much less you have any reliable means of determining what god's attributes are?

Making a lie more vivid does not make it any more convincing.

Proof of God is offered to all of use. i can not provide it because God is not something i own. However said proof in the Way of God Himself is offered, and in that i can offer to show you what steps you must take to take God up on his offer.

The analogies are to simplify this process and understanding.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:20 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(August 12, 2014 at 9:22 am)Drich Wrote: God is not asking you to believe out of a vacuum. As with what I told to us in my last post. Apart of the reason you met silence is because God is not in the business of supporting a corrupt view of Himself. Meaning if you believe God is supposed to be XYZ, and He is Really 123, then by showing Himself to you while you hold an XYZ system of belief supports an inaccurate version of Him that will have you support this corrupt version rather than God Himself.

Like I said the first time: endless goalpost shifting. You have no proof your god is 123 other than "cuz you say so". You're already admitted your system can't produce reliable results, and that you can't tell the difference between genuine revelation and self-delusion:

(August 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm)Drich Wrote: That's not to say someone steeped in self delusion could not use this method to confirm whatever he likes. But, again as I have illustrated some perfectly adjusted member of society could also use this method to find themselves a spouse.

Now, prove to me when you say God is 123 that your revelation was real and not imaginary.

what kind of proof are you looking for?

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:32 am)Natachan Wrote: No. You haven't. I read through this thread. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your reasons revolve around the bible and your interpretation of that. I will be blunt: I do not find the bible to be good evidence of anything. Based on its history of it said frogs were amphibians I would have to go and get a biology textbook, take a biology class, and dissect a frog before I believed it. So let me rephrase this in a couple ways.

I work in a research lab studying concrete. If I scan a sample and the data reads out that it contains 29% air by volume what do I do? I know I set up the machine correctly. Perhaps if I know nothing else then I accept it. But if I know that concrete with more than a 9% air content is unstable and won't set what do I conclude? Or, to be more accurate, I have an old handbook before they had accurate measurements that say paste mixes can be up to 30% air but that book had been discredited and is no longer used since it uses improper measurement methods. I have a newer book that says different, and all my other test data says a sample can have no more than 9 or 10%, and that other tests have indicated that this sample should have a content of 6%. Do I accept the single data point of 29%? Or do I toss it out and see what else could be going on?

You say your god can be tested by A/S/K method. I ask on what premise we can even begin to assume that this is a valid test. If you say scriptural then you have failed that.

Because in the bible there are promises. If you do XYZ god will do 123.

I and many many others have done XYZ and we all have received 123.

If we did XYZ and did not receive 123 then we could indetify the bible as being inaccurate.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:36 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 12, 2014 at 11:23 am)Drich Wrote: Ah, no. A/S/King is an objective process that has one examine and quest for the truth of God.

If I do not currently presuppose a god exists, how am I to 'examine and quest for the truth of God'?

How is this any different than 'faking it 'til I make it'?

The biggest problem with your A/S/K 'method' is that no matter how much we tell you that we tried, you have a built in, ready to go reason why it didn't work.

"You didn't try for long enough"
"You weren't sincere enough"
Or whatever...

Since you are so convinced, it has to be something we are doing wrong, and nothing to do with the real possibility that you are simply wrong, and that you have been convinced for bad reasons.

It's like anything else that your unsure of. lets say it is like lazer eye surgery. It's been around for a while, and there are many who have had the proceedure and for them it works out great. But for you your still uncertain. So how would you go about prooving to your self that lazer eye surgery is good for you?

You ask around to people who have had it, you go on line and research and if your serious you talk to a Doctor until you come to a conclusion

Dont look now but that is the ASK SEEK KNOCK method working in a non Spiritual context. (No Faith required)

In the same way when we are looking for God we ask People, and in prayer. We seek in places like this, and we knock by repeating the fore mention process till we get what we were looking for.

(August 12, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Tonus Wrote: So if I ask, seek, and knock and find Shiva, I have proven that Shiva doesn't exist because she never commanded me to A/S/K?

If you A/S/K for Shiva and find nothing, then nothing exists. If you A/S/K and Find something, then it is not Shiva because Shiva is not approachable by man.

Quote:I'm thinking that the only two ways to connect with god is if god contacts you and makes himself known, or if you attempt to contact god and he answers.

Indeed.

Quote:If a person claims that he sought out god and god responded, would you dismiss his claim because it wasn't a god that explicitly described how to get in touch with him?

no I would not dismiss Him. I would simply ask so questions on what God had said or done for him.

Quote:Or if a person claims that he believes in god because god proactively revealed himself, you would dismiss the claim because he did not bother to begin the process of finding god?

I would ask him the same questions as the other man.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 11:36 am)Simon Moon Wrote: If I do not currently presuppose a god exists, how am I to 'examine and quest for the truth of God'?

If you have already come to a conclusion then why concern yourself with a process designed to help you come to said conclusion?

Quote:The biggest problem with your A/S/K 'method' is that no matter how much we tell you that we tried, you have a built in, ready to go reason why it didn't work.

Not my A/S/K Method. Read Luke 11 again this is what Christ perscribes.

Quote:"You didn't try for long enough"
"You weren't sincere enough"
Or whatever...

Since you are so convinced, it has to be something we are doing wrong, and nothing to do with the real possibility that you are simply wrong, and that you have been convinced for bad reasons.

What i understand is that A/S/K will show eventually Bring you to God. However in that process we all are asked to shed at least some of our ideas of who God is. The further away from scripture your starting religion is the less you will recognise God to be. That is why so many lose their faith completely.

Ive been through the process and I know what i have seen endured and been given over the last 20+ years. It is not easy, but well worth the effort.

(August 13, 2014 at 8:52 am)Drich Wrote: If some one has a False XYZ it is because that particular XYZ is what they want inorder to live their life.

You were a Christian right? You had a false XYZ, what did you do with once you identified as false? Did you continue to live your life under XYZ? Or, did you move on to another XYZ? Are you happy with what you have now? Or do you still seek God?

You have no idea what view of God I had was. When I was a Christian I tried to be open minded as I sought the truth.

Now that I am an apostate I live my life basically the same as I did before except I sleep in on Sunday.

Do I still seek god? I seek the truth. If it turns out that God is true then I will accept that. I see no evidence of that at this time however.

(August 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm)KUSA Wrote: Drippy
What is the correct view of God so we may know? Please back this up with scripture just to appease me.

God describes Himself as I am
Exo 3:14

And the Alpha and Omega
this pronouncement is found in several places through out the book of revelation.

In short this means God is whatever He wants to be. their is no authority higher. This also means that alll the omni aspect related paradoxes go away.

(August 13, 2014 at 2:05 am)Drich Wrote: Not to mention a stellar track record in answering questions in this web site and others.

There's a reason we de don't mention that.

(August 12, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But it DOES lead to belief is other gods and other supernatural things. That's how little Muslims are made.

Actually no. The God of the bible is the only God who seeks a relationship with His followers. Muslims do what they do for material reward in the after life.

(August 12, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Drich Wrote: and you missed a greater point. All men are not candidates to be your husband. (Maybe for you but I know a few who would disagree) a husband is a title given to a specific man married to a specific woman. Not all women get married therefore (albeit a small possibility as I am sure you are very marriage worthy) it is probable that you may never get married.

That is why I asked if you could not find a husband by 30 would you give up or would you continue to ask seek and knock?

Jenn-A Wrote:I am married and have been for the last 20 years.

So?

Quote:The point is that there are many men, many of them marriage worthy. What there isn't is any indication of god.

Again it depends on where you look on both accounts.

Quote:Sorry, but no. And as asking to see the supernatural often causes one to see the supernatural, it isn't a reliable method.

what makes you think God can only reside in the supernatural?

I am suggesting that you put away ALL your preconceptions and just Seek The God of the Bible what ever the out come.

(August 12, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Drich Wrote: Book, chapter, verse?

Or are you just quoting some church tradition.

Quote:Just history. People who believe in god, have done those things, are are doing those things in god's name.

So if God does not order these things and yet men do them anyway (even in His name) how is that any different than men who do this for any other reason under the sun?

A wicked Heart will use what ever tool at hand to get what it wants.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's why he's called Minimalist.

Ohhh, that's why...

I always thought it had to with the oversized fallace based avatars he traditionally uses... (as if he were compensating for.. something else.)

That is why i changed my nick name for him from mini (small) to Minnie a name.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm)KUSA Wrote: I think it is hilarious that Min renamed him "Drippy". All know him as that now and it will not go away.

Meh.. It is what it is.

---

(August 12, 2014 at 7:37 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Look Drich,

You are saying look for god as the Bible suggests and you will find him. You are ignoring the fact that the Koran says look as the Koran says and you will find him.

Uh no. unless you can provide me with book chapter and verse.

Quote: And the Book of Mormon says look as Joseph Smith says and you will find him.

Ahh, no again. It say be faithful and you will become a God over your own world as God is God over this one. (as he was just a man on another world himself at one time.)

Quote:And Rudolf Hess said look for Hitler in you heart and you will find him.

which was a play on a catholic doctrine trying to elevate hitler into a god like status. This we know this as this proclaimation was said about Christ hundreds of years before hitler.

Quote:Hear with an open mind and you will hear the spirits knocking. All of these results are incompatible yet people find them when they go looking for them. And people who go looking for meaning come out of one door or the other at random. It's therefore not reality. Reality works the same way no matter who's doing the measurements.

Actually all of these examples are counter intuitive to what A/S/K method embodies. When we A/S/K we scrutinize and seek the truth about God. That is why so often the very first step is the removal of your old faith/loss of faith and why so many of you consider yourselves atheist.

To reaffirm a false idea of God is to not be faithful to the A/S/K method, and if one is not faithful to this method then they can claim to use this tool for any end or justification.

Quote:If we rebooted tomorrow, science might have different names for things, but it would arrive in the same place. Religion wouldn't. How do I know? Because scientific fact is often discovered independently in several places. The scientists argue over who was first. Religion is different everywhere. And it changes without new data. They argue not over who was first, but who's inner truth is right.

You won't hear a nuclear physicist say it was revealed to me that E=MC2.

That's not true. Because unless that physicist was actually einstien it was revealed to him at some point energy equals mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared.

The problem with your arguement is that you have preconceived ideas of what these words mean in a given context. For example your use of revelation.. Appreaently you thought it means God beamed info directly into someone head. While this can be a point of revelation, not all revelation works this way. A revelation is to reaveal something supprising that was previously unknown. So by the very defination of the word revelation Einstein's discovery was indeed a revelation..

Other examples include your understanding of the religions you mention. You believe they all point to the same end goal. They don't. Only in Christianity does the God of all creation seek a relationship with His followers. The rest are simply rewards based after life or even next life religions.[/quote]

(August 13, 2014 at 10:10 am)Drich Wrote: If you A/S/K for Shiva and find nothing, then nothing exists.

But if I A/S/K for Yahweh and find nothing, something exists?

Drich Wrote:If you A/S/K and Find something, then it is not Shiva because Shiva is not approachable by man.

Shiva is just an example. Are you insinuating that no other god is 'approachable by man?'

Drich Wrote:I would ask him the same questions as the other man.

A person who claims to find a different god or uses a different method would be met with some suspicion by you?

Drich Wrote:The God of the bible is the only God who seeks a relationship with His followers.

Based on your explanations, the god of the bible isn't the one who seeks. He demands that prospective followers do the seeking, and only reveals himself under a fairly specific set of circumstances and only at a time of his choosing. This, even though it seems it would be no effort at all for him to seek a relationship with anyone.

(August 13, 2014 at 10:28 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm)KUSA Wrote: Drippy
What is the correct view of God so we may know? Please back this up with scripture just to appease me.

God describes Himself as I am
Exo 3:14

And the Alpha and Omega
this pronouncement is found in several places through out the book of revelation.

In short this means God is whatever He wants to be. their is no authority higher. This also means that alll the omni aspect related paradoxes go away.

Quote:And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

And how exactly is this description of God supposed to give me a 123 view of him?

It sounds like God is Popeye.