Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

In not sure if you're capable of following a discussion rampant, so I'll refrain from mocking you.

[psychoslice]

I don't like the word god, but I do see a force that everything is controlled by, I do also feel that we and everything else is connected in some way. We are connected to the earth, the sun, the universe and on and on it goes. Science may have their theories for this connection, especially in quantum theory, but there is still this force, or whatever, and this to me is what God is, even though I like the words Higher Consciousness better.

This so called God doesn't judge, it allows, you don't have to worship it, unless your ignorant of it, to experience this Source is known as Enlightenment, it is tasting something beyond the mind body organism, and I can tell you that it taste beautiful.

[Rampant.A.I.]

"Because The Bible" isn't a discussion.

[*Deidre*]

At best, 'they' were guessing, at 'ground rules' any god could possibly have for mankind.

At worst, it's all just a lie.

I'm thinking Christianity is a combination of the two.

No. They presented a coherent working model.

Why not look into what John H Walton says rather than dismiss him without even looking at what he has to say? You are far too quick to dig out the pitchfork.

My doubts or disbelief shouldn't be construed as I'm digging out a pitchfork. I find Genesis to be a fabrication of mankind, to explain what he didn't know/comprehend (yet) about its surroundings.. (coupled with outright lies during the compilation of the Bible)

How do you reconcile the theory of evolution, all the evidence that supports it, against Genesis? Creationism?

[fr0d0]

You would say that if you hadn't been following the discussion perhaps Deidre.

Your unwillingness to listen to reason would be the pitchfork reflex

[Mudhammam]

That's an oxymoron. Unless you're privy to information nobody else possesses, you're not a Christian because of "evidence." (What's "biblical evidence"? Is it special somehow from empirical evidence? Like, uh, "revelation"?)

It's emotional attachment, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a Christian skeptIc.

No the information is as plain for you to see as it is me. It's only a question of understanding.

I have no emotional attachment at all. Why would I? How does that work? Please explain.

I'm guessing it has something to do with your belief in a soul. What information do we all share about that? Your belief in a soul that survives death. Again, care to explain your evidence? Your belief that the soul goes on to a realm of eternal bliss with all your loved ones who were saved by a human sacrifice...who was actually God...your evidence was? Of course, nothing emotionally difficult for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, there is no purpose or comforting hand waiting for you when your time on Earth expires. I'm sure that thought has nothing to do with your faith in the magical answers that Christianity claims on absolute authority.

---

I don't like the word god, but I do see a force that everything is controlled by, I do also feel that we and everything else is connected in some way. We are connected to the earth, the sun, the universe and on and on it goes. Science may have their theories for this connection, especially in quantum theory, but there is still this force, or whatever, and this to me is what God is, even though I like the words Higher Consciousness better.

This so called God doesn't judge, it allows, you don't have to worship it, unless your ignorant of it, to experience this Source is known as Enlightenment, it is tasting something beyond the mind body organism, and I can tell you that it taste beautiful.

If I may so advise, just be careful that you let your intellectual processes be guided by the evidence, otherwise your imagination is bound to run wild and yield false results (albeit probably still closer to the truth than anything Christianity or most of the other religious scams proclaim). It seems you elevate Nature to God status or otherwise demystify God to basically mean all of Nature. That's fine enough but you're carrying around a lot of unnecessary baggage by appealing to some sort of divine quality.

[psychoslice]

No the information is as plain for you to see as it is me. It's only a question of understanding.

I have no emotional attachment at all. Why would I? How does that work? Please explain.

I'm guessing it has something to do with your belief in a soul. What information do we all share about that? Your belief in a soul that survives death. Again, care to explain your evidence? Your belief that the soul goes on to a realm of eternal bliss with all your loved ones who were saved by a human sacrifice...who was actually God...your evidence was? Of course, nothing emotionally difficult for you to accept that maybe, just maybe, there is no purpose or comforting hand waiting for you when your time on Earth expires. I'm sure that thought has nothing to do with your faith in the magical answers that Christianity claims on absolute authority.

---

I don't like the word god, but I do see a force that everything is controlled by, I do also feel that we and everything else is connected in some way. We are connected to the earth, the sun, the universe and on and on it goes. Science may have their theories for this connection, especially in quantum theory, but there is still this force, or whatever, and this to me is what God is, even though I like the words Higher Consciousness better.

This so called God doesn't judge, it allows, you don't have to worship it, unless your ignorant of it, to experience this Source is known as Enlightenment, it is tasting something beyond the mind body organism, and I can tell you that it taste beautiful.

If I may so advise, just be careful that you let your intellectual processes be guided by the evidence, otherwise your imagination is bound to run wild and yield false results (albeit probably still closer to the truth than anything Christianity or most of the other religious scams proclaim). It seems you elevate Nature to God status or otherwise demystify God to basically mean all of Nature. That's fine enough but you're carrying around a lot of unnecessary baggage by appealing to some sort of divine quality.

Na, I'm fine, I know exactly what I need to know, I don't bush this onto anyone else, I very rarely talk about it, and lets face it, science cannot prove everything. But yea, I hate the word god, I don't like the idea that this god has a penis, a beard, and gets quite cranky when we do wrong.

[Mudhammam]

Na, I'm fine, I know exactly what I need to know,

How exactly does one know what he or she "needs to know"?

I don't bush this onto anyone else, I very rarely talk about it, and lets face it, science cannot prove everything.

Of course it can't. Science doesn't set out to prove anything. But if we're on the subject of the Universe and how or why it operates, I doubt you'll find any other methodology that is both logically coherent and yields consistently vindicated results.

[psychoslice]

Na, I'm fine, I know exactly what I need to know,

How exactly does one know what he or she "needs to know"?

I don't bush this onto anyone else, I very rarely talk about it, and lets face it, science cannot prove everything.

Of course it can't. Science doesn't set out to prove anything. But if we're on the subject of the Universe and how or why it operates, I doubt you'll find any other methodology that is both logically coherent and yields consistently vindicated results.

Sometime we feel what we need to know, and no one else would probably ever understand that, we don't have to go through life proving ever dam thing.

Don't get me wrong I love science and all that it has given us, but again it cannot prove everything, it cannot tell you what love is, it can only tell you what chemical activity goes on in the body because of love, but that isn't love. I feel that the Mystics knew something that many of us don't know about, its beyond our conceptual mind. We are swimming in this world that is all connected, we are feeling our way through it with our senses, and through our senses we build this world, without the senses there is no world, that is the world we know.

[MindForgedManacle]

@MFM agree on all. Not sure what you say about metaphysics. It includes both physical and nonphysical, yes?

Yes. My point was that Fr0d0 is using 'metaphysical' as if it were a synonym for 'non-physical', which isn't what the word means.

That's not what you said at all.

So is God metaphysical or not? By your definition of metaphysical he is physically existent. Is this what you're stating?

I did say that, I even underlined where I did.

No. Saying "God is metaphysical" makes no sense. He is no more metaphysical than I am. The closest thing to what you're saying that could make sense is when aoologists say that God is the 'metaphysical ultimate'. But even that is a description about God's ontology, it's not saying He's metaphysical.

1 : of or relating to metaphysics 2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural 3 : highly abstract or abstruse ; also : theoretical 4 often capitalized

It seems the dictionary disagrees with you.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. If I'm misusing language I'm grateful for the correction.

I don't see where it disagreed with me.

You're misuse of the word metaphysical is what I'm on about. 'Metaphysical' is not synonymous with 'non-physical'.

Your mistake is your interpretation of the Christian philosophers. You fail to see the subject matter they're addressing isn't related to what we're taking about here.

You were discussing the nature of the relationship between rationality and faith, and I demonstrated that there have been differing views on that amongst Christian philosophers and theologians. So yes, I both understood them and brought up their views related to this topic.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Those caricatures bear no resemblance. [/quote]

Again, are you so arrogant (or blind) as to think there is - or ever was - a set, "the Christian view" on this. That is absurd and false, as I demonstrated via Kierkegaard (faith is necessarily irrational and requires a "leap to faith"), Kant (Christian faith requires an irrational affirmation, even if Christianity is internally consistent), Pascal (Christianity requires faith in the face of irrationality) and Wittgenstein (Christian faith's rationality must be "pased over in silence").

You as an atheist know better. Hmm. More substantive reasoning needed.

I think I've given plenty.

---

@MFM "Is God metaphyical?" The Father, YHVH, is the fully transcendent aspect, the glorified Christ is the visible manifestation, and the Holy Spirit is the divine in operation...at least that's New Church doctrine. Not sure how that fits with your question.

Me neither. :p "God is metaphysical" just makes no sense, no more sensical than saying "I am metaphysical" does.