Christian Paradox

[tavarish]

How about this? Think of the client coming to Sherlock as a believer telling you about God, and think of the evidence for individuality being the traits which you discerned from the client talking about God.

Sherlock would have nothing to go on, especially when he's told secondhand, anecdotal experiences that do not stand up to observation. I'm sure he would dismiss it as delusion.

However, it's a moot point, as we're talking about a fictional character manipulated by an author. It does not work like this in real life. Although some principles are sound, the very reason Holmes was popular because he was successful and unorthodox. Can you name anyone who actually does this in real life?

But if God were to show you some 'scientific proof' for His existence, it would still be disputed and interpreted and skewed constantly. Such is human nature and our ability to think for ourselves through free will.

Disputed - of course. Every scientific discovery ever has been greatly disputed and challenged. That's how science WORKS. It continually needs to disprove itself and eliminate the possibility of skewed or inaccurate results.

If prayer to a certain God was taught in medical schools as an effective, proven method to cure cancer, then that would be substantial evidence for the existence of that God. This is one example.

Not only this, if God did something verifiable that every shmuck with a degree in biology or some shit could repeat, it would put the free will, the decision of whether or not to believe in God out of the question, and you would have no choice but to accept His existance. That sounds to me like a tyrant god.

It would actually put things into perspective. If you knew he was around, you could actively choose to follow him or not. That would be the free will argument, and would definitely make more sense than "he needs you to believe because he says so". It would also shed a lot of light into our own existence.

If the existence of God was scientifically established with evidence, it would turn the world on its ear. Belief would be through the roof.

Your point? God does exist within the mind, and proves His own existance through our perception ofHim in things which are without the mind.

Like I've said a million times before: rationalization.

This also sheds light on the term "personal God", since every person's interpretation varies.

Just because you believe something to exist doesn't mean it exists without objective evidence that it does.

Of course there is only to believe. That's all there is for anything.

Wrong. There is objective evidence that backs up a claim without the need for belief or faith.

What 'highly excited, suggestive state' are we talking about here, by the way? Self-transcendant moments? That's an oxymoron in itself, anyway, if you don't believe in God.

Here's a few example of activities that operate in a highly excited, suggestive state that do not have to do with God:

Stage hypnosis
Cold reading
Psychic reading
Illusions (magic shows)
Ouija
Spiritual healers
Aura cleansing
Hallucinations (drug oriented, or not)

Here are some that do have to do with God:

Speaking in tongues
Faith healers
Near death experiences (Go into the light!)
Exorcism
Possession
Seeing Jesus in a pastry

They are all in the same realm - your mind playing tricks on you. There are no divine forces at work in any of them.

So do I. My faith is not blind and it is certainly much more of a clear view of the world than is simply trying to jam a round peg in a square hole(God into science.)

You make the claim that God created the universe. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that God's actions manifest in the physical world. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. This is a scientific claim.
You make the claim that Jesus performed miracles (suspensions of physics). This is a scientific claim.

There are MANY, many more. You see where I'm going with this? I'm not fitting a round peg into anything. You make a scientific claim and I dismiss it based on the scientific method. 1 + 1= 2.

You misinterpret what a good shephard is supposed to be, then, if you don't think there is any need to be humble or listen carefully to those who love you. It is important to Him for people to believe, but as I said above, if He actualyl came forth with some "I am God" proof, it would leave belief in the dust.

It is important for people to believe, yet he doesn't give verifiable reasons to support this need. I can't take your word for it, nor can I sit back and just take the word of a book written by those who had no idea how the world worked.

---

Listen tavares... I know very well what claims I'm making. I'm sorta posing and answering questions rather than making any claims - it's not why I'm here.

Who's tavares?

You make claims that God exists. Let me illustrate:

I make no positive claim that God exists. that would be irrational of a transcendental entity - God just is ...and I believe he just is.

Look at the bold underlined. This is a claim that God exists. If you don't know what the word "claim" means, it's OK, I've looked it up for you:

http://ardictionary.com/Claim/6270

Claim 4
Definition: To assert; to maintain.

Shit, man. In previous posts I even gave you the link for the meaning of "agnostic theist". What are you trying to argue?

What evidence have you that most Christians are not agnostic? I know very many Christians and used to work at a very popular annual Christian Festival in the UK frequented by about 60k of them. I've been an active member of 2 large churches and active interdenominationally. I've never met a Christian who claimed to know for sure that God existed. Like I've said, and you seem to gloss over... such a stance would be illogical.

A Christian who knows and talks to other Christians? Holy crap. That's a first.

How do I know Christians know that a God exists?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

1982 to 2004: Gallup polls:

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks randomly selected American adults about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults on at least six occasions between 1982 and 2004. By keeping the wording of their questions identical, each year's results are comparable to the others. This facilitates the detection of trends.

44% of the American population believes Adam and Eve was a true story. They take this as fact, not as an allegorical, metaphorical, or figurative claim.

I'll repeat this.

Forty-four percent of the American public takes the story of Genesis as a HISTORIC event. That is over 100 million people. Do you mean to say that they would not make the claim that they know God exists? "God created Adam and Eve, but that's dependent if God was actually there" - right?

Seriously, man. Learn to call a spade a spade.

here's some more:

2005-MAR: NBC News:

NBC News conducted a survey between 2005-MAR-8 and 10. They asked about the origin of human life -- whether it happened by evolution or "the biblical account of creation." If they answered the biblical account, they were then asked whether they believed that "God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh," or that God was "... a divine presence in the formation of the universe."

Results were:
bullet Humans came to be via evolution: 33%
bullet God created the world in 6 days: 44%
bullet God was a divine presence: 13%
bullet Don't know: 10%

We are at a loss to understand what "God as a divine presence" means as far as origin of the species is concerned.

Churches take the assurance of faith and 'claim' certainty. This is simply lingo which to any intelligent bystander isn't actually anyone saying anything beyond doubt. As Adrian covered on his blog, certainty isn't knowledge.

So certainty in church isn't certainty? It's not knowledge, but they have sunday schools and bible study to re-enforce this uncertain non-knowledge. Creationism also isn't taught as knowledge. Nope. Not at all.

I believe, not claim, that God 'is'. I believe through faith. At the point of faith, there _has to be_ no knowledge.. for there to be any would indeed be illogical.

Your belief is your claim, as it is an assertion. You're mixing concepts and coming to a conclusion to fit your argument, but it makes no sense. In your definition, we can never know ANYTHING.

I'm saying your faith is based on SOMETHING, a subjective experience you perceive as knowledge of the divine.

Read your shit before you post. I'm tired of correcting your mistakes.