|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:04:57 PM | faith isnt beliving in something
regardless of the evidence
faith is doing something
regardless of the consequences
and i could prove my gods but it is not my place to put that on other people. i feel no need to tamper with what they believe. what i know makes me content. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 5/31/2008 6:37:53 PM |
i could prove my gods but it is not my place to put that on other people. You cannot say that with any kind of certainty...
Your entire premise rests upon the reaction of another... which you cannot control. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/1/2008 1:15:40 AM | First and foremost, I have not taken the time to read every single post in the forum. I just want to post my input to the original question. I personally believe that religion in general exists on 2 sides of the same coin. No other subject, topic, or thing has ever cause so much pain, strife, controversy, fights, wars, deaths, etc. By the same token, nothing else has helped as many people in so many different ways as pure true faith has. But, in the course of human development the need for a higher power to exist has prevailed since we communicated by banging on hollow logs. Cavemen danced and sacrificed animals for rain. Egyptians had their gods, and the Aztecs, and every other civilization on the face of the planet. Somewhere planted deep in the human psyche there is a need to know that there is some form of higher being. Now as for proving the existence of said being, I personally can only really think of one way to attempt to prove that there is SOME higher being without the word faith or belief involved, (Personally I believe in 2, a god and goddess per-say 2 halves of a whole) and that is to use science. The single most widely accepted and I.M.O. the most probable theory on the creation of the universe, is the Big Bang. All of existance is one huge swirly orb but due to gravity beyond measure and the force of electromagnetism, cosmic fusion, and repelling forces combined in such a way, the ball goes boom. the orb of existence explodes and spreads out becoming the universe we know and love today. now using this theory if we assume it is in any way accurate, all we must do to prove there is some form of higher being is to remember 1 key law of existence, and ask 1 simple question. The law states "One CANNOT create something from nothing." It cannot be done. Hold out your hand in a vacuum and make something for me. Anything. do it. Now keeping this in mind, answer this question. Where did the big swirly ball of existence come from? Something had to put it there. It had to be made form something else. Thus, some form of higher being must exist. Here is the tricky part though. Where did said higher being come from?
If you can puzzle it out please let me know. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:10:42 AM | *stretch*
Haven't had a go at a thread in a few days. This should be fun! ^_^
I just wanted to see if anyone was able to take on this friendly challenge.
Aside from the thread title, there isn't really a challenge posed. Of course, if the challenge IS the thread title, it is inherently impossible. But I'm betting you knew that. :-P
I will admit that I don't think it's a do-able challenge for those who believe in a supernatural deity, no matter your religion, and this is for obvious reasons.
The most obvious being "one cannot prove the god they worship exists if they do not worship any gods". :-P
I will agree in full with the point I think you're driving at, though. Proof denies faith, after all. It doesn't take much to believe tacos exist, as I can go buy one right now. Proving boggarts exist, on the other hand, would be a bit trickier.
One reason, is that everybodys "god(s)" is invisible. Even if there maybe human fashioned representations of their "god(s)" like icons and statues or even the commom tactic (used by most people of differing religions) of pointing to the trees or mountains or just nature in general and claiming that as the proof of their "god(s)", holds no weight b/c anyone and everyone can use this as "proof" and so it proves nothing still.
I like your style, OP. You hit the nail right on the head.
I think most people would be amazed at how similar we humans are in general.
I know! Crazy, innit? :-D
This becomes very clear when speaking about matters of ones religous faith. Even when there are differing beliefs among religions. The way we as humans have to approach religion in order to embrace it, is typically the same.
I agree, though with the stipulation that the emotional responses to religious sentiment are similar, regardless of what the actual theology dictates.
Intrinsic to the belief in religion is the compulsion with in its system to use your mind (by way of faith or belief w/o proof) to accept it's beliefs and ideals while at the same time never using your mind (by way of skepticism and analysis) to look at it objectively, honestly and comparetively.
I would disagree with this. Though some theologies do stress absolute adherence, the claim that all theologies do is false. For example, in common Hindu theology, there is no need to convert anyone to Hinduism. They are already Hindu, but simply practice it in a different way, or are unaware of the commonality between their declared faith and Hinduism.
Additionally, most modern religions that seem to abhor the use of logic and intellectualism do so purely in the modern age. Islam was, a relatively short time ago, the religion of science, mathematics, and even philosophy (I highly recommend the work of Avicenna and Averroes). Early christianity meshed well with emerging sciences, as the latter helped one recognize the scope and power of the deity lauded by the former. Modern genetics owes a great deal to Gregor Mendel, a simple monk toying around with pea plants. It wasn't until an attempt to make a uniform and rigid christianity was made- and enforced- that science and religion truly went through a schism.
What could be more man-made than this psychological trap? Theres literally no way to win. You either except the beliefs of a particular religion in order to be treated like part of the "fold" or group, or you reject the beliefs of a religion which immediately makes you an outsider who is lost (possibly evil) and an object for a religion to pity and feel sorry for (though most won't openly admit this).
In a way, yes. This is the exact pattern of behavior used in modern churches, especially here in the States. A pity many people don't see it for what it is: a dangerous replacement-addiction. Going to church and damning your neighbors and trying to force other people's kids to pray to your god in school isn't the sign of a loving, devoted worshipper: it is the sign of a patholigically insecure and underdeveloped mind, constantly obsessing and needing validation and attention.
Which sounds a lot like what you just said. :-P
To top it all off the only redeeming quality one has who rejects a religion that teaches the "you must believe or perish" doctrine is the abilty one has to change his/her mind and bow down and humble themselves and admit they were foolish and in need of repentence. Wow!! Again I say, what could be more man-made than that?
Agreed. But again, to reference addiction behavior: one classic sign of addiction (or social pathology) is rationalization: convincing oneself that one's actions are justified, necessary, and correct. The best way to do so is by convincing oneself that the opposite action is bad.
The only sure way to overcome this psychological trap is to muster the courage to push aside the fear that any particular religion may attach to thinking outside of its set boundaries. Once someone is able to do this an untapped sense of freedom seems to burst forth. As a matter of fact, anytime someone switches religions they have to go through this process. Sadly, in this case they put behind them the fears, punishments, and rewards of one religion to pick up more-or-less of the same from a new religion.
You're right again, OP. And once again, I will bring up the example of classic addiction-behavior patterns. A pity there's no rehab for addiction of the mind.
This is very interesting atuff. Observation is a powerful tool and you can't fix your life w/o it. Yes you may qoute me on that lol. :)
I agree.
I could go on but I won't. Just keep in mind the brief problems I mentioned above if anyone chooses to reply to this post. I would like to see your thoughts and feedback from this. I am not interested in encouraging anyone to leave their religion. I do encourage everyone I meet and who may read this to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about any topic or issue, w/ religion just being one of many.
Thanks again.
Always good to see a fellow Freethinker on the boards.  | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:11:57 AM | Sumerian knowledge
run a search on this guy and his studys.
Dr. Zechariah Sitchin
after learning of all this....everything i once thought i knew (but for some reason always questioned) had become brainwashing and propaganda to keep the masses compliant. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:05:51 PM | Hey Apologist~D.A . I really appreciate your response. I'm glad when people can discuss topics while maintaining a level of respect for one another even when they may differ on the topic at hand. :)
Now on to your questions
First I would like to address your comment in which you said
If you have not questioned the existence of any god, why would you try to contact said nonexistent god?
*please do not be disturbed at my assumption, in my personal experience, I have found that those who sincerly seek God, find Him, or rather He shows Himself to them.
Well I must say I do see where what I said could have been confusing. When I said that I don't question the existence of anyones "god(s)", I was referring to my current position on this issue. In the pas however, I have question the the existence of the "god" I used to believe in and then subsequently began to question the existence of other religions concepts of "god(s)". A few years back I actually did a little test concerning all the concepts of "god(s)" I had researched (which was quite alot) andgot a very interesting result. I may post a thread about it one day.
So to clear this one point up for you I have asked for proof in the past.
I understand that you feel from your experience that those who "SINCERELY" seek "god", find him, or he reveals himself to them. I admit I shared this "belief" back when I was a "christian" and was amazed at how people I know personally from other religious backgrounds "FELT" that statement was true, BUT ONLY in regards to their religion. Thats just something to consider. I've been priviledged to have had the opportunity to become friends w/ people from different religious backgrounds over the years. And this started when I was a "christian" and continues to this very day.
Aside from that, there is a word that you used that "JUMPED OUT" at me. That was the word "SINCERE". I do have a problem w/ the use of this word "ESPECIALLY" in conversations about religion. I'm sure you may be able to see where I'm going w/ this already :) ANYONE (me included) can use the word "SINCERE" or raise the question of "SINCERITY" anytime someone draws a different conclusion than the one we have.
This makes the use of this word problematic unless we can apply it across the board or indiscriminantly. For example, what if I said this: In my experience everyone who "SINCERELY" searches for unicorns finds them or the unicorns reveal themselves to this type of person. I have just created a scenario where the lack of belief in unicorns is the DIRECT RESULT of someone who is NOT "SINCERE".
Now I'm sure you can see this COULDNT be a fair or OBJECTIVE method of determining a persons "SINCERITY". In essence, a disagreement between two doesn't mean that one of the two is not being "sincere". I'm sure you can see my point.
After all someone could agree with you w/ "words" but in thought totally hold an opposing or alternate opinion, yet never tell you about it. I think it MUST take more than just differeing points of view to determine "SINCERITY". You know what I mean?
Moving on to where you stated [qoute]What visual or physical attributes have you observed of these "other intelligent beings", that withstands the demands you require for faith in a god ? I dare say none? You wrote that you believe in these beings because of reason and the fact that "WE ARE HERE". I do not see any reason in this theory..
It could just as likely that a god created us.
In reference to your statement I would like to make a correction concerning what I stated about my belief that other "intelligent" beings are out there. Forgive me. I actually meant to say that I believe other beings are out there and their "intelligence" has nothing to do w/ my belief that they may be out there.
Well my reasoning is quite simple on this issue. We exist and b/c of that the probability that no other beings beyond this planet exist seems to me possible, but unlikely. So I'm not SURE (since I have no way of knowing at the moment) that there are other beings out there. I just think its HIGHLY likely. And ofcourse I could be totally wrong.
Now the difference of believing in the concept of a "god(s)" and believing merely that other beings exist should be somewhat obvious I would think. My belief that there are probably other beings beyond this planet STOPS right there and never passes this point in any serious way.Since I don't know whether these other beings exist or not any thoughts beyond the initial one are NECESSARILY mere SPECULATION. I can only discuss this idea as a concept ONLY and beyond this entertain myself by the possible outcomes if it were true.
A belief in the concept of "god(s)" typically assumes a reaction of obedience or rejection. This is not the case w/ my belief as I have shown. I think it seems more interesting what kind of "god(s" people have believed in over the years as well as the ones believed in today. I personally could come up w/ some interesting concepts of "god(s) w/ no problem w/o borrowing from what I've seen written about other concepts of "god(s)". But I won't bore you LOL
As far as having "meaning" in life I do know that diffrent ideas can provide one meaning in life whether the idea was given to thenm by someone else or created by themselves. On that I think we can agree. :)
Concerning your last statement
Now you have. At one time, I was terrified at the possibility of God. I do not believe that I am the only person in history to have felt that way. Infact, I know for sure that many others have once felt the same fear.
What if there is a Creator?
That means that I am not in control. I cant be the god of my life if there is a Being that has authority over me.
How will the knowledge/belief in the existence of this god effect my life?
I will surely be required to submit to this Being, this One Who determines my fate..
What if this Being ask me to obey It? What of my own desires? I do not enjoy "obeying" anything but my own conscience..
What if I dont like this Being, or Its commands? What if It is an evil or "bad" Being?
If I deem It "bad" and if I choose not to submit to this Creator, will It "smite" me?
If such a Being is infact in control of our world, why has It left so many of us to suffer? Or even allow suffering at all?
I actually have always been fascinated by the concept of "god" even when I used to believe in it. But I have to say I never was terrified of the idea of "god" existing. Because you said you were terrified of that idea at one point I kind of curious what would make you terrified of the idea.
After all the existence of a "Creator" doesnt necessitate worship ,obedience, or "acceptable behavior". It just means that some "being" created us and everthing.
It seems that only through "religion" does anyone build upon that initial beilief in a creator and this is where religion has its TOUGHEST challenge. Why could't you just stop at DEISM and go no further. Many people do.
I have on occasion mentioned to some people who believe in a particular concept of "god(s)" that they sure have their work cut out for them b/c before I can even take their concept seriously I would like to see a showdown (non-violent ofcourse) between all religions in which they are all measured by the same standard and evaluated objectively (this includes the belief system and"god(s)" believed in ) until the one that had the most evidence and had the least amount contracdictory beliefs or sacred texts, was declared worth ACTUALLY taking another look at.
Do you think this dream of mine will come true? ;)
I apologize in advance b/c I am very sleepy and I havent done the best job responding to you. But if need be I wil clarify any points I've made and if you have more questions feel free.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/2/2008 5:23:29 PM | Whats wrong with Faith. I have faith in a lot of things besides God
YOu cant always know excactly what is going to happen tomorrow but you can faith that it might be similiar to today. I have faith my house wont fall down tomorrow and so on and so faith.
Things can wrong in the world doesnt mean God is like a magician and should right every wrong save every disaster that occurs naturally.
It is the little things that cause me to have Faith in God the creater now matter how he created it. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/9/2008 6:45:19 AM | Hi Marylouise! Thanks for the response. I do want to assure that I have never said that there is a problem w/ "faith". My issue is w/ the OBJECT of ones "faith". However, my thread wasn't meant to bash the word "faith" as you can see if you look at my responses to others on this thread. My thread WAS NOT about "Who can tell me why they have faith in their "god(s)?" (though that may be a good thread to start 
In reference to when you said
YOu cant always know excactly what is going to happen tomorrow but you can faith that it might be similiar to today.
I would have to agreee w/ you but even take your point a little futher. I DON'T know what IS going to happen tomorrow w/ absolute certainty and I have never met anyone who does.
However, in regards to the 2nd sentence in that statement where you said
I have faith my house wont fall down tomorrow and so on and so faith.
I would have to say that I DON"T have "faith" in things like my car starting when I get in to it or my house not falling down on me, or the chair I'm sitting in continuing to hold me up. I DO have REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS when it comes to things like this based off of prior evidence through experience. So I cat expect certain things to behave in certain ways based off what they have been doing since I can remeber.
Yet at the same time I KNOW that things can change so I calculate that into my expectations. Therefore if something doesnt behave as normal my world won't be shattered do to the fact I have made mental preparartions to deal w/ the reality of whats possible.
Often times our UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS can hurt us the most, whether we are religious or non-religious.
And lastly in reagrds to this statement where you said
Things can wrong in the world doesnt mean God is like a magician and should right every wrong save every disaster that occurs naturally.
I don't know the concept of "god" that you believe in but if you believe in a concept of "god" that has created everything that IS, wouldnt this "god" necessarily put boundaries in place for what COULD and COULDN"T happen within this creation.
Basically wouldnt CAUSE and EFFECT be the direct result of what this "god" put into place according to how this "god" wanted its creation to FUNCTION.
A quick example for you: What if your concept of "god" set up this particular planet so that everytime a human tells the truth a gold coin appeared in there left hand.
This is what I mean by how things function through cause and effect. So if things go wrong in this world (as you stated) why would the ultimate responsibility be on this concept of "god". Because the boundaries of cause in effect are SET by this concept of "god".
And as I previously stated I don't know the particular concept of "god" you believe in but I also found it interesting that you don't think your concept of "god" should "right every wrong and save every disaster that occurs naturally since he's not a magician".
You have left me wondering if your concept of"god" is one who has NO interest in RIGHTING EVERY WRONG or SAVING PEOPLE from NATURAL DISASTERS.
I am quite interested also in knowing if your system of belief has any future paradise in which none of the "wrongs" or "natural disasters" occur there, and if so why not create
that place from the begining. And also an important observation I must make is that if this is the future paradise of your beliefs then your concept of "god"MUSt have set the boundaries of whats possible in that paradise especially if there will be know more pain and sadness in this paradise. You would have to conclude that this paradise and this planet was SET UP w/ PARTICULAR CAUSE and EFFECT BOUNDARIES AND POSSIBILITIES. So that ANYTHING THAT WASNT SET UP COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN.
Please don't take this as a rebuke of your "faith" that is not what I intend but your comments did raise a few questions for me.
I appreciate your response
Thanks again:) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:02:38 AM |
I am quite interested also in knowing if your system of belief has any future paradise in which none of the "wrongs" or "natural disasters" occur there, and if so why not create
that place from the begining.
I have no problems with why God saw it necessary to create us in His image out of a realm where there is no image of God.
And to be honest I don't know how God could create us in His image in a place where God fills the All. How could God create us in His image, if God's image already filled the All. You cannot create something that already exists.
The mystery in being made into the image of God is done through consumation, and by the same principles that are shadowed on this earth through a man and a woman becoming ONE flesh in marriage. God makes us into His image through a consumation and Spiritual marriage of making us ONE Spirit with Him. If we already existed as One Spirit with God then we have not been created, but we already existed. And how can God create something that already exists?
God needs this earthly realm of death and destruction in order to raise us into His image and join us to Himself. We can't be joined to God's image unless we are first unjoined. And we cannot be made into God's image unless we were first void of this image. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/9/2008 6:49:14 PM | | where were u before u were born and where will u go after death? answer that, and you'll know. have u ever been saved? if so do u know of that feeling u will only get once and can never be explained? its a feeling of joy and you wil never know it again til its ur time. | |
|
| |
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/10/2008 8:45:09 AM |
have u ever been saved? if so do u know of that feeling u will only get once and can never be explained? its a feeling of joy and you wil never know it again til its ur time.
Its not only a one time event for me, I have been in the Spirit on more than one occasion in my life and though my conversion was the first and was very powerful and dramatic, it was about the fourth time God manifested Himself to me, that my soul was separated from my spirit in a most powerful way. Being put to death in the spirit is something I wouldn't normally seek after, though I do understand that I will go through this again when the fulness of God's image in Christ is manifested a s a reality...
If anything I learned that man's will is no match for God's will, and He will overpower our wills and break us to His will. The process is frightenning because facing the death of our human will is the unavoidable reality before us, and when faced with this as a reality, well there is no place to hide.......but once taken to the other side, it is amazing and the death of our human will , actually becomes as a release to us as we realize how it is the very thing that keeps us separated from God's fulness.
When my experience was over, I sensed my spirit, soul, and body being rejoined, and all the rebellion that comes with the human nature was also back as part of my human makeup.
God showed me His power, and He showed me my weakness, and the Word to me was to acknowledge my weakness and draw strength from God's power......If only I understood how to do this! | |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/10/2008 4:38:28 PM | Hi all,
I browsed through this thread and haven't seen anyone put forth a biblical definition of faith. If I missed it, sorry.
A lot of the arguments that I'm reading seem to rest on the idea that faith is "believing something you can't prove" or "believeing in something no matter what the evidence to the contrary is". Imposing this meaning every time the word "faith" is used, would of course make the bible look rather silly. However, this is not at all the faith presented in the Bible. Since I have a Christian worldview, the "faith" that I have is that which is set forth in the bible. I do not think that you should believe anything regardless of the evidence, nor do I think God, if He exists, would want us to either. If anyone knows any verses that contradict what I'm saying, I'll be happy to have a look see. I'm aware that many Christians hold to this popular definition of faith. Perhaps even most. But sadly, most Christians are also relatively ignorant when it comes to just what it is they believe! So...
First of all, it was used by the early Christians in reference to their belief system. "...were obedient to the faith... " (Acts 6:7); "...turn away the deputy from the faith..." (Acts 13:8); "continue in the faith" (Acts 14:22) etc. You get the picture, and no one probably cares to argue this point. Just trying to be somewhat thorough if I'm going to blab on about something.
Jesus:
Every instance of Jesus using the word faith, (which may be different at times, as I did not look at the Greek for this), can only be interpreted as "trust". "thy faith has healed thee"..."thy faith has made thee whole" etc. He says this each time in regard to their showing Him that they trusted that He could do what He said, (or what others had said) He could do.
In each instance it can't be shown that these people had some kind of "blind faith". In their community, what Jesus was doing was known. They had heard about it from people who had interacted with Him, or witnessed Him doing it Himself, and believed that it was true. Hardly blind faith.
How'bout the rest of the NT?
Every time someone is evangelized in the NT, exhorting people to put their "faith in Him" (although that word senquence is absent from the bible, to my knowledge), it is after they have heard the story of the Jesus. It is after they have been spoken to by actual eyewitness, who had "...heard, seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, our hands have handled..." (1 Jn 1:1). Later, the words of these men were told by others, or later still read by others. But it is still the testimony of eyewitnesses or those close to them (in the cases of Luke and Mark). An amazingly preserved testimony to boot! So there is no instance here of people having "blind faith" in the NT. Not one. It is absent from the bible to my knowledge, limited though it may be. I'll be happy to be proven wrong there though. That'll just make me smarter right?
I'm sure there are a few instances of Jesus using hyperbole that literalism could be forced upon for the sake of winning an argument. We'll see. Hopefully not. It's an interpretive mistake, and one that is popular so I'm way tired of it!
Faith according to the bible might best be described as "trust in the authority of another". Or "believing something on authority". We all do it, all the time. It is believing the message of the Gospel, based on the credibility of the source. If you read your newspaper this morning, and believed what you read, you did it too.
So anyway...not a direct answer to the question in the thread title, but relevant I think. If I'm going to talk about faith, I just want others to know what I think faith is.
I'll come back later for my take on the main question of the thread if it's still around. And just so you know, my answer will be yes!
Later,
Derek | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/10/2008 5:31:21 PM |
I will admit that I don't think it's a do-able challenge for those who believe in a supernatural deity, no matter your religion, and this is for obvious reasons. One reason, is that everybodys "god(s)" is invisible...
Why would the fact that something is invisible mean that it is not a "do-able challenge"? The laws of logic exist don't they? Do you believe in them even though you can't see them? I'm sure you expect me to abide by them (as if they "exist") when I present my answers to your question, yet you can't see them. Now this doesn't prove that God exists. But it does show that it is perfectly credible to believe in something you can't see. We don't believe in the laws of logic by what I think you would call "blind faith" do we? Same goes for God. We have reasons to believe in the laws of logic (I think I have a lot more reason than you! But that's another thread). In a similar way, we have reasons to believe what we believe as Christians.
There is a body of evidence that we can all look at objectively and come to a conclusion, without resorting to blind faith. Whether or not you come to the same conclusion as me after looking things over is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is at least theoretically possible to prove God's existence without the use of blind faith. (Now whether or not is possible to prove anything *at all* without the existence of God is another thing! But we'll talk about that later.)
Even if there maybe human fashioned representations of their "god(s)" like icons and statues or even the commom tactic (used by most people of differing religions) of pointing to the trees or mountains or just nature in general and claiming that as the proof of their "god(s)", holds no weight b/c anyone and everyone can use this as "proof" and so it proves nothing still.
Agreed.
Intrinsic to the belief in religion is the compulsion with in its system to use your mind (by way of faith or belief w/o proof) to accept it's beliefs and ideals while at the same time never using your mind (by way of skepticism and analysis) to look at it objectively, honestly and comparetively. What could be more man-made than this psychological trap?
See the biblical definition of faith given by me above.
Can you present a bible verse that encourages us to "accept it's beliefs and ideals while at the same time never using your mind"? If you can, we'll deal with it. I'm relatively familar with the Bible and havn't run across this doctrine yet. Nor have I ever heard such an idea put forth in a church... Ever... In fact, about the only time I read that Christians believe this, is when non-Christians are writing about what we believe! Now that's just plain odd! Good thing is, we can learn from one another, (in places like this), and disabuse ourselves of our wrong perceptions of each other's beliefs.
I don't see how the portion of your post that follows what I quoted really proves the point you're trying to make. It's mostly ad-hominem. Just your opinion (and an ill-informed one by the looks of it). But lets say the "compulsion" that you speak of is real. Even if you could show some kind of objective proof that Christianity is like that, (which in my experience it is not), and that all Christians are bad and evil and want to manipulate you into their "fold" does not go one step closer to proving that Christianity is not true. If I could prove that all the atheists in the world are big meanees, (they're not!), it has no bearing on the truth value of thier worldview does it? (I know, I know "it's not a worldview").
I do encourage everyone I meet and who may read this to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about any topic or issue, w/ religion just being one of many.
Well said man! Can't top that!
Later,
Derek
P.S. | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/12/2008 7:51:04 AM | I can prove a god exists...the fact our world exists, and the great universe we live in is virtually perfect for our living conditions and curiousities, its stands to reason that a great being created this very well engineered universe/earth.
To me thats more proof then i know what to do with.
Big bang is a complete farce and has no basis for fact. However, the universe proving their is a god, thats logical and sound philosophy....
You will ask if i beleive in god and i will say im agnostic. Something greater has to be out there, it would be naive and selfish to think we are the only intelligence in the universe, especially given how complex the universe really is... | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/14/2008 9:57:38 AM | Hi,
I can prove a god exists...the fact our world exists, and the great universe we live in is virtually perfect for our living conditions and curiousities, its stands to reason that a great being created this very well engineered universe/earth.
While I agree that the existence of this world points to a Creator, the fact that it exists does not prove that there is a God. Whether or not it points to a Creator in one's opinion rests entirely on a person's presuppositions. If a person presupposes naturalism, the world's existence does not point to a Creator. How could it? A Creator would be supernatural, and thus could not exist according to their worldview!
While I believe that this is a problem for the agnostic, I don't think it's quite so bad for the Christian. We believe that God has in fact revealed to us that He created this world, and therefore have a real basis, (given that the bible is true-which is a whole other debate), for believing that He did. An agnostic, such as yourself, has no basis to believe that "something has to be out there"; Aside from a hunch. In other words, you're being arbitrary which is (philosophically speaking) unacceptable.
So I don't disagree, I just don't think it's a sound argument. The problem has to be approached at the level of presuppositions. To see which worldview is correct, be it Christian or non-believer (athiest/agnostic) we have to look at each one and see which meets the necessasary preconditions for any kind of knowledge. Needless to say, I think that Christianity is the only one that holds up. I'll unpack that statement in a later post.
Derek | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:06:48 PM | SweetHighGuy Said:
I can prove a god exists...the fact our world exists, and the great universe we live in is virtually perfect for our living conditions and curiousities, its stands to reason that a great being created this very well engineered universe/ear
The late Douglas Adams (of "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" fame) was a genius; I'll let him reply from the great beyond. . .
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin
to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole." - Douglas Adams
And a great observation by the Man:
"I refuse to prove I exist", says god. "Because proof denies faith and
without faith, I am nothing" -Douglas Adams
God being confronted with an argument to why he doesn't exist: "Oh, " God
said, "I hadn't thought of that!" as he disappeared into a puff of logic. -Douglas Adams
James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/17/2008 2:12:56 PM | Hey Guy Named Ray. Thanks for the response. I will have to disagree w/ you on your statement where you said
Gods exist by faith only.
If they existed by proof,
they wouldn't be gods.
My reason is this, if one believes in a "god(s)" that is NOT supernatural they WILL have NATURAL proof or evidence of there "god(s)" existence. Ofcourse this depends on the kind of "god(s)" concept they proclaim.
For example, if one claims that the "sun" is their god then they have just told us what or "who" their "god" is and b/c of this we can now locate and point out this persons "god". However, if this person then says that their "god" has told them to
treat people w/ respect and dignity or w/ hate and violence, we would obviously have to raise questions of why they believe their "god" the SUN has ONLY given them this guidance. Their claims about what the SUN told them to do DOES NOT in any way make void or take away from their assertion that the "SUN" is their "god".
After all WE decide what concepts of "god(s)" to accept , reject, or be indifferent to.
We all can accept, reject, or be indifferent to ANY presented CONCEPT for good or bad reasons.
There must remain a clear distinction in reference to this observation.
However if one claims that there "god(s)" are NOT supernatural, but are busy doing things in another part of the universe and thats why we cant see "them", then they have basically as a result of this placed their belief in a NATURAL "god" on equal footing as those who believe in a SUPERNATURAL "god".
What I mean by this is THESE concepts of "god(S)" are BOTH unverifiable and out of the realm of provability.
I have stated in reply to previous posts that the concept of "god(s)" is one of many things that is ALL IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. I also posted the definition of the the word "god" in a previous reply to a post, in order to make that point a little clearer. A concept of "god(s)" can be SUPERNATURAL or just simply NATURAL.
I do feel that this thread was an interesting one to start and yet very misunderstood by quite a few. I don't intend to make any enemies whether they be religious or non-religious. I merely intended to post a challenge and raise some questions based on my own observations. I think respectful dialogue is very useful and necessary for us all to engage in on any topic that we all or just certain ones of us have opinions about.
Hey I appreciate your input on this thread as well as everyone elses whether I disagree w/ you or not.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:02:44 PM | Hey Unique Delights. Thanks for the response. I am sort of puzzled by your response to the threads title, but never fear I will STILL address the questions you posed 
You said this
where were u before u were born and where will u go after death? answer that, and you'll know. have u ever been saved? if so do u know of that feeling u will only get once and can never be explained? its a feeling of joy and you wil never know it again til its ur time.
First thing I would like to ask is, could I have EVEN been considered to be" ME" BEFORE I was born? Because I can only base being "ME" off of being BORN and the experiences I've had since then up to this very day. OUTSIDE of THIS context there is no "ME" that I'm aware of and I find it particularly odd to ask where someone was BEFORE they came into existence. Seems quite problematic for you to use this question as a starting point for your reply to this thread.
Moving on to death I will decline this part of that sentence b/c that concept in itself is something that I will post my observations about in another thread very soon.
I think its much to important of an issue to try to some it up in this reply.
I do have the answer to both of those questions i've answered the first part of it above and will answer the latter in another thread.
Saved from what? If you don't mind can you give me an example of what you believe b/c your reply was quite vague and to be fair to you I need to understand your beliefs.
I appreciate your response though.
Thanks again :) | |
|
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:11:45 PM | Hey Consigliere31. Thanks for another response. Aside from the bulk of your reply I was interested in knowing what is your concept of "god" like, and also if I am correct in saying that your "god" has NEEDS based on when you said
God needs this earthly realm of death and destruction in order to raise us into His image and join us to Himself. We can't be joined to God's image unless we are first unjoined. And we cannot be made into God's image unless we were first void of this image.
After your response to this I will reply w/ an observation.
Thanks again:) | |
|
| |
| Who can prove their god(s) exists w/o using faith?
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:17:42 PM | HeyKaagwaantaan . Thanks for the response. You said
He has a voice, he talks to me.
So your "god" is a HE? Is "his" voice audible ?
I will delve a little deeper once you reply to this. I appreciate your participation.
Thanks agian :) | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
