Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[Deavonreye]

childeye, we're good.

I have read your post, and though you have accepted what you have, and though what you stated is well stated, I am afraid that I do not see those concepts as enough for me to state, "there is a god, and that is the evidence".

However, I appreciate your concern and perhaps one day I will find the evidence that will speak to me. My situation goes deeper than just "not seeing evidence of god", but much of what I feel wouldn't be allowed by this site's TOS.

Anyway, good chatting with you.

 

[childeye]

childeye, we're good.

I have read your post, and though you have accepted what you have, and though what you stated is well stated, I am afraid that I do not see those concepts as enough for me to state, "there is a god, and that is the evidence".

However, I appreciate your concern and perhaps one day I will find the evidence that will speak to me. My situation goes deeper than just "not seeing evidence of god", but much of what I feel wouldn't be allowed by this site's TOS.

Anyway, good chatting with you.

Deavonreye, I'm speaking to you in the most common term known to man. It is Love. There is no higher concept or concepts for mankind. I am speaking about one single concept. You are seeking what you already know, what I already knew. It"s just that I didn't believe in myself till I died in Christ and I no longer mattered. He is a door out of this world into a better one. God defines man, not man defines God because of sequence of existence. Do you believe in Love as a Spirit common to man or count it an endeavour into falsehood? How long will you not answer? Do you see some geater light shining somewhere where Love is not? What higher concept do you have that is higher than the Love in our hearts, where we feel, where we care?

Go give some charity to some stranger in need, step inside his shoes and when you feel good, don't take cedit for it. Just thank God for that Love as best as you can honestly mean it. Keep doing that, give charity, feel good, forgive those who hurt you, feel good knowing they can't help it, pray for your enemies, thank God for Him, until one day you mean it and you will meet God and know Him and know yourself. Seek Him at the Love of the cross. You will see yourself there. For when we serve Love as a society in this way, this is the Kingdom of God and in Truth we serve ourselves by serving others. Love is a common and very basic term. Good and evil split there. There are much deeper things of God, but because good and evil split here at this term, so this is where one starts when reasoning from which way the light is shining.

 

[Mike]

This thread is being locked temporarily pending moderator discussion. If you have a thought, please keep it, and this will likely reopen. There have been some fruitful exchanges from both sides of the issue, but there have also been some rather terse remarks about our faith and our God. This will likely need some cleaning up, and then there will be the expectation that active promotion of atheism is kept in check.

Thank you.

 

[Mike]

This thread has been discussed by the staff. Certain posts have been deleted. In some cases this may disrupt the conversation that's been had. Sometimes posts have been deleted, and then they were edited from later posts in which they were quoted.

There needs to be an understanding from those who are opposing our faith. Voicing an opinion that contradicts Christianity is understandable when it is clearly stated as "opinion". When it is stated as "fact" and our God is said to be a figment of our imagination, this is a violation of the ToS.

Please respect the ToS and others on this board.

Thread is re-opened.

Thank you.

 

[Deavonreye]

Deavonreye, I'm speaking to you in the most common term known to man. It is Love. There is no higher concept or concepts for mankind. I am speaking about one single concept. You are seeking what you already know, what I already knew. It"s just that I didn't believe in myself till I died in Christ and I no longer mattered. He is a door out of this world into a better one. God defines man, not man defines God because of sequence of existence. Do you believe in Love as a Spirit common to man or count it an endeavour into falsehood? How long will you not answer? Do you see some geater light shining somewhere where Love is not? What higher concept do you have that is higher than the Love in our hearts, where we feel, where we care?

I do not see "love" as a spirit, no. And I can't discuss why I don't see the definition of "love" in Bible. Can't do it here.

I have heard the term "dying to Christ", but for me . . . it is an unobtainable concept. A person cannot be made to believe, no matter how hard a believer wants them to understand his faith. I know that "love" is important, but it must be the right kind. I'm sure you would agree with that. The "love" between a strong family group is important. I see it higher than the "love" of two people in marriage. That love CAN manifest itself to the level of a strong family group, but it is sadly lacking in our society and world. Even THAT level of "love" is often selfish. . . what I can get out of the other person to make myself happy. Some manage to transcend that.

All of this to say that, in my opinion, even the strongest "love" cannot be laid at the feet of a deity. Strong bonds are great, . . . but they aren't exclusive to humans.

 

[childeye]

I do not see "love" as a spirit, no. And I can't discuss why I don't see the definition of "love" in Bible. Can't do it here.

I have heard the term "dying to Christ", but for me . . . it is an unobtainable concept. A person cannot be made to believe, no matter how hard a believer wants them to understand his faith. I know that "love" is important, but it must be the right kind. I'm sure you would agree with that. The "love" between a strong family group is important. I see it higher than the "love" of two people in marriage. That love CAN manifest itself to the level of a strong family group, but it is sadly lacking in our society and world. Even THAT level of "love" is often selfish. . . what I can get out of the other person to make myself happy. Some manage to transcend that.

All of this to say that, in my opinion, even the strongest "love" cannot be laid at the feet of a deity. Strong bonds are great, . . . but they aren't exclusive to humans.

I agree that love is not exclusive to humans, but not Spirit? Any term can be misapplied as I have said. Out of love can come anger and hatred when misapplied. The Love of the cross is however beyond such scrutiny for it returns good for evil and loves even it's enemy. The Spirit of Love is all inclusive even as light contains all the colors. Every emotion is founded in Love as the absolute. We all need to be loved and we all need to love. Respectfully you seem to be making up your own definitions for common terms rather than accepting the terms for what they are. Note I asked if Love was common to mankind and you answered, Love is not exclusive to humans. That dodges the question. Love is common to man even as Truth is. No one gets to make up their own truth and therefore Love as described as an emotion that feels others is Spirit. We are not making it up. You don't feel empathy for the starving? I do. And this I cannot help. I can try to run out of fear of what it might cost me, but still that is proof I did not invent it.

So you say, true Love is sadly lacking. Yes, Yes , Yes. Love is lacking in the world. You have simply said there is much sin. That is the point. It is not love that is laid at the feet of a deity for Love is thee only God worthy to serve. You just hate the term God for whatever reason. I saw a dog once that as a puppy was always hit with a newspaper when he did what dogs do. He hated all newspapers.

 

[Deavonreye]

I am only opposed to "god" because of the incredible lack of not just evidence, but also [for argument sake, that a god DOES exist] completely absent in any form that is recognizable.

"Love" can be tested for, and is understood. A supernatural agent is not, . . . and would even be [to many, such as myself] unnecessary. The chemical reactions in the brain that make up the emotion of "love" are well documented and can be easily found with an internet search. Something that is commonplace is what keeps many together. It is qualified as "love". It's a good thing!

But the strictest issue of this thread is "evidence for god". Whereas your words sound nice, as does the concept, I must still say that I'm still unpersuaded, if it is being promoted as "evidence of god".

 

[childeye]

I am only opposed to "god" because of the incredible lack of not just evidence, but also [for argument sake, that a god DOES exist] completely absent in any form that is recognizable.

"Love" can be tested for, and is understood. A supernatural agent is not, . . . and would even be [to many, such as myself] unnecessary. The chemical reactions in the brain that make up the emotion of "love" are well documented and can be easily found with an internet search. Something that is commonplace is what keeps many together. It is qualified as "love". It's a good thing!

But the strictest issue of this thread is "evidence for god". Whereas your words sound nice, as does the concept, I must still say that I'm still unpersuaded, if it is being promoted as "evidence of god".

Yes the thread says "evidence for god". As I've tried to point out, the term god is an absolute, a moral imperative. Yes Love is a good thing as you say. Hence there is goodness. Even the chemical reactions in the brain testify to this phenomenon. You have changed the term god to who knows what, so that there can be no evidence in you eyes only because your definition is made up. All religions identify Love as God, the moral imperative.

 

[jasoncran]

sad that some men have reduce men to mere chemical reactions.

scary even.is hate also evidence of something if good or evil are based on chemical reaction created by natural process , sheesh, this going circular, and thus disccussed

How does an amoral random process give us meaning? we are here and lived this long by luck? surely the human race has done far more evil then good , we are at war more then at peace.we learn new things only to use that new thing to control or kill each other.

nasa as much as the athiests love that isnt nor was it ever to be an intellictual pursuit primarily.just a means to learn more weapons of warfare.:bigfrown

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, I can guess that we have differing ways of looking at things, so we're at an impass here. Yes, people are governed by chemical reactions in the brain. If you don't understand that, remember back to when you were "falling in love" and how you acted, . . . and how you acted when that person broke up with you. Again, do a search on the topic from those who make this their life work.

See you all later.

 

[childeye]

Well, I can guess that we have differing ways of looking at things, so we're at an impass here. Yes, people are governed by chemical reactions in the brain. If you don't understand that, remember back to when you were "falling in love" and how you acted, . . . and how you acted when that person broke up with you. Again, do a search on the topic from those who make this their life work.

See you all later.

Yes there are chemical reactions in the brain as we both agree. And as you have pointed out they are animated by outside stimuli. Your call to remember romantic episodes of the past was very nostalgic for me, albeit a remembrance of naivete. For the Love of the cross is not unlike that first innocent love. I however got my heart broken and it was perhaps the worst feeling I have ever felt. So it is I speak of a Love that will never break your heart that is found in Jesus and we should believe in as eternal so that our hearts and minds can know there exists that which is trustworthy. Deavonray, you make points that show you understand perfectly well What\Who god is. It seems you are not asking for proof of god but proof of trustworthiness. There it is at the cross of Christ, what more could you ask? What more could be done as proof?

 

[jasoncran]

off topic, devonrye, the idea of losings one virginity has delitirious affects on the brain devolopment of teens. they cant fall in love easily or so on.

 

[Deavonreye]

childeye, "the cross of christ", . . . I am well aware of that part of the christian faith [again, having been in the church for ~30 years]. However, I can't really comment on that "love" because it would go against the TOS of this forum board.

Having said that, because of my stance, I trust that you can understand that [because I'm not a rebellious teen] I have good reasons for that stance.

 

[Deavonreye]

I overlooked this post. Thanks for the reminder PM, ivdavid.

What would you consider as criteria to be satisfied, for that premise to be deemed true? Is it some experimentally provable thing that you're expecting - because that would never happen - you can never experiment physically on something that is Spiritual(non-physical). Is it then some feel-good factor that you expect to experience in order to confirm that as truth - this then becomes so subjective, it cannot be a basis to determine truth.

The spiritual [specifically an all knowing god] can make itself known to a person in the way he/she would find convincing. I trust that this type of being would understand that and would make its best attempt at convincing [if it actually cared].

And I suppose you do realize that science can never explain the WHYs of the universe - just the HOWs. In that sense, it is limited. Take an illustration of a Christian believer laying claim to having heard God speak with him by His Spirit - is this evidence of God's existence - to that believer, it is. But to the person who is disinclined to believe, he will have to either 'rationalize' it away or concede that there is a God, which he is averse to doing for so many other reasons (which he may not even be consciously aware of). What would such a person do - he'd say that the believer was only having hallucinations and that this need not be construed as evidence for God.

Not hallucinations. Perhaps for some [those who believed god was telling them do drown their children]. There are reasons that are valid, but stating them here could violate TOS.

As for "where life came from", not being able to qualify abiogenesis does not make the christian perspective automatically true. At one time in history, it was believed that the speed of sound would never be broken. Technological advancements accomplish much, and the topic of abiogenesis may be discovered in the future.

So, I'll get back to my question - what do you consider as objective criteria to be satisfied for something to be deemed true? Let's discuss this before we proceed to discussing truth itself.

 

[childeye]

childeye, "the cross of christ", . . . I am well aware of that part of the christian faith [again, having been in the church for ~30 years]. However, I can't really comment on that "love" because it would go against the TOS of this forum board.

Having said that, because of my stance, I trust that you can understand that [because I'm not a rebellious teen] I have good reasons for that stance.

Even as you do not trust there is a One True God as in an absolute, it is difficult for me to understand a good reason for your stance. After all, if you at least would admit that everyone believes something to be true and that everybody has their absolute, then you would be entering a discussion about what that Truth is and the nature of that Truth rather than denying there exists a Truth. But this much I can honestly say. You have some reason for why you believe what you believe and what that is you seem to believe you are not allowed to say.

As this forum is one of the better forums I have encountered, it is my experience that the moderators here have pretty fair judgment. They offer warnings and give advice. They do not want to be babysitting but they unfortunately are oftentimes dealing with babies. I am not implying you are a baby. Thirty some years in the Christian faith? Why can't you simply just say "I believe" in front of whatever it is you seem to feel you are not allowed to say? The moderaters here have nothing against someone speaking honestly, after all it is a desire of God and they are not against God.

 

[elijah23]

The Lord solves all my problems. I guess that is evidence of his existence.

 

[Deavonreye]

Even as you do not trust there is a One True God as in an absolute, it is difficult for me to understand a good reason for your stance. After all, if you at least would admit that everyone believes something to be true and that everybody has their absolute, then you would be entering a discussion about what that Truth is and the nature of that Truth rather than denying there exists a Truth. But this much I can honestly say. You have some reason for why you believe what you believe and what that is you seem to believe you are not allowed to say.

My issue is with the use of the capital when you state "truth". It implies a supernatural agent that "all truth comes from". There are truths, yes. That implies nothing.

As this forum is one of the better forums I have encountered, it is my experience that the moderators here have pretty fair judgment. They offer warnings and give advice. They do not want to be babysitting but they unfortunately are oftentimes dealing with babies. I am not implying you are a baby. Thirty some years in the Christian faith? Why can't you simply just say "I believe" in front of whatever it is you seem to feel you are not allowed to say? The moderaters here have nothing against someone speaking honestly, after all it is a desire of God and they are not against God.

I have been given several warnings about what I believe, so it is best for me to remain silent. What I CAN say is that my experiences within christianity were a result of my parents taking me to church. I later came to realize that my "christianity" was just about what others expected me to believe. When I realized that my entire time was nothing more than someone else's wishes, and that there wasn't anything even remotely close to "a relationship with Jesus", I understood [then] that I never WAS a christian at all.

 

[Deavonreye]

The Lord solves all my problems. I guess that is evidence of his existence.

I don't really see how. :

 

[childeye]

=Deavonreye;569764]My issue is with the use of the capital when you state "truth". It implies a supernatural agent that "all truth comes from". There are truths, yes. That implies nothing.

When I state Truth with a capitol T, I am implying something is actually true as opposed to an opinion of what is true. This is meant to make the ditinction between the two. Whether that Truth is supernatural or not is beside the point.

I have been given several warnings about what I believe, so it is best for me to remain silent. What I CAN say is that my experiences within christianity were a result of my parents taking me to church. I later came to realize that my "christianity" was just about what others expected me to believe. When I realized that my entire time was nothing more than someone else's wishes, and that there wasn't anything even remotely close to "a relationship with Jesus", I understood [then] that I never WAS a christian at all.

Yes, I also am no longer affiliated with the same religion my parents had indoctrinated me in. So what, I am not going to let that experience rule over me so that I do not accept there is a Truth with a capitol T for I know 1+1=2. Otherwise I will be blaming God for my parents and a broken heart, when in truth it is opinions I am against. Now if I hate Truth for opinions sake am I not a servant of opinions and in hypocritical reasoning?

 

[Deavonreye]

But "opinion" isn't truth. A person can have the opinion that 1+1=3, but it would go against logic. It MAY have an understanding on an existential level, for example, a person who says 1 [person]+ 1 [person] = 3 [a family group who produces a baby]. When we talk about "opinion", you get into relativism, and that is a whole topic in itself. So, for me, . . . I see no reason to capitolize the "t" in the word "truth" because if it is true, it MUST also be evident.