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

[childeye]

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.

Sure I could take 1+1 out of context to mean many things other than 2. Language fails at some point in describing what is indescribable. Who said opinion is Truth? You do even while you say it is not. For you claim there is no proof of Truth which leaves only opinions. Of course all of this is about relativism. Relative to what? Truth. Even if it is the simple truth that one does not know what the Truth is.

 

[Deavonreye]

childeye, there are truths that are considered absolute. I never said that I didn't believe in "absolute truth". I just disagree with the assumption that because something seems absolute, then there must be a supernatural agent behind its workings. I still say that absolutes can exist quite nicely without any god influences. They just are.

 

[childeye]

childeye, there are truths that are considered absolute. I never said that I didn't believe in "absolute truth". I just disagree with the assumption that because something seems absolute, then there must be a supernatural agent behind its workings. I still say that absolutes can exist quite nicely without any god influences. They just are.

I can appreciate what you're saying. How can one be convinced in sight by that which is invisible? Proof to one may not qualify as proof to others, yet this fact remains. A moral imperative. We all must decide right and wrong. This inevitably will be based on Love. Did I love? Did others love me? Is love owed to one another? Is it right to expect Love. Love, Love ,Love... The measure of moral worth. Therefore in view that you do acknowledge there is an absolute, I ask you to also acknowledge that Love is the moral absolute.

 

[Deavonreye]

I can appreciate what you're saying. How can one be convinced in sight by that which is invisible? Proof to one may not qualify as proof to others, yet this fact remains. A moral imperative. We all must decide right and wrong. This inevitably will be based on Love. Did I love? Did others love me? Is love owed to one another? Is it right to expect Love. Love, Love ,Love... The measure of moral worth. Therefore in view that you do acknowledge there is an absolute, I ask you to also acknowledge that Love is the moral absolute.

I cannot agree to "love as a moral absolute". Love is a choice, and quite frankly, many MANY people are not worthy of love, . . . just because it is "morally absolute". Like with "respect", it is earned, not given freely.

 

[WIP]

I cannot agree to "love as a moral absolute". Love is a choice, and quite frankly, many MANY people are not worthy of love, . . . just because it is "morally absolute". Like with "respect", it is earned, not given freely.

Not always. God gives us, even you, His love even though we have not earned it.

 

[Hawkins]

"If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith." If that's the case, why did God appear to people so regularly in the Old Testament, and why did Jesus do so many miracles in his time? Was it not important to have faith in OT times? And did people need faith when they saw Jesus do miracles (assuming those stories are true)? Seems to me like it would be really easy to believe if you literally saw someone walk on water, heal people instantly, or raise the dead. Why did God appear on earth in physical form (ie, having dinner with Abraham, wrestling with Jacob, walking past Moses, etc.) and have actual conversations regularly with people in OT times, yet he is completely silent now?

God leaves clues for His witnesses to write things down which will finally turn into a book called Bible for other people of the world to get to know Him. This process is done. And actually Jesus hinted in the Bible that "there's no "miracle after Jonah's", it is believed that He meant to say there's no more important miracles from prophets after Jesus' crucifixion (analogue to Jonah's 3 days and 3 nites in the hands of the darkness).

God also shows the importance of faith through Adam. I don't think that today's humans can be as good as Adam in terms of purity and everything (except faith). And Adam failed due to the lack of faith. It says that if humans are good in everything but without faith, they can't survive the eternity, while His Ultimate Plan is to build such an eternity called the Kingdom of Heaven. This gives a good reason for Him to hide behind to watch us. And His witnesses are well chosen for His omniscience knows who they are, and they will be with Him finally with or without the miracles. And their witnessing will be written down for others to have faith to believe.

Today, there's no longer a need for "writing things down" in the Bible. And unlike ancient human society, it is not that convenient to keep the effect of miracles to a small group of witnesses then spreading the message for others to comprehend with faith. In today's world, the media are everywhere to broadcast anything of interests. If it's from the reliable media such as CNN, you believed. If it's not you won't believe. That's the case in today's world.

 

[childeye]

I cannot agree to "love as a moral absolute". Love is a choice, and quite frankly, many MANY people are not worthy of love, . . . just because it is "morally absolute". Like with "respect", it is earned, not given freely.

Oh Deavonray. The things you say. If only I could post your words on the front of this Forum like a billboard. You say Love is a choice. You say Love is a choice, You say Love is a choice. Everyday here on this Forum, day after day after day, the same thing is said over and over and over, and I argue vehemently against such an assertion, defending the position that God is Love. It is ironic that I have said all along that men do not choose to Love as in a freewill for to do so is to deny there is a God, and you verify this conviction. Please go on to all the threads where I have written and do say what you say and verify for all that I am right.

We have freewill, We have freewill. We have freewill. I'm going nuts with all these claims of freewill. Love is compassion and the Love of God loves even it's enemies. One cannot deliberate to Love. Every Child is helpless and completely dependent upon love from the very moment they are born without ever deserving it. It is necessary for Life. So it is there is an enemy of the God of Life who seeks to displace God in our souls. We call this entity Satan, and he spews the same logic you are only parroting. For instance you say, respect is earned. Well then so is disrespect earned. But scripture says God doesn't care, God is no respector of persons. So tell me now. What did Jesus do to earn any disrespect from you? I am veritably certain that whoever hurt you believes in freewill, that love is a choice. Such a Truth as an absolute serves only death.

 

[Deavonreye]

I had a lot more typed out, but my stupid computer messed up and lost it all.

To sum up, . . . since I've never met Jesus, . . . nor have any reason to believe he is as christianity states, then it isn't possible for me to "disrespect him".

This is all really getting away from the OP.

 

[ivdavid]

The spiritual [specifically an all knowing god] can make itself known to a person in the way he/she would find convincing.

And that's what I'm asking - what is 'that way' you would find convincing?

You're right about what God can do - you'd be referring to regeneration there. But I'm interested to know what specific and concrete criteria you expect to be satisfied to be accepted as 'evidence' for God. Your reply here seems to amount to this - 'I will take it as evidence for God when God convinces me of His reality'. Have I got this wrong?

If that's what you meant, no amount of discussion by men can convince you - then why seek evidence and discuss here? (Not that I'm asking you not to discuss - I'm trying to understand what your belief framework is and what exactly it is that you're seeking. Your expected evidence and the main premise for which you require such evidence seem to be the same - and that's confusing me).

As to why God works this way, I'll quote 1Cor 1:17-31 again.

As for "where life came from", not being able to qualify abiogenesis does not make the christian perspective automatically true.

Is this directed towards somebody else - because I never took up this line of argument.

But from the given context, it seems as if you hold on to this 'abiogenesis' hypothesis as true - could you confirm that. I'm inclined to think you don't believe in it because you came across as one who strives for evidence before accepting anything as true. And what exactly convinced you of the christian perspective to be false, if at all you are convinced it is false?

if it is true, it MUST also be evident.

You said you believe in absolute truths. Are all such truths perceived as true by everybody without exception? If you think not, why do you suppose that's the case?

there are truths that are considered absolute. I never said that I didn't believe in "absolute truth". I just disagree with the assumption that because something seems absolute, then there must be a supernatural agent behind its workings. I still say that absolutes can exist quite nicely without any god influences. They just are.

Are there any moral absolutes that you believe in? I do and I hold that as the evidence for God - as I've mentioned in post#68.

 

[Deavonreye]

And that's what I'm asking - what is 'that way' you would find convincing?

You're right about what God can do - you'd be referring to regeneration there. But I'm interested to know what specific and concrete criteria you expect to be satisfied to be accepted as 'evidence' for God. Your reply here seems to amount to this - 'I will take it as evidence for God when God convinces me of His reality'. Have I got this wrong?

If that's what you meant, no amount of discussion by men can convince you - then why seek evidence and discuss here? (Not that I'm asking you not to discuss - I'm trying to understand what your belief framework is and what exactly it is that you're seeking. Your expected evidence and the main premise for which you require such evidence seem to be the same - and that's confusing me).

My point was, if this god is omniscient, it knows how to reach me [or those like me]. It would know what would affect. This isn't going to happen, and thus I am left with that which is demonstrable. With that said, it is of no use to believe in personal opinions, personal experiences, or other non-demonstrable things because what may sway one person may not sway another. The certainty of the devout muslim no doubt fails to reach the devout christian, for example.

But from the given context, it seems as if you hold on to this 'abiogenesis' hypothesis as true - could you confirm that. I'm inclined to think you don't believe in it because you came across as one who strives for evidence before accepting anything as true. And what exactly convinced you of the christian perspective to be false, if at all you are convinced it is false?

Abiogenesis is merely a term used by some scientists to denote the "beginning of life", of which there has yet to be a definitive on. Why I don't hold to the christian perspective is because it isn't science, and would be LESS likely to be evidential, since it involves a "speak and it came to pass" type of happening.

You said you believe in absolute truths. Are all such truths perceived as true by everybody without exception? If you think not, why do you suppose that's the case?

Are there any moral absolutes that you believe in? I do and I hold that as the evidence for God - as I've mentioned in post#68.

I should clear that up. It isn't a "belief" in absolute truths, . . . they just are, regardless of whether or not someone "believes them to be true".

Can you state what the "moral absolutes" that you believe in are, . . . and please tell me how they would not ever be the case without a deity?

 

[childeye]

I had a lot more typed out, but my stupid computer messed up and lost it all.

To sum up, . . . since I've never met Jesus, . . . nor have any reason to believe he is as christianity states, then it isn't possible for me to "disrespect him".

This is all really getting away from the OP.

I don't see how. Jesus is the evidence of Love eternal.

 

[Deavonreye]

It may be your belief, but it isn't a true evidence that is demonstrable. It is something found in a book and is untestable. So, when a non-believer asks for evidence, I trust you can see how your statement above isn't going to be persuasive.

And again, the basic reason behind the statement you stated above, . . . for me, . . . isn't love. I can't comment further so not to violate TOS.

 

[childeye]

=Deavonreye;570248]It may be your belief, but it isn't a true evidence that is demonstrable. It is something found in a book and is untestable.

Actually, I do see the cross as a test of Love or an example in faith. There also exists many such examples. Acts of charity for instance. But the cross is the epicenter of spiritual restoration both on heaven and on earth.

So, when a non-believer asks for evidence, I trust you can see how your statement above isn't going to be persuasive.

Yes but that is as it should be. I don't believe in freewill because I believe in God. So it is scripture says it must be given to a person to be able to believe in the Christ.

And again, the basic reason behind the statement you stated above, . . . for me, . . . isn't love. I can't comment further so not to violate TOS.

Well is it Okay to guess what it is?

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes but that is as it should be. I don't believe in freewill because I believe in God. So it is scripture says it must be given to a person to be able to believe in the Christ.

For the sake of argument [and assuming christianity as the true religion], how do you feel when a person isn't given the ability to "believe"? There is truth to the statement, "you cannot make a person believe."

Well is it Okay to guess what it is?

I don't see why not. I just can't offer it as a non-christian.

 

[ivdavid]

My point was, if this god is omniscient, it knows how to reach me [or those like me]. It would know what would affect.

I got your point...to which I did acknowledge that God does work this way through the process of regeneration.
My point is more a question - do you know what 'demonstrable thing' you are seeking for as evidence? And who is to demonstrate this? The answer obviously has to be God - so, what evidence are you requiring of mere men here, through this discussion? (The reason I ask this is to make sure I have understood your intent and position clearly - it's not to deter this discussion in any way.)

This isn't going to happen, and thus I am left with that which is demonstrable.

I'd like to know the 'evidence' which led to your conclusion that 'this isn't going to happen'. And again I ask - what is this demonstrable thing that you seek of men? I know of the Bible being a demonstration of God's nature and of how He works - and my faith in Him is based on the evidence provided there and the confirmation seen in everyday life.

A single unified theme cutting across thousands of years, penned by many different people yet preaching the same message, sometimes even without the explicit knowledge of all those passing this Scripture down the ages, according to me, amounts as evidence of One and the same Mind behind such inspired Scripture. Apart from this, I am yet to come across a system of beliefs that can comprehensively and consistently explain the basic nature of man and the world we live in. I'd take this as demonstrative evidence - but I figure you wouldn't. I'd just like to know your reasons behind not accepting these as true?

Why I don't hold to the christian perspective is because it isn't science, and would be LESS likely to be evidential, since it involves a "speak and it came to pass" type of happening.

I think this deserves more attention in the science thread - but as I said, God can never be tested upon. Also, the spiritual cannot be physically discerned. That however does not determine truth. You say you don't believe because of lack of evidence - Firstly, as you said, such evidence or your believing has no determination on truth. The absence of proof is not proof of its absence. Secondly, I do believe there is more than sufficient evidence in the Bible, backed and affirmed by our very lives.

It isn't a "belief" in absolute truths, . . . they just are, regardless of whether or not someone "believes them to be true".

That's exactly my point. That God's existence, His nature and His revelations are all true, regardless of whether or not someone believes them to be true. He just is - in fact, He very appropriately calls Himself, "I AM".
This was addressing your point that "if it is true, it MUST also be evident" - something being true or not has no basis on whether people find it evident or not. Differentiating between the inherent property of something being evident and the quality of man to discern such evidence, I'd say that God has inherently made Himself evident but man lacks the quality to discern such evidence because of his own sinfulness in the flesh. This is why we rest on God alone to work good in us instead of looking unto ourselves and our own abilities.

Can you state what the "moral absolutes" that you believe in are, . . . and please tell me how they would not ever be the case without a deity?

I hold the commandments of God as moral absolutes. Thou shalt not will to take another's life, Thou shalt not covet etc.
As I said in post#68, in short, a materialistic world does not give rise to the concept of an objective imperative 'ought' - there is only the concept of an observational 'is'. To reconcile any moral absolutes, one then has to concede that there is some Mind beyond our materialistic world that is the source of these 'oughts'. This would constitute my evidence for God (OP agenda). The alternative is to deny any moral absolutes, which is why I asked if you did believe in any moral absolutes - and I'm still interested to know if you do believe in any or not.

 

[childeye]

=

Deavonreye;570376]For the sake of argument [and assuming christianity as the true religion], how do you feel when a person isn't given the ability to "believe"?

I think God does it so that in Truth a man doesn't believe he's better than anybody else. Those who see are meant to use that serving all others in true Love.

There is truth to the statement, "you cannot make a person believe."

It's not true for God. Some will say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. God makes the thirsty and is the water. He makes the whole creation subject to vanity to subject it to hope.

I don't see why not. I just can't offer it as a non-christian

Did you get hurt by somebody or somebodies?

 

[Levi]

To all the non believers that are posting on this topic.

I put it to you that you do not want to believe in God because you don't want to believe Him.

You know that He exists and this is why you will be without excuse.

The reason you want to believe there is no God is because you do not believe the law.

The law tells you that you are a sinner and that you have sinned, it tells you that you are a bad person and you do not want to accept this.

It tells you that you are deserving of death for your attitudes and evil thoughts of your heart and actions.

You will spit venoumously at God and His ambassadors, you will try to find fault with Him and shift the blame.

You will say things like 'where is your God' and 'No one has ever seen Him'

'if your God is so Good why has He done this...or that...

Always blaming God for doing something wrong even though you claim not to believe in Him.

If someone corners you for being a sinner you will default to thoughts and words such as 'morality is relative' and I don't believe in your rules etc..

God has revealed Himself many times to you and spectacularly to the world through His Son Jesus Christ, no man in history has ever caused such a controversy.

or inspired so many followers in the face of such adversity and repeated efforts to stamp it out over the centuries.

This is why you don't believe in God, because you don't believe Him.

It is the original sin.

 

[Deavonreye]

My point is more a question - do you know what 'demonstrable thing' you are seeking for as evidence? And who is to demonstrate this? The answer obviously has to be God ...

What I was HOPING for, from men, was how I am expected to believe in a god when there isn't a way TO demonstrate it's existence. This isn't going to happen. As for the god "demonstrating", I won't hold my breath. God has been absent for all my years of living. If god wants to change this, let it be.

...I know of the Bible being a demonstration of God's nature and of how He works - and my faith in Him is based on the evidence provided there and the confirmation seen in everyday life.

This isn't demonstrable. It is just how you perceive it.

A single unified theme cutting across thousands of years, penned by many different people yet preaching the same message, sometimes even without the explicit knowledge of all those passing this Scripture down the ages, according to me, amounts as evidence of One and the same Mind behind such inspired Scripture. Apart from this, I am yet to come across a system of beliefs that can comprehensively and consistently explain the basic nature of man and the world we live in. I'd take this as demonstrative evidence - but I figure you wouldn't. I'd just like to know your reasons behind not accepting these as true?

Considering how the canon was put together, it makes perfect sense that it would have similar themes. Why is this supposed to be convincing?

...The absence of proof is not proof of its absence. Secondly, I do believe there is more than sufficient evidence in the Bible, backed and affirmed by our very lives.

And "not proof of absence", as well as your "sufficient evidence" is still but conjecture.

That's exactly my point. That God's existence, His nature and His revelations are all true, regardless of whether or not someone believes them to be true. He just is - in fact, He very appropriately calls Himself, "I AM".

This cannot be demonstrated, and is [once again] just assumption. I realize that such things may be enough for the christian, but it isn't anything that a person like me can use.

This was addressing your point that "if it is true, it MUST also be evident" - something being true or not has no basis on whether people find it evident or not. Differentiating between the inherent property of something being evident and the quality of man to discern such evidence, I'd say that God has inherently made Himself evident but man lacks the quality to discern such evidence because of his own sinfulness in the flesh. This is why we rest on God alone to work good in us instead of looking unto ourselves and our own abilities.

True, there have been things that were true, yet we were unable to test for them, based upon our level of technology. But you keep saying that this god is "inherently evident". If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. What they are. . . . are centuries of men expressing what the masses are to believe. "Evident"? I don't see it.

I hold the commandments of God as moral absolutes. Thou shalt not will to take another's life, Thou shalt not covet etc.
As I said in post#68, in short, a materialistic world does not give rise to the concept of an objective imperative 'ought' - there is only the concept of an observational 'is'. To reconcile any moral absolutes, one then has to concede that there is some Mind beyond our materialistic world that is the source of these 'oughts'. This would constitute my evidence for God (OP agenda). The alternative is to deny any moral absolutes, which is why I asked if you did believe in any moral absolutes - and I'm still interested to know if you do believe in any or not.

The non-religious parts of the 10 commandments were not originated in those texts or religion. Even so, sometimes it ISN'T immoral to take another's life. There is nothing immoral about wishing you had what another person has. It is often futile, but hardly immoral.

Nothing of what you states gives credence to the OP. It is still just doctrinal opinions.

 

[Deavonreye]

Did you get hurt by somebody or somebodies?

I did, . . . but that isn't why I am not swayed by "the cross", . . . or why I have my issues [that can't be discussed on these forums].

 

[Deavonreye]

To all the non believers that are posting on this topic.

I put it to you that you do not want to believe in God because you don't want to believe Him.

You're wrong. I would find it amazing to make contact with an actual god/goddess.

You know that He exists and this is why you will be without excuse.

Wrong again. I'm not an idiot! Don't assume that I am just because I don't believe YOU.

The reason you want to believe there is no God is because you do not believe the law.

I bet you don't "believe the law" either, or you would do it ALL. But the law I agree with [most of the time] is the laws of the United States, and especially, the Constitution of the United States.

The law tells you that you are a sinner and that you have sinned, it tells you that you are a bad person and you do not want to accept this.

It tells you that you are deserving of death for your attitudes and evil thoughts of your heart and actions.

"The biblical law" says no such thing to me. Anyway, I know that these types of "scare tactics" work on some people. UNFORTUNATELY, I have to be VERY careful in what I type here [because of the TOS]. Trust me that what you have stated here can easily be shown as. . . . . . well, that's all I can say.

You will spit venoumously at God and His ambassadors, you will try to find fault with Him and shift the blame.

You will say things like 'where is your God' and 'No one has ever seen Him'

'if your God is so Good why has He done this...or that...

Always blaming God for doing something wrong even though you claim not to believe in Him.

None of these points are relevant to my situation. I "spit" at no one, but am discussing with those on here quite calmly, and with as much respect as I can give.

If someone corners you for being a sinner you will default to thoughts and words such as 'morality is relative' and I don't believe in your rules etc..

God has revealed Himself many times to you and spectacularly to the world through His Son Jesus Christ, no man in history has ever caused such a controversy.

or inspired so many followers in the face of such adversity and repeated efforts to stamp it out over the centuries.

It would be impossible to qualify these comments. As for "sin", I am aware when I do something wrong. I change my own life if I am being adversely affected by my actions. That is the benefit. Anyway, . . . "controversy" or "adversity of the followers" is evidence of truth.

This is why you don't believe in God, because you don't believe Him.

Your god has said nothing to me, in my opinion. Words written by men, on the other hand, . . . . . many of them I do not believe, absolutely.