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

[childeye]

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].

Somehow I doubt that getting hurt has nothing to do with it. As I said, God must reveal Truth to man. God reveals to the humble and contrite people. Your testimony that you have seen no evidence of God and yet Love is all around is in all due respect, rather in denial. You want to see proof, then go to the cross. You say it has no sway upon you but can't discuss it. How is it i am suppose to deal with that? Are you saying you'd rather hope Love dies so that there will be nothing to lose?

 

[ivdavid]

Considering how the canon was put together, it makes perfect sense that it would have similar themes.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Is it that you think the Bible was written out anew during the putting together? I'm looking at simply the fact that Scriptural text 'A' has perfect continuity(not similar themes) with Scriptural text 'B', both separated by thousands of years. How does some group putting together these texts change the fact that these texts do exist thousands of years apart and that they fit together perfectly?

An example would be the controversial "we are no longer under the law but under grace" exposition by Paul in the NT. This was/is rejected by those under the law because i think they feel this is destroying Scriptural(OT) infallibility. But this being reconciled in Christ connects every single event from Genesis until Revelation. That's a mighty stretch for any amount of human imagination - or do you think otherwise?

This isn't demonstrable.

Perhaps I haven't understood what you mean by 'demonstrable'. Do you mean it as some live demonstrative event before your very eyes and open to your own scrutiny? Because I was referring to the act of any worldview that could be held up against our natural world and shown/demonstrated to hold up without any inconsistencies. That's how the non-contradiction theorem works, right? Assume something as true and hold it up against all test cases - if it fails in any, then it is proved to be false - if it doesn't fail at all, then there is the scope for it to be true.

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.

Let me qualify this properly - you are commanded to believe and yet not expected to believe by yourself. And let me qualify "believing" also - it is not just belief in the existence of God but more importantly, the belief in the sufficiency of His works to justify you unto life.
Regarding evidence, we are discussing that already.

But you keep saying that this god is "inherently evident". If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation now....."Evident"? I don't see it.

ivdavid - "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."

Even so, sometimes it ISN'T immoral to take another's life. There is nothing immoral about wishing you had what another person has.

Is this reply meant to state that you hold no moral absolutes? If not, please do state any moral absolute that you consent to. On the other hand, if you don't really hold any moral absolutes, is that evidenced by the very nature of man - Haven't you ever been grieved/flustered at how a 'wrong' was done instead of the 'right' that ought to have been done?

 

[Levi]

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 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.


\
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.



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.

These are the points that need addressing and further my statements.

I believe the law in that my conscience condemns me if I transgress it.

The law of man has nothing to do with what goes on inside your heart and mind, it is external to you and can be changed willfully by anyone in power.

I dont refer to the Biblical law, these 'scare tactics' as you spit out, are statements of the law that is working in you as a human being.

As for sin:

your words "I am aware when I do something wrong" admission of knowledge of the law!

All excuses are now nullified.-guilty is the pending verdict

your words " I change my own life if I am being adversely affected by my actions"

Callous disregard for the victims of your actions (you don't even give a mention to those you have wronged in your lifetime)

Self servitude. The number one trait of criminality that is the root cause of all crime.

Your not doing so well this far!


God has spoken to you a great many times! It is as I stated and you have clearly demonstrated in your words.

You don't want to believe Him! Therefore you don't want to accept that you are a sinner or a transgressor of His laws and that you need forgiveness.

Simple really, why run everyone through a big game of cat and mouse?

 

[Deavonreye]

Somehow I doubt that getting hurt has nothing to do with it. As I said, God must reveal Truth to man. God reveals to the humble and contrite people. Your testimony that you have seen no evidence of God and yet Love is all around is in all due respect, rather in denial. You want to see proof, then go to the cross. You say it has no sway upon you but can't discuss it. How is it i am suppose to deal with that? Are you saying you'd rather hope Love dies so that there will be nothing to lose?

There was a time that [when I was sincerely seeking god], he [if he even existed and was at work with my situation, . . . which I no longer believe happens] completely failed and his "justice" was impotent. Regardless, as I stated, "the cross" has issues for me that I can't discuss here. That's just the way it goes on this forum . . . because my words would be seen as "an attack against christianity". But I will say that the simple "act of love" isn't what I see.

 

[Deavonreye]

ivdavid and Levi, I will respond to your posts this afternoon. I don't have time to address them at this moment. :waving

 

[Deavonreye]

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Is it that you think the Bible was written out anew during the putting together? I'm looking at simply the fact that Scriptural text 'A' has perfect continuity(not similar themes) with Scriptural text 'B', both separated by thousands of years. How does some group putting together these texts change the fact that these texts do exist thousands of years apart and that they fit together perfectly?

Maybe they weren't very inventive. Jokes aside, the perceived "continuity", even if nothing else was known about how it all came together, would be nothing more than a group of very religious people with very precise rules and codes of conduct, . . . which wouldn't be at all surprising that they would continue those themes. Islam is a perfect example of how a group of people can stay relatively unchanged since ~700 ce.

An example would be the controversial "we are no longer under the law but under grace" exposition by Paul in the NT. This was/is rejected by those under the law because i think they feel this is destroying Scriptural(OT) infallibility. But this being reconciled in Christ connects every single event from Genesis until Revelation. That's a mighty stretch for any amount of human imagination - or do you think otherwise?

Well, . . . one COULD see "christ's reconciliation" as a convenient way to no longer be required to follow the 613 laws. It isn't a stretch for me at all.

Assume something as true and hold it up against all test cases - if it fails in any, then it is proved to be false - if it doesn't fail at all, then there is the scope for it to be true.

The issue is "assuming something as true". A hypothesis is an idea that is tested to determine validity, but it isn't "assumed as true" unless it fails the tests.

Is this reply meant to state that you hold no moral absolutes? If not, please do state any moral absolute that you consent to. On the other hand, if you don't really hold any moral absolutes, is that evidenced by the very nature of man - Haven't you ever been grieved/flustered at how a 'wrong' was done instead of the 'right' that ought to have been done?

There are things that I find abhorent. It's a scale thing, of course. I find it highly angering when I hear of yet another girl/young woman "missing and no one hasn't any idea where she is". It is completely evil.

 

[Deavonreye]

I believe the law in that my conscience condemns me if I transgress it.

The law of man has nothing to do with what goes on inside your heart and mind, it is external to you and can be changed willfully by anyone in power.

Oh, I think the mind is playing a big role in the laws governing man. But can you elaborate on who "anyone in power is". Just wanting to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I dont refer to the Biblical law, these 'scare tactics' as you spit out, are statements of the law that is working in you as a human being.

Um. . . . .no they are not. I reject many of the biblical laws.

As for sin:

your words "I am aware when I do something wrong" admission of knowledge of the law!

All excuses are now nullified.-guilty is the pending verdict

So what? I'm not worried about what a religious text states as some "verdict against me". If I work within the law and do not break it, there is no "guilt". Embarrassment perhaps.

your words " I change my own life if I am being adversely affected by my actions"

Callous disregard for the victims of your actions (you don't even give a mention to those you have wronged in your lifetime).

Most of the things I have done wrong were to myself. If I wronged someone else, I make amends in whatever way I can. How you lay "callous disregard" on my statement is beyond me, . . . but DOES show your disregard for me.

Self servitude. The number one trait of criminality that is the root cause of all crime.

Are you actually equating me with criminals???? If so, the we're done!

Your not doing so well this far!

You are not my superior or judge. Why should I care about your assessment?

God has spoken to you a great many times! It is as I stated and you have clearly demonstrated in your words.

You don't want to believe Him! Therefore you don't want to accept that you are a sinner or a transgressor of His laws and that you need forgiveness.

Simple really, why run everyone through a big game of cat and mouse?

You have demonstrated nothing to prove your opinion here. As for "transgressing biblical laws, . . . many of them I transgress, and am happy to do so. Why? Because I am a moral person.

 

[Levi]

Oh, I think the mind is playing a big role in the laws governing man. But can you elaborate on who "anyone in power is". Just wanting to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Any man or men holding a position that enables them to make verbal or written statements to you and who has or have sufficient force to subjugate you to those statements against your will should that be necessary.

Um. . . . .no they are not. I reject many of the biblical laws.

I know you reject written statements and once again I am not talking about the Bible, why do you keep bringing the Bible into this? I have never once referenced it??

So what? I'm not worried about what a religious text states as some "verdict against me". If I work within the law and do not break it, there is no "guilt". Embarrassment perhaps.

Once again, the Bible??

Most of the things I have done wrong were to myself. If I wronged someone else, I make amends in whatever way I can. How you lay "callous disregard" on my statement is beyond me, . . . but DOES show your disregard for me.

I lay callous disregard because your statements are all about self and this is evidenced in the fact that you believe you have 'wronged yourself somehow'

This is hogwash and self centered! Wrongs are what people do to others, not self.

I have no callous disregard for you if I did I would not spend a minute of my time on you.

Are you actually equating me with criminals???? If so, the we're done!

All humans are criminally inclined, this is evidenced in the presence of the conscience. It is a well known fact throughout law enforcement. Anyone who somehow believes they are not is a liar!

You are not my superior or judge. Why should I care about your assessment?

As I stated, 'if I where a judge'! I already acknowledged that I was no your judge so why reiterate it?

You have demonstrated nothing to prove your opinion here. As for "transgressing biblical laws, . . . many of them I transgress, and am happy to do so. Why? Because I am a moral person.

there you go again, what is your fixation with reverting back to these 'Biblical laws' that you keep mentioning??

I don't understand it you say you don't believe in God yet you keep bringing the Bible into this.

What power does this book have that you should attempt to use it to justify your position?

 

[ivdavid]

Deavonreye,

I think you've mistaken me for Levi in your post#147.

the perceived "continuity", even if nothing else was known about how it all came together, would be nothing more than a group of very religious people with very precise rules and codes of conduct, . . . which wouldn't be at all surprising that they would continue those themes.

That's precisely the point I was making through my example that followed. That if they had continued in the same ways, then the continuity wouldn't have been surprising at all. But Christ brought about so radical a change that seems, to the natural mind, a break from all previous revelations and yet that's not what it is. The continuity in the face of such paradoxes can be explained only by reckoning Christ as just what He claims to be. Such continuity is what I see as affirmation of an eternal Mind at work.

Well, . . . one COULD see "christ's reconciliation" as a convenient way to no longer be required to follow the 613 laws. It isn't a stretch for me at all.

Pause and reflect on this - I quote that we are no longer under the law and you assume that we are no longer required to follow the 613 commandments. That's the assumption I believe every natural mind will resort to. But that's not what is meant there - as seen from the totality of Scripture - and we could discuss that in another thread if you'd like. However, my point is - can one deny the truth of a system while operating on a misunderstood version of what the system actually proclaims?

The issue is "assuming something as true". A hypothesis is an idea that is tested to determine validity, but it isn't "assumed as true" unless it fails the tests.

Do you mean - "unless it passes the tests."? And are you mixing up "assuming as true" with "determining as true"?
Anyway, I don't see any issue with "assuming something as true" - it is a valid logical argument. Assume God exists and has revealed Himself by His Word(the Bible) and disprove this proposition by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence ie contradiction. If you don't come across any, that is reason enough to consider this as true - and by its implications, we could then proceed to determining that this is the truth. I'm doing the same w.r.t. the materialistic world and its implications - which I shall continue in my next post.....

 

[ivdavid]

...Continuing,

There are things that I find abhorent.....
...It is completely evil.

I'll have to clarify this -
a) Do you mean the above in a descriptive sense where you are stating that certain actions cause certain reactions in you - and that you merely label such actions as "evil" and such reactions as "negative/abhorring"?
OR
b) Do you mean the above in a moralistic sense where you are stating that certain actions ought not to be done at all by anyone because they are inherently evil - and because man ought not to do evil?

Note, you cannot make the second statement in a purely materialistic world. And the first statement lays no moral obligations on anybody which is in contradiction with the observable nature of man.

I find this to deny the materialistic worldview and to be the evidence of a Mind beyond the materialistic world.

 

[Levi]

Deavonreye,

I think you've mistaken me for Levi in your post#147.

That was not a 'mistake'

 

[Levi]

: + - + ) =

 

[Deavonreye]

Any man or men holding a position that enables them to make verbal or written statements to you and who has or have sufficient force to subjugate you to those statements against your will should that be necessary.

I know you reject written statements and once again I am not talking about the Bible, why do you keep bringing the Bible into this? I have never once referenced it??

The rest of your post isn't relevant to the issue here. You stated that I am guilty of transgressing the law. By that, I was assuming that you were talking about biblical law. If not, please explain which law I have transgressed that is extra-biblical.

 

[Deavonreye]

Anyway, I don't see any issue with "assuming something as true" - it is a valid logical argument. Assume God exists and has revealed Himself by His Word(the Bible) and disprove this proposition by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence ie contradiction. If you don't come across any, that is reason enough to consider this as true - and by its implications, we could then proceed to determining that this is the truth. I'm doing the same w.r.t. the materialistic world and its implications - which I shall continue in my next post.....

This reasoning would [then] make true many other non-christian claims. We can make assumptions all day long, but until there is a way to repeatedly test [with similar/same results] it, then the title of "truth" must remain on the shelf.

 

[Deavonreye]

...Continuing,


I'll have to clarify this -
a) Do you mean the above in a descriptive sense where you are stating that certain actions cause certain reactions in you - and that you merely label such actions as "evil" and such reactions as "negative/abhorring"?
OR
b) Do you mean the above in a moralistic sense where you are stating that certain actions ought not to be done at all by anyone because they are inherently evil - and because man ought not to do evil?

Note, you cannot make the second statement in a purely materialistic world. And the first statement lays no moral obligations on anybody which is in contradiction with the observable nature of man.

I find this to deny the materialistic worldview and to be the evidence of a Mind beyond the materialistic world.

Both A and B are true. However, even if I something "ought never to be done because of its evil nature", that doesn't make "a moral lawgiver [in the singular, usually stated as a god]" necessary. We have become an intelligent species and are well equipped to make a determination upon what isn't good for the society as a whole, . . . and more importantly, what is appropriate for a person's personal rights. What we have in this world is a HUGE glut of selfish people. I have made it a choice to respect others and their rights because it is how I would like to be treated.

 

[childeye]

Both A and B are true. However, even if I something "ought never to be done because of its evil nature", that doesn't make "a moral lawgiver [in the singular, usually stated as a god]" necessary. We have become an intelligent species and are well equipped to make a determination upon what isn't good for the society as a whole, . . . and more importantly, what is appropriate for a person's personal rights. What we have in this world is a HUGE glut of selfish people. I have made it a choice to respect others and their rights because it is how I would like to be treated.

Let's look at what you've said here, Devonreye. You've stated an absolute:to respect others and their rights because it is how I would like to be treated.

Proof of God out of your own mouth.

 

[Deavonreye]

Let's look at what you've said here, Devonreye. You've stated an absolute:to respect others and their rights because it is how I would like to be treated.

Proof of God out of your own mouth.

A very vague god, then.

Regardless, I don't see that as "proof" at all. And IF it even could, it would only be our opinion as to the thousands of gods that have come about.

 

[childeye]

A very vague god, then.

Regardless, I don't see that as "proof" at all. And IF it even could, it would only be our opinion as to the thousands of gods that have come about.

But God is an absolute and there can not be more than one according to the definition and you have described the perfect justice using both subjective and objective points of view held together at once. There is no guesswork here in your conviction. It is accurate. You have the Word of God in you because you spoke it. Now if you walk in it, this rules your moral reasoning and actions.

 

[smaller]

Both A and B are true. However, even if I something "ought never to be done because of its evil nature", that doesn't make "a moral lawgiver [in the singular, usually stated as a god]" necessary. We have become an intelligent species and are well equipped to make a determination upon what isn't good for the society as a whole, . . . and more importantly, what is appropriate for a person's personal rights. What we have in this world is a HUGE glut of selfish people. I have made it a choice to respect others and their rights because it is how I would like to be treated.

Were God a point of tangible empirical evidence, I'd daresay that proof methodology was prior insufficient to prove it a fact beyond dispute eh?

There are certain matters that 'theology' deals with that are quite beyond empirical captivity. Just as the science of mathematics can observe that the square root of Pi has innumerable digits behind the decimal point they empirically can never pin it down, and have then an expression of that observation which is a little figure 8 turned on it's side to express that matter beyond box capture called infinite or infinity. It is empirically sound methodology, but a fact beyond empirical capture/containment.

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

There is no form of empiricism that has captured, oh, let's say LOVE for example. Yet we know that as a 'spiritual matter' it nevertheless remains a fact.

For those who present God as an Absolute, I can only say Absolute What? Absolutely beyond any 'thing' absolute as far as I'm concerned.

And as a moral imperative for proof? Secular society has an entire 'other' set of 'rules' based on ethics that has nearly identical goals and apart from one spot of God overtly, so that argument is out.

There remains matters that are beyond science and empiricism. These are matters of theology's realm. And I say every empiricist bows to forms of those facts whenever they encounter the sideways 8.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[childeye]

=smaller;571052]

For those who present God as an Absolute, I can only say Absolute What? Absolutely beyond any 'thing' absolute as far as I'm concerned.

All Knowing. All powerful. Omniscient, Omnipotent. Ominpresent. In navigation the fixed point by which all other points are relative. Truth.

And as a moral imperative for proof? Secular society has an entire 'other' set of 'rules' based on ethics that has nearly identical goals and apart from one spot of God overtly, so that argument is out.

A statement based on hypocrisy. The fact you say the argument there is a moral imperative is not a valid one, is a moral imperative. Please don't go carnal ballistic on me. All of scripture uses the term God and gods applying it as an absolute or false absolutes.