Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

1. I'm wondering if god ever communicates anything in any way such that the origin of the knowledge is unambiguous.
2. Otherwise rational people do believe in god, but their belief is not rational.
3. I agree there is lack of absolute knowledge. This situation doesn't support theism.

I can appreciate great actions of people who happen to be religious, it doesn't mean that religion was necessary to cause great things. The civil rights movement, for instance, was full of atheists.

You mean like a voice from a flaming bush? Or how about recorded miracles. Have you tried looking up miracles and accounts from other people? How much time and research have you put into finding God as opposed to refuting God? Looks like you just gave up on trying years ago. Or perhaps you never really cared too much in the first place.

Are you asking for God to part the heavens and speak to you in a thundering voice or face to face? Why should He? You've already admitted that you would not worship Him anyway. You surely will not find God with that heart. Because there is no point in Him revealing Himself to you. Unless there's something I'm missing. And I hope for your sake that God proves me wrong.




And by virtue of this point, we cannot then come to any absolute knowledge that there is no God either. It is premature and foolish at best.

Many have and been believed and not believed. If someone actually had that happen and told you, would you believe it?

What makes it irrational? People thought that Relativity was irrational with but a very select few for a long time.

Why?

Again, false equivalencies. And, whether religion was or was not required is the same as saying a lack of religion was or was not required.

Continuing to insist of hearing a message reminds me of the scientists who impose their own narrative over the hypothesis and the actual results. Or, people lost at sea.....

The easiest example of that is simply the two legged or mostly two legged dinosaurs when they were first exhibited. They would actually break the tails so they could stand them upright as the experts assumed it would be as well as dislocating hip joints to angle the torsos to what they expected instead of what anatomy suggested.

Any message, by anything under any circumstances are easy to miss if someone refuses to listen.

And, by the way, in case it's not been noticed, I am not arguing for or against either science or religion or spirituality.

I think the existence of a Creator-God is logically possible. But there is little empirical evidence to support this possibility. The rational position on the question is "show me proof..." which is essentially the agnostic position.

Denial of the existence of God is on the same unsteady basis as assertion of the existence of God. No really rock solid undeniable evidence either way.;

Please note -- Holy Scriptures have no place in this discussion. Every last jot and tittle in the Holy Books is human made.

I would agree on taken literally the word of any god from any scripture is not a good thing. But some of the notions they were trying to explain then are things we are still struggling with today.

But, that doesn't invalidate those same authors (or groups of authors) that set forth many, many good things that are common to all religions.

Basic goodness, social structure, respect for others, dignity.

It's always the wingnuts of any extreme, no matter what discipline, that make things difficult.

One does not need a god to pursue goodness or doing the Right Thing. That is a perfectly human possibility and some even succeed at it.

Nobody here has asserted otherwise. And again does not invalidate the good things people of religion do as well.

Hehe, you are not the rule maker here. With that logic, then I should not give any credence to anything you have to say about God based on the merit that you are a
man.

But what do you require instead? Selfies of Peter and John standing in front of Jesus as He heals the a blind man and a paralytic?

Historical documentation is a very valid piece of evidence to take into consideration which includes religious texts. For all anyone knows, one of them might just be inspired of God, our Creator. Just because we don't like what a particular thing says, or have strong opinions against it, does not mean that it is untrue or invalid.

Just like a father can tell his son to write down notes or to take a message, God, the Heavenly Father can do the same with His children. If God wrote a holy book Himself with His own hands, would you even believe that?
It is irrelevant who penned the Scriptures in a physical. What IS important is who inspired them.

You really want to know? Go ask the Author yourself. Hear His interpretation. Whichever Author is still alive is the One who will answer. A dead author cannot answer because he is dead. A living author can make his book come alive and inject it with meaning we otherwise could not gain.

I say this from a completely investigative standpoint. Personally, I have found the evidence needed, and nobody really cares to listen or acknowledge that. Or even try the things I've recommended. So I am left with human logic, which ultimately is a foundation of sinking sand.

Nobody wins in this argument because everyone has their mind made up already. Anyone else seeing that?

P.S. Anyone on here actually read through any religious text at all, let alone the Bible? I'm not talking about cherry picking Scriptures to bash from atheist websites either.

A. I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation a few times
B. God uses lots of types of people
C. Some came kicking and screaming
D. Some were
1. Drunks
2. Depressed
3. Prostitutes
4. Fisherman
5. Doubters
6. Deniers of Christ
.....
I am not here as an authority
Just sharing my experience and what I have read.

Grace & Forgiveness.

And thank you for doing so!

You're right, I'm not looking for god because I think it's all BS. But I'm wondering why you believe it. Why is a burning bush not a hallucination (or natural fire)? Why is a miracle not a magic trick or a delusion? Personal anecdotes in a book do not constitute reliable evidence. Anybody can write anything.



So you are an atheist too?

Last edited by AspE on 12 Apr 2016, 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

It depends. Do they now have some knowledge for which there is no other explanation? Something specific that it would be otherwise impossible to know?


Not true. Relativity was a natural explanation for the nature of the universe. It was a falsifiable hypothesis that no one believed on faith (or shouldn't have). Then it was confirmed by evidence. What makes theism irrational? Because no one can give a good reason to believe it.

Because we already know the natural exists. We don't have any evidence the supernatural exists.


True, which means religious beliefs or lack of them are not necessary to do good things.


I don't care about hearing a message. I wouldn't believe my own senses and you shouldn't either. Why is a message in your mind evidence for anything? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this. Minds are not reliable. I can't believe people are fooled by such flimsy phenomenon.

I disagree. Holy scriptures are the way people know the proposed nature of a god. That way we can look for evidence. With no definition or defined properties, one can logically dismiss such an idea (if you can even call it that) with no evidence at all.

My personal beliefs are my personal beliefs. That is why I am not espousing one over the other as to do so would start to close off discussion from any perspective.

Do I take any scripture as to be literal? No. Too much of a common message in too many various beliefs to ignore.

Do I take science literal? No. Too many flip flops.

But, I do apply the same critical thinking to both issues.

You asked once how would know the difference between a god talking to a believer and just basic psychosis (I am paraphrasing here). I think the simple answer is this: The same way you know that that little voice in your head that says, "Nope, not a good idea," or, "I need to do this," is not bad in certain situations.

Knew a guy once who would see and hear little elves climb on his bed and berate him. He knew the difference. But only because he was taught. So, yeah, there are those who would not know until exposed to reality.

Of course I'm happy if people do good things for whatever reason. But you admit that religion isn't necessary, so you are undermining a common argument in favor of it. The utility that it makes people better people.

You have so far studiously avoided describing the evidence that you found so convincing. Why is that?