Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1676-1700 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 9:39:22 AM PDT
Severin says:
I saw it 3 times in the theater, I was very impressed on the presentation of Jesus as a man and not the usual god-in-man-form. He wasn't perfect, he was susceptible to temptation which makes sense. If he wasn't then what was the point in tempting him? It also made him a more realistic role model for us mere humans.

This was back in my believer days, I've since been cured by reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 10:46:55 AM PDT
DJN

Reality will do that to you every time. Unless you're a believer, then reality has no reality in your life.

T Crown

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 4:04:57 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
I've recently been told that I must first believe the Christian message if I am to understand it.

Somehow belief is supposed to transform bafflement into comprehension. It's the theory that belief precedes understanding: If I believe that a Croat is telling me the truth, I'll somehow instantly understand him when he speaks Croatian.

I'd like to know more about this amazing phenomenon.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:20:09 PM PDT
Bubba says:The US has already succumbed to Christian superstition and we are in grave danger of succumbing to Christian dominionism in the US. I have lost any hope I had that science will become universally respected in the US.

Sophie: I think this is too negative. If the President gets re-elected there is a good chance that the science-respecting community will gain further. Some crackpots always remain, but they may well lose their ability to influence much.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 3:23:45 PM PDT
cam:It always ends in faltilism

SA: Is that something contagious? It sounds like it might be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:14:35 PM PDT
"SA: Is that something contagious? It sounds like it might be."

I had an awful case of faltilism once, all the way down my leg. Got some pink ointment from the doc!

TCrown

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:18:18 PM PDT
Bubba says:
I certainly hope that you are correct that the science-respecting community will gain further during Obama's next term.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:41:40 PM PDT
D. Thomas, I asked if you have ever interpreted scripture for yourself, not translated.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:01:19 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Faltilence isn't contagious, but it's unpleasant to be in the same room with somebody who has it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:03:31 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
That's not the question you asked. Interpreting scripture and translating it are very different things.

No, I cannot read koine Greek.

Now about my question: Why do you care?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:20:36 PM PDT
D. Thomas, you are incorrect. I clearly asked you if you have ever interpreted scripture for yourself.

Why do I care? Fundamentally, I don't. It is your own business if you wish to base your reactions to scripture based on the official dogmatics of the church. I believe it would serve you better to interpret scripture for yourself.

Posted on Jul 7, 2012 5:15:51 AM PDT
Truthseeker says:
Trying to prove God by empirical evidence will never reveal God to the person who is using that as a litimus test to whether God exists or not.

God reveals Himself to the humble but not to proud of heart. Jesus maveled how His Father had hidden His wisdom from the wise but revealed it to the simple.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 5:39:53 AM PDT
realprofits

This idea of humbleness has always been overplayed by leaders who need to control the populous. Sounds great - maybe god could use some himself.

If, on the other hand you mean 'wisdom', then those who are willing to empty their minds in order to receive it will benefit. I'm not talking about receiving the 'holy spirit' or any other mythological claptrap, just pure wisdom.

T Crown

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 1:33:30 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
Keith,

I was agnostic and going through a very dark time in my life. I cried out for help to a God I wasn't sure was real. Amazingly He revealed Himself to me. I felt an umistakeable presence, followed by a profound peace and a love I can only describe as liquid. I was left with a conviction deep in my soul that God was real. For me it was a fact, like 2 plus 2 equals 4. Is this rational? Not really. Am I surprise that people who haven't experienced what I have experience, think I'm a little crazy? No, I'm not.

This is my testimony. God one day revealed Himself to me. I learned later this inner conviction that there is a God, was faith. Later came Bible reading and church, but they only confirmed my conviction, they didn't create it.

If everyone in the world denied there was a God, I could not. How could empirical evidence give me a conviction greater than what I received? It was God Himself who put that conviction into me. The atheist and agnostic can never understand this kind of conviction.

Believing

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 2:21:35 PM PDT
real:How could empirical evidence give me a conviction greater than what I received?

SA: It could give you greater understanding, if you would let it do so. And truth is not decided by strength of conviction.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 2:24:08 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
KW wrote: "If, on the other hand you mean 'wisdom', then those who are willing to empty their minds in order to receive it will benefit."

Yes, I've noticed that empty minds are a common feature of the devoutly religious, especially Evangelicals.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 2:28:30 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
What if the evidence doesn't agree with the convictions? Which does one accept?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 2:31:34 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
RP wrote: "If everyone in the world denied there was a God..."

...the world would be a better place. Religion is a divisive force in the world. It only unites people against those of other persuasions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 2:36:03 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:What if the evidence doesn't agree with the convictions? Which does one accept?

SA: That depends on your mindset. If it is scientific, you choose the evidence. If it is religious, you choose the conviction.

Posted on Jul 7, 2012 2:37:36 PM PDT
Peter says:
What happens in most religious discussions is ALWAYS the same - just like how Carl Sagan in his marvelous book Pale Blue Dot said that we are "humano-centrists" and we personify the "heavens" with human tendencies such as love, anger, jealousy, hatred, etc, the western world ALWAYS equates religion with Christianity/Judaism and sometimes Islam. The Abrahamic faiths do not encompass all spiritual and religious thought, especially because the religious and ritualistic aspect of it tends to supersede the more important part (IMO), the spiritual aspect of worship. And by worship I do not mean the mindless drone of chanting hymns or participating in blind praise; I mean the intellectual journey of asking "who are we? And why are we here?" THAT is worship. And that is the essence of Hinduism.

For example, in Hinduism there is a school that literally denies the existence of god. It's the Samkhya school but yet it falls under the Hindu domain. That's because religion and spirituality is not the same thing, but unfortunately that is true in the Abrahamic faiths (atleast from what I've learned). Christianity puts the holy scripture above logic and reason; how else are we to reconcile that fundamentalists only believe the Earth is 6000 years old? In Madvha's philosophy this is the opposite: he puts pramayanas (sense and logic) ABOVE the srutis (scriptures) if the upajivyaka (effect) does not make sense with the upajivya (cause).

So in this sense, the Hindu schools have to have an epistemology and the leaders of the schools MUST comment on the scriptures to become established within Hinduism. So, there is an atheist school, a monist school, a dualistic school, etc and all of them are based on the Vedas and other important religious texts. As far as the existence of God goes, it comes down to this: how can you prove the unprovable? Madvha says that to meditate upon God is to meditate upon the infinite; what the hell does that even mean? Or a famous Christian theologian (whom I unfortunately forget his name right now) says "Reaching God is like trying to wrap your entire arms around a mountain." God is a koan, an unsolvable puzzle that is meant to answer not the material world of atoms and oceans and fire and trees and history; it's supposed to challenge you to think about beyond that, to meditate upon the infinite. It's supposed to make you feel connected with your surroundings and perhaps answer some unaswerable questions, and for me personally in an age where I feel like I'm growing ever more disconnected with nature around me, I find peace. And that's really all I can ask for.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 4:11:10 PM PDT
brunumb says:
realprofits: "God reveals Himself to the humble but not to proud of heart."

What's the point of that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 4:47:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 7, 2012 5:58:20 PM PDT
Charles says:
Robert A. Saunders says

"No thesis involving the potential or actual involvement of a deity is refutable, so no information can be derived from any such thesis."

Proof of God can not come from written words, it must came from interaction between an individual and God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 4:51:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 7, 2012 5:58:42 PM PDT
Charles says:
Jack Vix says:
What would be an example of an experience that requires not "knowing"? Maybe I'm wrong but I ----- then what's to make of the many that don't have that experience? Do they go to Hell?"""

There is no hell.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 4:59:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 7, 2012 5:59:15 PM PDT
Charles says:
D. Thomas says:
You're simply wrong about that.

"In science, the term "proof" is an empirical one, that is, it refers to observed, quantifiable physical evidence that can be confirmed by ANY observer."""

First thing, D thom, we're not talking of science. In science it must be able to be duplicated by others. A personal experience is just that personal. However, i have been able to demonstrate,
to others, experiences with more than one observer.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 7, 2012 5:09:15 PM PDT
Charles says:
D thom says

Do you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Proof is OBJECTIVE in nature. It is not the same as belief, which can be subjective."""

What i do understand is that nothing is entirely objective, once viewed it is than subjective.

"You may believe with all your heart that there's a ghost living in your attic. That belief may even been proven to YOUR satisfaction, but you may be deceiving yourself. People do that all the time. So one person's belief about something doesn't mean it's been proved:"

If a snake bites me and no one else sees it, I have all the proof i need.

"There is a lot of information about the nature of proof. You ought to inform yourself about a subject before you falsely accuse others of saying dumb things - and end up saying things that are REALLY dumb, like you did in your post."

I was a double major in Psychology / Philosophy in College, I'm pretty sure i know what i'm talking about.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  221
Total posts:  9878
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  May 26, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions