I serve an amazing God

[The Maudfather]

I cannot prove Jedi don't exist. Neither you nor I can prove God does or doesn't exist. But, there is no burden of proof that believers have to fulfill. If human understanding, the anecdotal evidence, some missing crucial scientific evidence, and logic lead us to different conclusions about the existence of a God, I have nothing more to offer. It is our choice to believe as we see fit. You can say the burden of proof is the believers to bear but we both know that is not applicable in this discussion. The very nature of a God really prohibits any hard evidence that would meet any scientific criteria. I won't say your right or wrong and you probably should not say I am right or wrong but you are free to do either. I am aware of the problems associated with my beliefs and not being able to prove them to others. It's kind of funny. My story about being cured and my mother are the absolute truth (even though they have been referred to as only anecdotal evidence) but my default position on the OP's claim of being healed is much the same as others with mine. I assume some natural cause was more likely than God curing him. This from me who knows God could cure him. Kind of ironic huh? I think people who ask for proof of God's existence are exactly the same as those who claim he exists with no proof to offer. I think it is simply human nature to stick with what you already believe to be true until hard information is presented that makes you change your mind. It may not be fair to flip the question and ask for proof he doesn't exist but I do feel, in this issue, it is the same thing. Look at it this way, if it was possible to prove it, there would be no need to prove it. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise? Prove it.

 

This is what I don't get. You said earlier in the thread you participate in these discussions in hopes that someone might be able to change your mind. Yet you cling to an illogical position in order to ensure your mind can't be changed. Just like unicorns, fairies, and goblins; god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so of course it can't be proven false. That's not a logical reason to believe in something. That line of reasoning is fine for ghost hunters, UFO enthusiasts, Squatchers, ect... but it should have no place in reasonable discussion.

 

If that's what you want to hang your hat on, fine. I have no problem with that. What I do take issue with is when people act like it's just as logical as being skeptical of something until evidence can be presented in support of it. It's not at all the same thing.

Well said, Lebowski.

 

Faith is the one area where people are not required to justify their beliefs through logical argument or debate. Mighty convenient, if you ask me.

 

If I were trying to get a medical degree and had all kinds of ideas about about human health that can't be substantiated by evidence and were simply based on my own strong, personal convictions, not only would I not be getting a medical degree, but I would be laughed out of the room.

[knapplc]

Faith is the one area where people are not required to justify their beliefs through logical argument or debate. Mighty convenient, if you ask me.

 

It is convenient. But who is it most convenient for? Sure, that vaguery helps explain things for believers in conversations like this, but the real beneficiary of this is the church hierarchy. They get to have all the power of the church, but never truly explain to their constituents why those constituents should believe what they say.

 

"It's in the Bible." Solves everything.

[The Maudfather]

Faith is the one area where people are not required to justify their beliefs through logical argument or debate. Mighty convenient, if you ask me.

 

It is convenient. But who is it most convenient for? Sure, that vaguery helps explain things for believers in conversations like this, but the real beneficiary of this is the church hierarchy. They get to have all the power of the church, but never truly explain to their constituents why those constituents should believe what they say.

 

"It's in the Bible." Solves everything.

It almost makes me jealous because it sounds like a pretty sweet gig.

[308_Husker]

Not necessarily true, even if God is all knowing--we are still responsible for the decisions we make and the beliefs we have. That God can not take responsibility for, our choices are our choices alone.

But God knows about those actions before we even have the though of committing those acts. It may seem like it is free will to us, since it's a decision we feel like we're making on our own, but God knows we will commit these actions. Just like He knows who will be the President in 50 years, who will do what, etc. if he is truly all-knowing. So, in the grand scheme of some situations, God knowingly puts people on this earth who will kill/rape people and on the other side of that coin he puts people here on earth that will be raped and killed.

[bleedinghuskerred]

You specifically say free will is not impeded by God, yet assert that he can intervene at any time. My point is a simple question - how can you have free will if, at any one point or time, God can make a decision for you and affect the outcome of some situation?

 

You can't. If I said I have power to affect your life at any point in time regardless of a choice you make, i'm controlling your free will. Even if I'm letting you make your own decisions every now and then, you still wouldn't know if I helped or not.

 

free will

 

 

Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

 

Hence, no fate = free will. And I don't believe in fate. That doesn't mean I don't think that God can change things if He desires to, but that doesn't impede on free will, and rarely does He actually do so IMO.

You don't believe in fate but believe God can intervene in our lives? How do you not see the contradiction in these two ideals? Free will is more than just a choice you make - it's your life in general. It means you have the means to control your life without, as the definition says, constraint. God would be a constraint, because he could alter something if he decided.

[JJ Husker]

I cannot prove Jedi don't exist. Neither you nor I can prove God does or doesn't exist. But, there is no burden of proof that believers have to fulfill. If human understanding, the anecdotal evidence, some missing crucial scientific evidence, and logic lead us to different conclusions about the existence of a God, I have nothing more to offer. It is our choice to believe as we see fit. You can say the burden of proof is the believers to bear but we both know that is not applicable in this discussion. The very nature of a God really prohibits any hard evidence that would meet any scientific criteria. I won't say your right or wrong and you probably should not say I am right or wrong but you are free to do either. I am aware of the problems associated with my beliefs and not being able to prove them to others. It's kind of funny. My story about being cured and my mother are the absolute truth (even though they have been referred to as only anecdotal evidence) but my default position on the OP's claim of being healed is much the same as others with mine. I assume some natural cause was more likely than God curing him. This from me who knows God could cure him. Kind of ironic huh? I think people who ask for proof of God's existence are exactly the same as those who claim he exists with no proof to offer. I think it is simply human nature to stick with what you already believe to be true until hard information is presented that makes you change your mind. It may not be fair to flip the question and ask for proof he doesn't exist but I do feel, in this issue, it is the same thing. Look at it this way, if it was possible to prove it, there would be no need to prove it. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise? Prove it.

 

This is what I don't get. You said earlier in the thread you participate in these discussions in hopes that someone might be able to change your mind. Yet you cling to an illogical position in order to ensure your mind can't be changed. Just like unicorns, fairies, and goblins; god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so of course it can't be proven false. That's not a logical reason to believe in something. That line of reasoning is fine for ghost hunters, UFO enthusiasts, Squatchers, ect... but it should have no place in reasonable discussion.

 

If that's what you want to hang your hat on, fine. I have no problem with that. What I do take issue with is when people act like it's just as logical as being skeptical of something until evidence can be presented in support of it. It's not at all the same thing.

It's not that I hope someone WILL change my mind but rather people who are claiming I am wrong or claiming that I am being illogical should be able to change my mind. I do not feel I am "clinging" to an illogical position. In fact I do not consider it illogical at all. It makes perfect sense to me. What possible motive could I, or anyone for that matter, have to ensure that my mind can't be changed? My line of reasoning is not that I believe in God simply because his non-existence cannot be proven. All of the evidence I have seen leads me to where I am at. You can take issue with it all you want but you have not been exposed to all of the same evidence as I have. Some of my evidence is written off as merely anecdotal by others. I can't control that. In some cases we have been exposed to the same evidence and we have arrived at different conclusions. Once again, I cannot control that. It would seem that some here want me to ignore my own logic, reasoning, and personal experiences and change my course simply because they don't agree with me. That isn't going to happen unless I am presented with evidence that does in fact change my mind. This is much different than not being willing to change my mind. It would be exactly the same if I expected you to agree with me and called your beliefs illogical. Only I'm not the one doing that.

[bhamHusker]

Things are easier when you accept BS as evidence, I suppose.

[The Dude]

I cannot prove Jedi don't exist. Neither you nor I can prove God does or doesn't exist. But, there is no burden of proof that believers have to fulfill. If human understanding, the anecdotal evidence, some missing crucial scientific evidence, and logic lead us to different conclusions about the existence of a God, I have nothing more to offer. It is our choice to believe as we see fit. You can say the burden of proof is the believers to bear but we both know that is not applicable in this discussion. The very nature of a God really prohibits any hard evidence that would meet any scientific criteria. I won't say your right or wrong and you probably should not say I am right or wrong but you are free to do either. I am aware of the problems associated with my beliefs and not being able to prove them to others. It's kind of funny. My story about being cured and my mother are the absolute truth (even though they have been referred to as only anecdotal evidence) but my default position on the OP's claim of being healed is much the same as others with mine. I assume some natural cause was more likely than God curing him. This from me who knows God could cure him. Kind of ironic huh? I think people who ask for proof of God's existence are exactly the same as those who claim he exists with no proof to offer. I think it is simply human nature to stick with what you already believe to be true until hard information is presented that makes you change your mind. It may not be fair to flip the question and ask for proof he doesn't exist but I do feel, in this issue, it is the same thing. Look at it this way, if it was possible to prove it, there would be no need to prove it. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise? Prove it.

 

This is what I don't get. You said earlier in the thread you participate in these discussions in hopes that someone might be able to change your mind. Yet you cling to an illogical position in order to ensure your mind can't be changed. Just like unicorns, fairies, and goblins; god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so of course it can't be proven false. That's not a logical reason to believe in something. That line of reasoning is fine for ghost hunters, UFO enthusiasts, Squatchers, ect... but it should have no place in reasonable discussion.

 

If that's what you want to hang your hat on, fine. I have no problem with that. What I do take issue with is when people act like it's just as logical as being skeptical of something until evidence can be presented in support of it. It's not at all the same thing.

It's not that I hope someone WILL change my mind but rather people who are claiming I am wrong or claiming that I am being illogical should be able to change my mind. I do not feel I am "clinging" to an illogical position. In fact I do not consider it illogical at all. It makes perfect sense to me. What possible motive could I, or anyone for that matter, have to ensure that my mind can't be changed? My line of reasoning is not that I believe in God simply because his non-existence cannot be proven. All of the evidence I have seen leads me to where I am at. You can take issue with it all you want but you have not been exposed to all of the same evidence as I have. Some of my evidence is written off as merely anecdotal by others. I can't control that. In some cases we have been exposed to the same evidence and we have arrived at different conclusions. Once again, I cannot control that. It would seem that some here want me to ignore my own logic, reasoning, and personal experiences and change my course simply because they don't agree with me. That isn't going to happen unless I am presented with evidence that does in fact change my mind. This is much different than not being willing to change my mind. It would be exactly the same if I expected you to agree with me and called your beliefs illogical. Only I'm not the one doing that.

When it comes to the existence of a god, I've arrived at no conclusions.

[JJ Husker]

Things are easier when you accept BS as evidence, I suppose.

Do you have any examples of evidence I accept that you consider BS? Or are you just trolling? Remember, just because you may disagree doesn't make it BS unless you can show exactly what the BS is. That is unless you happen to be the god of BS. In that case, I may just take your word for it.

[HuskerShark]

You specifically say free will is not impeded by God, yet assert that he can intervene at any time. My point is a simple question - how can you have free will if, at any one point or time, God can make a decision for you and affect the outcome of some situation?

 

You can't. If I said I have power to affect your life at any point in time regardless of a choice you make, i'm controlling your free will. Even if I'm letting you make your own decisions every now and then, you still wouldn't know if I helped or not.

 

free will

 

 

Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

 

Hence, no fate = free will. And I don't believe in fate. That doesn't mean I don't think that God can change things if He desires to, but that doesn't impede on free will, and rarely does He actually do so IMO.

You don't believe in fate but believe God can intervene in our lives? How do you not see the contradiction in these two ideals? Free will is more than just a choice you make - it's your life in general. It means you have the means to control your life without, as the definition says, constraint. God would be a constraint, because he could alter something if he decided.

 

Maybe don't overthink it and it will help you understand. Just deciding whether or not you believe in free will or fate is free will itself.

[bhamHusker]

Do you have any examples of evidence I accept that you consider BS? Or are you just trolling? Remember, just because you may disagree doesn't make it BS unless you can show exactly what the BS is. That is unless you happen to be the god of BS. In that case, I may just take your word for it.

Based solely on your posts in this thread so far, I would say instances of alleged faith healing and visions of angels leap to mind. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar when you say that you believe that you or others have experienced these things. I'm sure that you earnestly believe that these events occurred. However, since there is exactly zero empirical evidence to support these or similar claims, those of us that require actual proof before accepting fantasies as fact will continue to lump them into the "BS" category.

 

And no, I'm not the god of BS. That would be your Jehovah.

[zoogs]

Right. It is a matter of faith, not empirical evidence, the kind that stands up to objective scrutiny. The basis for belief doesn't exist in the same sphere as the rigorous basis for scientific acceptance, so it is kind of pointless to argue or compare on that level. You don't need that kind of proof to have faith, and by its very nature it is quite impossible to have such real 'evidence.'

[jsneb83]

Do you have any examples of evidence I accept that you consider BS? Or are you just trolling? Remember, just because you may disagree doesn't make it BS unless you can show exactly what the BS is. That is unless you happen to be the god of BS. In that case, I may just take your word for it.

Based solely on your posts in this thread so far, I would say instances of alleged faith healing and visions of angels leap to mind. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar when you say that you believe that you or others have experienced these things. I'm sure that you earnestly believe that these events occurred. However, since there is exactly zero empirical evidence to support these or similar claims, those of us that require actual proof before accepting fantasies as fact will continue to lump them into the "BS" category.

 

And no, I'm not the god of BS. That would be your Jehovah.

There's also zero evidence to support the claim that God didn't have anything to do with it. See, it works both ways.

[JJ Husker]

Do you have any examples of evidence I accept that you consider BS? Or are you just trolling? Remember, just because you may disagree doesn't make it BS unless you can show exactly what the BS is. That is unless you happen to be the god of BS. In that case, I may just take your word for it.

Based solely on your posts in this thread so far, I would say instances of alleged faith healing and visions of angels leap to mind. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar when you say that you believe that you or others have experienced these things. I'm sure that you earnestly believe that these events occurred. However, since there is exactly zero empirical evidence to support these or similar claims, those of us that require actual proof before accepting fantasies as fact will continue to lump them into the "BS" category.

 

And no, I'm not the god of BS. That would be your Jehovah.

Hey if you're content calling things BS that you have no direct knowledge of, I suppose you can continue to pass off your anti-anecdotal evidence as fact. I thought maybe you had something of substance in mind that you could offer. Like I believe in creation and everyone knows evolution caused us to be here. You know, something that you stand half a chance at being able to defend. I guess I was wrong, but I apparently not everyone has to have a valid reason to attack someone elses beliefs.

[zoogs]

There's also zero evidence to support the claim that God didn't have anything to do with it. See, it works both ways.

 

I can't believe the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' thing needs to be rehashed again. Any number of claims have zero evidence overturning them (by their nature). That doesn't mean we default to saying "OK, yeah, that's true." Or even "OK, yeah, that's a very serious possibility."

 

It is totally fine if you are religious and have faith in your beliefs. But it is not wrong to say that you don't have real evidence to support it. If you did, then every rational human being would have to acknowledge the same beliefs.