I serve an amazing God

[The Dude]

The problem in this debate is not necessarily the lack of proof that God exists and does act in his own way in our lives but rather the lack of acceptance of this proof on the part of the non-believers. There have been at least a few examples listed in this thread alone. The OP is convinced he was miraculously healed in answer to his prayers. The non-believers have tried to expain it away as some naturally occuring event. Neither side has provided an airtight case one way or the other. Myself and others are convinced of God's creation and existence through observation of the world around us yet other non-believers think this has all transpired through some one in a trillion (being very generous with the odds) cosmic accident. Once again there is really no definitive proof one way or the other. I myself was healed by the power of God from a condition that doctors were baffled by and had no explanation for. I know what caused it but non-believers still doubt. I saw 2 angels come for my mothers soul when she passed but I have had non-believers, who were not there, tell me I was delusional and only seeing what I wanted to see. There have been many cases of documented near death experiences with varying degrees of acceptablility between the 2 camps of thought. The non-believers expain it away as naturally occuring brain activity when the body is on the verge of death but this is just theory. The non-believers like to argue that it doesn't follow the "scientific method" to ask for proof of non-existence when it really is the flip side of the same issue. I have seen people use some very questionable reasoning and leaps of logic on both sides of the issue. I have seen people assume to think they know how an all powerful creator/father should act in specific cases; why cure the OP's side pain but let millions die from a brutal disease like cancer? I guess it simply boils down to a person choosing to either believe or not believe based on their human interpretation of all the evidence. As the saying goes; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If it makes any of you feel better about your own lack of belief to belittle those of us who do believe then please feel free to continue to cast aspertions on our faith. I am in the bag and I know it and it will take something you are unlikely to be able to exhibit to change my mind. If you're in the same boat, on the other side of the fence, all I can say is good luck with whatever purpose you have chosen to drive your 77+/- year life expectancy. If it helps at all, I think you will be ok as long as you try to live a good life and don't purposely destroy every possible chance at God having mercy on your soul.

 

This is where you're right, I don't accept anecdotal evidence. So no, we're not it the same boat at all.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Also curious to me suddenly, is when they decided to go about making the rules for living things. I'm almost sure it was retrospectively, from observation.

Yeah, the "rules" are all observation-based. Life is pretty hard to specifically define. But you know us humans, always categorizing everything

 

I suppose, technically that's the way all things are--observation based. Some things constructs, such as all behaviors, other things quantifiable, like biological processes. Nevertheless, all observable.

[The Dude]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

 

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

[tschu]

Also curious to me suddenly, is when they decided to go about making the rules for living things. I'm almost sure it was retrospectively, from observation.

Yeah, the "rules" are all observation-based. Life is pretty hard to specifically define. But you know us humans, always categorizing everything

 

I suppose, technically that's the way all things are--observation based. Some things constructs, such as all behaviors, other things quantifiable, like biological processes. Nevertheless, all observable.

True lol. Although the rules for things like math and physics are a lot less subjective than the rules we create for biology and psychlogy

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Also curious to me suddenly, is when they decided to go about making the rules for living things. I'm almost sure it was retrospectively, from observation.

Yeah, the "rules" are all observation-based. Life is pretty hard to specifically define. But you know us humans, always categorizing everything

 

I suppose, technically that's the way all things are--observation based. Some things constructs, such as all behaviors, other things quantifiable, like biological processes. Nevertheless, all observable.

True lol. Although the rules for things like math and physics are a lot less subjective than the rules we create for biology and psychlogy

 

Yeah, it's not like you can make a rule stating that (-b +- sqrt(b^2-4ac))/(2a) solves the quadratic equation. But behavior, that's a whole different beast. Generally it's just an on average thing when it comes to psychological testing...that is unless

 

You have a true experiment which entails:

 

Random assignment of individuals by the researcher before the manipulation of the independent variable while controlling for all potential confounds. You know how extremely hard that is to do?

 

So it's really hard to discern a causal interpretation from a lot of psychological research, which is why a lot of psychological research is based on associative research hypotheses. Then is described using path analysis, multiple regression, factorial design, ANOVA, Chi-square, correlations, meta analyses, etc...

 

Fun stuff really, I wouldn't want to do anything else.

[bennychico11]

Who's to say that all religions don't worship the same God but just give Him different names? It's something I have thought about a lot, and I could see it being true. Different people of different cultures just may have a different interpretation of what God really is.

 

Because each person and each religion has it's own idea of what god is. Some so vastly different that they contradict one another. Maybe an argument can be made for the big 3 religions, but what about polytheistic religions? Islam and Judaism also even reject the trinity concept.

Each holy book (usually supposedly written in the word of god) also contains different rules, stories, etc. If you were to say that all gods were actually the same...then you'd have to come to the conclusion that someone's holy book is wrong, or written by man himself.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

 

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

 

Nothing. If it's anecdotal evidence it doesn't hole much of it's own to scientific evidence of either kind. If science can prove that God exists, which it can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't. Conversely, if science can prove that God doesn't exist, which it also can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't.

 

The point is anecdotal evidence of any kind, from any side, is still anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes are no more or less credible than JJs or Sharks.

[BIG ERN]

My random thoughts on topics:

 

 

I am a Christian. Technically an "Evangelical" Christian, but I never walk around stating I'm Evangelical ---I'm Christian. Who cares if your Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical etc. We should all have the same goal and purpose in life.

 

Just because you go to church doesn't make you any better than the one who doesn't.

 

Another thing I see pop up is why would God let bad things happen? So, people really think we aren't to have choices and decisions, and everything should be perfect? 50 Cent said it best "

Sunny days wouldn't be special, if it wasn't for rain.

Joy wouldn't feel so good, if it wasn't for pain." There is nothing more hard than LIFE. You know how easy it is to cheat, steal, complain, and be swayed by temptations. Only the strong survive-- not physically, but mental and emotionally.

 

 

Faith. Family. Football

[Ratt Mhule]

FWIW Mrs. carlfense said that gas is the most likely cause.

 

Surely we are not going to presume to diagnose this cause of pain over the internet, are we?

[Enhance]

I don't understand the 'you're either a "believer" or a "non-believer"' classifications. It insinuates that one person is right and the other is wrong, when there's no concrete way to prove either side. For example, I'm a "believer", I just don't believe in the Christian, Judaic, Islam, etc., interpretations of a God. Just because someone doesn't believe what you believe, doesn't make them a non-believer. I think people should be more careful when throwing that term around, because I think there are many people out there who believe in a higher entity (like myself), just not the theological views of him.

 

hskrprid - In response to your post to me, my only problem with that line of thinking is it removes the need for argument. Why does 'God' spend so much time trying to confuse us? It's extremely convenient for people who believe in the Christian God, for example, don't you think? By claiming it's his intent to cloud peoples' minds, Christians free themselves of any need to argue, essentially turning the argument into the "either you believe or don't" malarky.

 

TonyStalonni - Although I understand the point you're trying to make, there's a big difference between you denying your children an ice cream cone and God denying a person their life. If 'God' really reserves the right to end or continue our lives, answer our prayers, etc., what makes him any better than a tyrant? I see little difference between the two in this regard.

[HuskerShark]

I don't understand the 'you're either a "believer" or a "non-believer"' classifications. It insinuates that one person is right and the other is wrong, when there's no concrete way to prove either side. For example, I'm a "believer", I just don't believe in the Christian, Judaic, Islam, etc., interpretations of a God. Just because someone doesn't believe what you believe, doesn't make them a non-believer. I think people should be more careful when throwing that term around, because I think there are many people out there who believe in a higher entity (like myself), just not the theological views of him.

 

hskrprid - In response to your post to me, my only problem with that line of thinking is it removes the need for argument. Why does 'God' spend so much time trying to confuse us? It's extremely convenient for people who believe in the Christian God, for example, don't you think? By claiming it's his intent to cloud peoples' minds, Christians free themselves of any need to argue, essentially turning the argument into the "either you believe or don't" malarky.

 

TonyStalonni - Although I understand the point you're trying to make, there's a big difference between you denying your children an ice cream cone and God denying a person their life. If 'God' really reserves the right to end or continue our lives, answer our prayers, etc., what makes him any better than a tyrant? I see little difference between the two in this regard.

 

I agree with you, but at the same time, saying "believer" and "non-believer" isn't meant to be demeaning. At least not by me, anyways, and I'm sure not by anyone else who has been saying it. There are quite simply a lot of people posting in these forums who have openly said they do not believe in God-- any God. To me, that's a non-believer.

 

For your set of beliefs, I think the technical term is agnostic.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't understand the 'you're either a "believer" or a "non-believer"' classifications. It insinuates that one person is right and the other is wrong, when there's no concrete way to prove either side. For example, I'm a "believer", I just don't believe in the Christian, Judaic, Islam, etc., interpretations of a God. Just because someone doesn't believe what you believe, doesn't make them a non-believer. I think people should be more careful when throwing that term around, because I think there are many people out there who believe in a higher entity (like myself), just not the theological views of him.

 

hskrprid - In response to your post to me, my only problem with that line of thinking is it removes the need for argument. Why does 'God' spend so much time trying to confuse us? It's extremely convenient for people who believe in the Christian God, for example, don't you think? By claiming it's his intent to cloud peoples' minds, Christians free themselves of any need to argue, essentially turning the argument into the "either you believe or don't" malarky.

 

TonyStalonni - Although I understand the point you're trying to make, there's a big difference between you denying your children an ice cream cone and God denying a person their life. If 'God' really reserves the right to end or continue our lives, answer our prayers, etc., what makes him any better than a tyrant? I see little difference between the two in this regard.

 

I don't think the dichotomy between believer or non-believer lends to the notion that one is right and one is wrong. Both sides are based purely off of anecdotal evidence which, although better than nothing, really doesn't hold its water when compared to scientific evidence, of which neither side has any. The whole notion of right and wrong per each type of belief doesn't hold validity, you can believe and be right or wrong, and you can not believe and be right or wrong. And you can believe or not believe to various degrees and still be right or wrong.

[Enhance]

In my experiences with those two terms, they've been used in a demeaning sense, specifically by theists; although, not exclusive to them. Of course, my experiences are vastly different than many here.

 

Person A is a theist, person B an atheist. If person A calls person B a non-believer, it - to me - insinuates person A thinks person B is wrong. You can obviously believe one thing or not believe it, and be right or be wrong; but, calling someone a non-believer is like calling someone ignorant or stupid, in a way. Again, this is merely my perception of the term.

[The Dude]

You shouldn't always accept anecdotal evidence, but you do only when there is the lack of any other better evidence...which is true of religion. It's anecdotal, but those who believe, it is better than nothing.

 

What makes one wild conjecture better than any other?

 

Nothing. If it's anecdotal evidence it doesn't hole much of it's own to scientific evidence of either kind. If science can prove that God exists, which it can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't. Conversely, if science can prove that God doesn't exist, which it also can't, that would hold more water to me than anecdotal evidence saying that it does or doesn't.

 

The point is anecdotal evidence of any kind, from any side, is still anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes are no more or less credible than JJs or Sharks.

 

How is there still confusion about burden of proof? It's not science's responsibility to prove things don't exist. It's the responsibility of the people claiming the existence of something to support it.

 

 

I agree that if I used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove something, it wouldn't be any more or less credible that JJ's or Shark's, but since I didn't, I'm not sure what you're getting at.