So religious people. why don't you believe in other Gods? (Buddha, Egyptian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are plenty of examples of peer reviews books down through the ages in which the thesis of the scientist has proven to be false. So far you can't disprove the thesis in the Bible:
God does not exist
that God does not love us
that God would not cure us
As to your first post, I don't believe in other gods because the God I serve is the one true God Who created all. So why go to lesser gods of wood, stone and metal?
It's incumbent upon you to prove that there's a god, you're making the positive assertion.
I dont "talk" to God all day long in the sense that I think your are describing, but I am absolutely sure He talks to me. The question is "do I listen?" I discovered this circa 1970 when I was wrestling with my Catholic upbringing and flirting with what was then called the "Jesus freak" movement among us college students. No I did not join the movement because God told me I had my own path to follow.
Now some will talk of the internal dialogue and the conscience or un-conscience weighing things based upon our upbringing, morality, and life experience (as if a 20 your old has much in the way of life experience). Since no one, me, you, or others can "prove" what really occurs in the mind (or soul, as I believe) we each take what occurred on faith. No you believers in science cannot "prove" your point of view about my experience, just as I cannot "prove my point of view about what occurred. What I can say is that the experience was profound.
BTW I absolutely believe in science. Physics, math, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, to name a few aspects of science. (I'm not sure that I can call psychology "real" science, but that's another story. The only reason I dont denigrate psychiatry is because it is rooted in medicine.) I believe that science was inspired by God, mostly as a result of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Who can prove or disprove this? At some point all people come to faith.
Using the following of examples of faith, not saying one thing or another about "proof" but there are Kennedy conspiracy people, 9/11 truthers, alien abductees, and a few more who absolutely believe in their theories and can cite volumes of proof based on science as they understand it. Some are atheists, some are religious. Near as I can tell, there is no absolute truth regarding conspiracies, faith, science, etc. When it comes to faith, we all have it, we all believe something, and we generally all believe there is something greater than ourselves. We all just choose what that something is, some interpretation of the universe around us.
Sorry to blather on, but I think that people of faith are every bit as astute as those who are not. People of faith are not primitives or cavemen or morons or deluded. People who cannot accept us because of our faith should re-examine their own beliefs and see if there is common ground.
Just my 75 cents worth.
I like your thoughtful approach
The bottom line is this...
for those of us with faith and knowledge of the one true God, no scientific proof of his existence is necessary.
For those of us without that faith and knowledge, no "proof" will ever be sufficient.
When you get into labeling energy and matter(The two things that really make up everything) as "God".
Then what's the point.
Call it nature.
See Alacran...God is basically and generically defined as: Something that is able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
Since we know there DOES exist "something" that we see through direct observation that DOES create, that DOES establish the "laws" that control that which has been created, and DOES provide what is necessary to maintain and sustain that creation...and does that all completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...we then know that God exists.
Why?
Because that is the base & unadulterated definitive attributes of a God. No?
HOW it happened? Doesn't matter.
WHY it happened? Doesn't matter.
If it has ALWAYS happened, or started somehow at some point? Doesn't matter either.
The FACT that it HAS happened...and continues to happen...is demonstrative that there is "something" that is a God.
Because: God is as God does...and by any other name/label would STILL be GOD.
Some want to relabel "God"..."The Universe", "Nature", "All that Exists", etc.
But, "God" by any other "label", is STILL "God"....the evidence for each is the very same.
To help figure out what was relabeled to what...one must determine "which direction the labeling is going in". It is simple to conclude by just comparing how long each of the "labels", that are being applied to the very same thing, have been around.
That tells the story how the "relabeling" went down.
As I said: "God" is that which is KNOWN to create, KNOWN to control that creation through laws and processes, KNOWN to maintain and sustain that which has been created...and does all this completely autonomously.
I submit, that is as definitively "God" as it gets...if a definition of "God" is rooted in the base, minimal attributes that would qualify "God".
Of course...if one insists "God" be defined as some old dude with a long white beard, sitting on a big white throne in the sky, with cute little harp playing chubby winged children flying around him...while he sees, one at a time (out of a line of millions), people that have died to be judged by him for rewards or punishment...I can assure you...there is no such thing/person. Nor any other person-like or creature-like "Gods".
OTOH...if you are looking for generic "Creator God", as per a base definition of such...THAT DOES EXIST...and it IS "God".
Theism exists as a "Completely Irrelevant Thing"...is THAT what you are claiming?!
REALITY CHECK!!!!!
Theism...the concept of the existence of God... was and is, one of, if not the most, prolific elective concept there is!!
It has had more influence on mankind than any other non survival/basic-need characteristic or trait!!
The power of Theism is almost beyond description in it's breadth and scope!
Meanwhile, the influence of Atheism...weeeeeeell, that comes in somewhere behind The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pink Unicorns.
SIDE NOTE: Luckily FSM & IPU are Atheist "offshoot inventions", so at least they will have that going for them.
Of course...this gets the Atheists frustrated, because they can't figure out "why?", with all their "evidence", "proof", etc...that they still have no more "juice" against Theism than the worst Little League team in the country has against the NY Yankees.
And all I can say about all that is...Oh, Well!! Better get used to it! Because NOTHING is EVER going to change it...short of a monster asteroid wacking into Earth.
Yes, we're all well aware of your "right makes right" screeds. My point wasn't about how how influential religion is. Of course it is. Of course, you love to inject your odd "us v. them" diatribes into any and every topic, so you purposefully read past my point to get your shots in.
My point is that if one is trying to get to the "truth," religions and leprechauns are on the same level. Neither are verifiable in any way, and as such, are very poor methods to get to understanding. They are distractions, because in the end they can not be given any more credence than "I want this to be so, so I will believe it is so."
I dont "talk" to God all day long in the sense that I think your are describing, but I am absolutely sure He talks to me. The question is "do I listen?" I discovered this circa 1970 when I was wrestling with my Catholic upbringing and flirting with what was then called the "Jesus freak" movement among us college students. No I did not join the movement because God told me I had my own path to follow.
Now some will talk of the internal dialogue and the conscience or un-conscience weighing things based upon our upbringing, morality, and life experience (as if a 20 your old has much in the way of life experience). Since no one, me, you, or others can "prove" what really occurs in the mind (or soul, as I believe) we each take what occurred on faith. No you believers in science cannot "prove" your point of view about my experience, just as I cannot "prove my point of view about what occurred. What I can say is that the experience was profound.
BTW I absolutely believe in science. Physics, math, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, to name a few aspects of science. (I'm not sure that I can call psychology "real" science, but that's another story. The only reason I dont denigrate psychiatry is because it is rooted in medicine.) I believe that science was inspired by God, mostly as a result of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Who can prove or disprove this? At some point all people come to faith.
Using the following of examples of faith, not saying one thing or another about "proof" but there are Kennedy conspiracy people, 9/11 truthers, alien abductees, and a few more who absolutely believe in their theories and can cite volumes of proof based on science as they understand it. Some are atheists, some are religious. Near as I can tell, there is no absolute truth regarding conspiracies, faith, science, etc. When it comes to faith, we all have it, we all believe something, and we generally all believe there is something greater than ourselves. We all just choose what that something is, some interpretation of the universe around us.
Sorry to blather on, but I think that people of faith are every bit as astute as those who are not. People of faith are not primitives or cavemen or morons or deluded. People who cannot accept us because of our faith should re-examine their own beliefs and see if there is common ground.
Just my 75 cents worth.
You are making a fallacious argument by equating faith with belief. We all have belief and make major decisions based upon it. Though we all have the ability of having faith, we don't all use faith in our major decisions. For example, I wouldn't use faith in buying a car, by paying my hard earned money without evidence that the car is reliable. I would research the car and gather as much evidence as possible to make a rational decision. Why would I not follow this same process and base my eternal life on faith?
One can have a belief in something based upon faith or evidence, but not both because faith is the antonym of evidence. For example I might have a belief in the Kennedy conspiracy based upon my perception of the evidence. This does not require faith since I would come to such a conclusion because my evidence is objective and conclusive, as far as I am concerned. Why would I make such a claim based solely on faith, with no evidence to convince myself or others?
Faith is not a path to truth or there wouldn't be so many religions that are based on and that require faith. But you are right, there is no absolute regarding faith, but there is an absolute based on science. For example, steam is a gas, an absolute. It is NOT a solid or a liquid. Either the conspiracies happened or they did not. Some beliefs are based on fallacious evidence and some are not. However
Yes, we're all well aware of your "right makes right" screeds. My point wasn't about how how influential religion is. Of course it is. Of course, you love to inject your odd "us v. them" diatribes into any and every topic, so you purposefully read past my point to get your shots in.
My point is that if one is trying to get to the "truth," religions and leprechauns are on the same level. Neither are verifiable in any way, and as such, are very poor methods to get to understanding. They are distractions, because in the end they can not be given any more credence than "I want this to be so, so I will believe it is so."
No...that is not what you said.
You said, "since the existence of god is not provable or disprovable in any way, it exists in the same category as flying spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, and big foot. That category? Completely Irrelevant Things".
I contested that by noting, "the existence of God" is not only something of relevance...but it is the MOST relevant elective concept in the history of mankind.
It is not reasonable to say the most prevalent, influential, and prolifically held concept EVER...be declared a "Completely Irrelevant Thing".
Like I said: The Atheists should just all go with the Deity they invented...The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
FSM has a waaaaaaay better "shot" on the world stage than Atheism ever will!
If you are looking for a "TRUTH"...that would be a useful one to learn.
No.
"God" is referred to by some as "Nature"...among other things.
But, as I explained..."God" by any other name, is STILL "God"
OK. I'll call my glass of wine "God". That doesn't mean I'm willing to bow down and pray to it, expecting it to revive me after death to go to a special place where I can worship it forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
