Lost my faith, might find it again...but might not

[sb129]

Tragedy can serve as a wake-up call.

 

C.S. Lewis described pain as "God’s megaphone to a deaf world." We live in a nation that has been increasingly deaf to the Word of God. There is a message that is being delivered to us. It is a message designed to call us to repentance.

 

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-3).

 

Once again LB, prove to me God exists without using a single reference to the Bible..

 

Science is all around us..

[magichands]

Science is all around us..

Don't get too excited. Science is cool, but it tells us very little about most things.

[sb129]

It tells me enough for me to go about my life.

 

Science explains ALOT more than religion or the Bible ever can.

 

Does this mean you are a believer MH? With your background?

[Moai]

Moai, you may have seen this story in the news today.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/21/math.puzzle.solved.ap/

 

I think it provides an interesting secular parallel to your description of the philosophers who spent their lifetimes contemplating the puzzle of free will versus an omniscient God.

 

I still don't at all grant that they were wasting their time. But, as the last line in this article says:

 

"the calculation does not have any obvious practical applications..."

 

I would not say that they were wasting their time. It is up to them to determine that. I am just suggesting that if perhaps they didn't spend their time on theology, which was very serious in their time and not so much in ours--we would be further ahead. Maybe.

 

And it most did not debate free will versus an omniscient god--it was free will versus omniscience in general.

[Moai]

Hi, gentlemen and ladies

You are all defeated if you continue this way

 

"Your blood be on your own hands! I am innocent"

 

Familar with this one?

 

Defeated how? I am not at odds with anyone, or at war with anyone.

 

The quote above is Pilate, right?

 

It is certainly possible that I could go to Hell if I continue. I doubt it very strongly. Any number of things are possible. ALl have the equal amount of evidence, So I'll take my chances.

 

Notice, when the believer finds him or herself in a rhetorically weak position, the threats of hell pop out. Happens without fail.

[Moai]

Don't get too excited. Science is cool, but it tells us very little about most things.

 

Science doesn't tell us anything. It explains what we see around us. Does it explain everything? No. Is science finished? Not even close.

 

I am interested to know what other method has been devised that explains things better than science does.

[lonelybird]

Defeated how? I am not at odds with anyone, or at war with anyone.

 

The quote above is Pilate, right?

 

It is certainly possible that I could go to Hell if I continue. I doubt it very strongly. Any number of things are possible. ALl have the equal amount of evidence, So I'll take my chances.

 

Notice, when the believer finds him or herself in a rhetorically weak position, the threats of hell pop out. Happens without fail.

not worth to debate in YOUR box of thinking.

Ever heard this verse?

 

When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul gave his whole time to preaching the message, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

18:6 When they opposed him and said evil things about him, he protested by shaking the dust from his clothes and saying to them, "If you are lost, you yourselves must take the blame for it! I am not responsible. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

18:7 So he left them and went to live in the house of a Gentile named Titius Justus, who worshiped God; his house was next to the synagogue.

[sb129]

Science doesn't tell us anything. It explains what we see around us. Does it explain everything? No. Is science finished? Not even close.

 

I am interested to know what other method has been devised that explains things better than science does.

 

Me too.

Magichands scientific knowledge would send him straight to hell, I am sure of it.

[Moai]

not worth to debate in YOUR box of thinking.

Ever heard this verse?

 

When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul gave his whole time to preaching the message, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

18:6 When they opposed him and said evil things about him, he protested by shaking the dust from his clothes and saying to them, "If you are lost, you yourselves must take the blame for it! I am not responsible. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

18:7 So he left them and went to live in the house of a Gentile named Titius Justus, who worshiped God; his house was next to the synagogue.

 

Please explain MY box of thinking.

 

If you feel that you can not get through to me that is one thing, but perhaps what you say will resonate with others. It is not just you and I reading this board, you know.

 

But honestly--what BOX of thinking am I in? How is it that I am trapped?

 

I don't see how I think as a box, but I can say what is outside of it:

 

I do not believe in magic trees.

 

I do not believe in talking snakes, or donkeys.

 

I do not believe in trees whose fruit imparts eternal life.

 

I do not believe in people rising from the dead--after days, mind you.

 

I do not believe in unicorns (they are in The Bible!).

 

I think slavery is wrong.

 

I think damnation of infants, were it possible, is wrong.

 

I do not believe in ogres, leprechauns, ghosts, trolls, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or fairies. Your god is just as silly as those beliefs, and has just as much evidence for Him. Feel free to present some, if you have any.

 

Which raises an interesting question: Do you believe in ogres, fairies, leprechauns, or trolls? Why or why not?

[Moai]

Me too.

Magichands scientific knowledge would send him straight to hell, I am sure of it.

 

Heee! Funny!

[sb129]

not worth to debate in YOUR box of thinking.

Ever heard this verse?

 

When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul gave his whole time to preaching the message, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

18:6 When they opposed him and said evil things about him, he protested by shaking the dust from his clothes and saying to them, "If you are lost, you yourselves must take the blame for it! I am not responsible. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

18:7 So he left them and went to live in the house of a Gentile named Titius Justus, who worshiped God; his house was next to the synagogue.

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you back up your argument with something other than Bible quotes!! (Its your challenge- if you can do it well you may even convert me;) )

If I was to quote only ONE source in my profession I would get laughed right off the register.

 

Speaking of which I had better haul ass to work... boo. I like this thread.

 

Moai- I don't believe in fairies or the like but I DO believe in the odd sock goblin. Hes been at it again at my house.

And the bank account demons... money just disappears as if by magic!

[Moai]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you back up your argument with something other than Bible quotes!! (Its your challenge- if you can do it well you may even convert me;) )

If I was to quote only ONE source in my profession I would get laughed right off the register.

 

Speaking of which I had better haul ass to work... boo. I like this thread.

 

Moai- I don't believe in fairies or the like but I DO believe in the odd sock goblin. Hes been at it again at my house.

And the bank account demons... money just disappears as if by magic!

 

There is evidence to support the sock-goblin. I miss socks regularly, and something ahs been into my lettuce stash...

[Storyrider]

Faith is a different kind of knowing. You can certainly say it defies common sense and reason. And you can say that it cannot be proven through science.

 

That is because the word Faith is intended to describe exactly that. A kind of knowing that is separate from common sense, reason, and science. That is what faith is, by definition.

 

Here is an explanation (from Wikipedia) of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith that explains it very beautifully.

 

Kierkegaard uses the story of a princess and a man who is madly in love with her, but circumstances are that the man will never be able to realize this love in this world ever. A person who is in the aesthetic stage would abandon this love, crying out for example, "Such a love is foolishness. The rich brewer's widow is a match fully as good and respectable." A person who is in the ethical stage would not give up on this love, but would be resigned to the fact that they will never be together in this world. The knight of infinity may or may not believe that they may be together in another life or in spirit, but what's important is that the knight of infinity gives up on their being together in this world; in this life.

The knight of faith, feels what the knight of infinity feels, but with exception that the knight of faith believes that in this world; in this life, they will be together. The knight of faith would say "I believe nevertheless that I shall get her, in virtue, that is, of the absurd, in virtue of the fact that with God all things are possible." This double movement is paradoxical because on the one hand it is humanly impossible that they would be together, but on the other hand the knight of faith is willing to believe that they will be together through divine possibility.

[dropdeadlegs]

I believe in the odd sock goblin and have plenty of evidence to support my theory.

 

Ogres, trolls, etc., nah, I don't believe. But I do believe in extraterrestrial life forms, although I have absolutely no experience or evidence to support that.

 

I also believe in ghosts. That sounds like a whole new thread.

[Topper]

Some of the more abstract Physics may in fact be used to support a notion of a God.

It might be interesting to note that the research into Big Bang theory was in part supplied by the Catholic Chruch. I believe that they still support this theory of The Beginning of the Universe.

As for myself I do believe there is a God. What I don't know is the nature of that Supreme Being.

I would have to say my thinking on this is much like that of Albert Einstein.

He did believe in God. I don't know his exact quote. But it is something like this. He thought, that On the surface our Universe seems to be a random accident and a chaotic mess. Yet on a closer inspection, there is an underling order that can only be the work of a Supreme Being.

[Morning Star]

Ha!

 

It bums me out that 90% of Americans would rather vote for a homosexual from another party than an atheist from their own. Nothing against homosexuals, but given how hated they are and people hate ME more than they hate gays....it gives one pause. And all I do is reject their imaginary friend.

 

Sometimes is is tough to have a positive outlook about the future.

 

 

That is because the majority of people view atheist in the same light as far right wing christians. Most individuals are in between the two groups of thinking.

 

As far as having a positive outlook in the future, well your lack of any kind of faith does not help you in this matter.

[blind_otter]

That is because the majority of people view atheist in the same light as far right wing christians. Most individuals are in between the two groups of thinking.

 

As far as having a positive outlook in the future, well your lack of any kind of faith does not help you in this matter.

 

Word. I agree 100%. Excellent post.

[burning 4 revenge]

Word. I agree 100%. Excellent post.

I'm not sure I understand what he means.

[magichands]

I'm not sure I understand what he means.

Have a little faith.

[bluetuesday]

this talk of leprechauns and unicorns highlights something i'd like to try and explain. atheists think that proof for god is impossible, because god cannot exist. and theists are unable to offer any proof, because all the evidence they have is through their own experience. well, i am going to try to explain why looking for proof in a scientific way is the way to guarantee you will never find it.

 

most people believe that atoms exist, and most people believe that apples exist. most people, however, have never seen an atom, so their belief in the reality of atoms does not rest on direct experience. rather, it rests on a process that takes place exclusively in their mind - and this process has led most people to accept that everything they see is made of tiny building blocks - invisible to the naked eye - that look like mini solar systems.

 

now because most people have not seen an actual atom, their belief in atoms rests on the creation of a mental image of what an atom is like. and after they became aware of this mental image of an atom, they used the mind’s reasoning faculties to accept that the image is accurate and therefore atoms must exist. what i'm trying to say is that to believe in something you cannot see requires the intermediary steps of accepting the word of someone who claims to have seen whatever it is, and then making your own mental picture of that thing. once you have done that, you can then reason that the 'thing' must exist and your belief is based on this mental picture. the point being that people’s acceptance of the existence of atoms requires the intermediate step of a mental image.

 

on the other hand, people’s belief in apples is not based on this kind of reasoning process. people do not have to use their reason in order to accept the existence of apples, they simply draw upon their experience. they have all seen an apple, felt its skin, smelled its fragrance and experienced the juicy taste. that being the case, few people would seriously dispute that apples are real. so even though people do have a mental image of apples - which they conjour up when they think of an apple - they do not need this image in order to accept the existence of apples. they have had a direct experience of apples and their acceptance is based on this experience with no intermediary in the form of a mental image.

 

as is always mentioned on threads such as these, people who believe in the non-existence of god have no experiential proof for this belief since it is not possible to experience that god does not exist - it is only possible to fail to have the experience that god does exist. it is not possible to experience the non-existence of anything, as it is not possible to logically prove that something does not exist. in other words you can experience an apple, but you cannot experience the non-existence of apples. the most you can say is that at this point you've not had the experience of apples, but that does not prove you could never have this experience.

 

similarly, the most atheists can say is that they have not yet experienced the existence of god - but if they rule out that such an experience could be attained in the future this is based on a mental image of the non-existence of a particular idea of god. thus, people who believe god does not exist do so based on a mental image that portrays a world in which god is not needed. so this non-belief in god is not based on direct experience but requires the intermediary of a mental image that tells them god is not necessary.

 

it's probably true to say that most religious people have not experienced the presence of god either. their belief in god ALSO rests on a mental image defined by their particular religion - and this image it changes from religion to religion. the point is that whether people believe in god or not, their views are both likely to be based (and in the case of atheists, definitely based) on a mental image of god and not on direct experience. if people were to have a direct experience of the presence of god, their view of god would no longer be based on belief. it would no longer be based on the acceptance or non-acceptance of a mental image. thus, the existence of god would be no more mysterious to them than the existence of apples.

 

it is true that the physical senses cannot detect the presence of god. yet demanding to see or touch something before assessing it as real is a denial of science, which tells people that there is more to this universe than can be detected by the senses. we know the senses have limitations. for instance, your eyes can only detect light waves that fall within a certain limited spectrum of frequencies. yet there are many waves which vibrate at higher or lower frequencies than we can detect. science can easily prove the existence of something that cannot be experienced directly by the senses - x-rays are a good example. many people have seen an x-ray image and thus have a direct experiential proof that such light rays exist. very few people would argue that x-rays don't exist, even though the senses can't detect them.

 

it is a fact that it is possible to extend the range of the senses so they can detect things which are beyond what the eyes can see and the ears can hear - just as science has extended the limits of the senses by detecting energy waves outside the limit of the physical senses.

 

the faculties which humans have to go beyond the physical senses are where the proof of god rests. it is perfectly possible to experience the presence of the spiritual realm which lies beyond the material world. i have done it, which is what makes the question of the existence of god obsolete for me, just as the question of the existence of apples is obsolete.

 

what we call a mystical experience is not really mystical. it is a perfectly natural experience that uses our built-in ability to reach beyond the level of the physical senses. when you make use of this faculty, you can have a direct experience of a level of reality beyond the material world. and if you work to sharpen this faculty, you can have a direct experience of the presence of god which will leave you in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about god's reality.

 

yet explaining this to an atheist can feel a bit like telling someone who doesn't believe they can open their eyes that if they do, they will be able to see things. since they have lived happily all their lives behind closed eyelids, they cannot fathom out why opening their eyes would ever be necessary, so they convince themselves that people who claim they have opened their eyes are lying, or deluding themselves and they insist that the 'nothing' they have seen is all there could possibly be.

 

do you see that asking for proof of god's existence is pointless? there is either experience of god, or faith in either the belief or the non-belief of god. people who have experienced god no longer need belief. so the very act of asking for proof of god, shows you believe in the mental image that there can never be any. it is THIS which keeps you from having a direct experience of god - an experience which is beyond anything that can be understood within the narrow limitations of what is considered scientific proof.

[Moai]

That is because the majority of people view atheist in the same light as far right wing christians. Most individuals are in between the two groups of thinking.

 

As far as having a positive outlook in the future, well your lack of any kind of faith does not help you in this matter.

 

It isn't that I have no faith, it is just that I have no faith in god. And no, people don't think atheists are the same as far right-wing Christians. They see them as worse. As if morality comes from religion.

[lonelybird]

It isn't that I have no faith, it is just that I have no faith in god. And no, people don't think atheists are the same as far right-wing Christians. They see them as worse. As if morality comes from religion.

:lmao:

[burning 4 revenge]

People define God so many different ways that I think the word has completely lost meaning. Add love to the list of obsolete words also.

 

How can theists expect atheists to believe in God when they can't even define it themselves? It's ludicrous.

[Enema]

I agree with Burning 4 Revenge... theists are ludicrous!

[lonelybird]

Mao is ludicrous!