Convince me that God exists

[Ambrocious]

Convince me that you exist woofy.

If I had NEVER in my life tasted salt, EVER, if you tried to explain to ME what salt tasted like.....could you accurately describe it to me? Unless you taste salt, you can't know what it tastes like.

Unless you have walked in a relationship with God/Jesus, you can't understand it. One must do it to understand it. It is both as simple AND as complicated as that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wasn't it the God of Abraham, who spoke to Moses in thunder and lightening on Mt. Sinai shrouded in a cloud, after the crossing of the Red Sea? Wasn't it the God of Abraham who told Moses to strike Rock with his staff, and water flowed, and still flows to this day?

The difference between this and what Conrad said is that his idea was that if there's thunder and lightning, it's ALWAYS God speaking.

The Bible has God speaking through thunder and lightning, but also recognizes that most thunder and lightning is just thunder and lightning. Most of the time God isn't in the thunder, or the wind, or the earthquake, but in the still, small voice.

 

[Kulindahr]

Keep in mind, The fire on Mt. Sinai did not burn anything, and yet, all those in the camp saw the fire, the lightening, and the cloud. That video was very lame in the interpretation of scriptures.

So polite!

That video was the sort of thing I'd expect a middle-school kid with a C grade average trying to make something up to cover his ass when he didn't do his homework. For substance, it's right up there with your typical "Creation Science" Museum.

 

[conrad]

Most Christians I know are apt to pray: "Lord, speak to me that I might speak in living echoes of they tone."

And, if you ask them how and when this may happen they may very well quote another song and declare: "God speaks to me eyerywhere." And that can be in the most ordinary of events or the loud thunder and flashing lightening.

In the end we realize that the experiences we have have been brought about often through the testimony of others.

The most wonderful things in our lives are not often subject to simple explanations.

In Christianity we have the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit; and, agian in trying to be simple and clear we may explain that the Holy Spirit is God present with us teaching us.

And, in the end we echo the hymn in wishing for a thousand tongues to declare our Great Redeemer"s praise.

The greatest testimony comes from those who are confident they have "tasted the goodness of our God."

 

[Kulindahr]

Kudos That is a good response!

I guess the point, as related to this thread, is that it's easy to throw out juvenile nonsense on both sides. No "museum" with "exhibits" showing dinosaurs with human riders is going to cause anyone trying to decide if God is real to do anything but laugh (or throw up), and no "examination" which advances "reasoning" no stronger than "Hey, this does that, too!" is going to sway someone the other direction. That video merely demonstrated that there are people on both sides of the does/doesn't divide of the "convince me" argument who are intellectually lacking.

 

[FirmaFan]

Keep in mind, The fire on Mt. Sinai did not burn anything, and yet, all those in the camp saw the fire, the lightening, and the cloud. That video was very lame in the interpretation of scriptures.

You speak of these events as if it is obvious and a given that they actually occurred, and it is stupid for someone to interpret it as natural because of the obvious supernatural occurrence of the mountain not burning. Can you actually demonstrate that these events even took place, or does the requirement to meet your standard of evidence stop once a claim of the supernatural is made in a book without any further corroborating facts?

 

[FirmaFan]

I guess the point, as related to this thread, is that it's easy to throw out juvenile nonsense on both sides. No "museum" with "exhibits" showing dinosaurs with human riders is going to cause anyone trying to decide if God is real to do anything but laugh (or throw up), and no "examination" which advances "reasoning" no stronger than "Hey, this does that, too!" is going to sway someone the other direction. That video merely demonstrated that there are people on both sides of the does/doesn't divide of the "convince me" argument who are intellectually lacking.

The biggest thing you are forgetting is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate anything to support the existence of god. Focusing on the proposal that what was described in the bible on Mt. Siani was a volcano, you are arguing that simply because a person can stand up and say "Hey, this does that, too!", that in no way strengthens the case that god does not exist. I will except that argument, but, again, what you ignored is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate anything to support the existence of god (not just your god, mind you, ALL gods). We can support the existence of natural phenomena, such as volcanoes, but until you can demonstrate evidence to support the claims of the supernatural, accepting that claim as truth, or even accepting it as a possibility equal to the possibility that it was something completely natural, is, to quote you, "intellectually lacking".

 

[Kulindahr]

The biggest thing you are forgetting is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate anything to support the existence of god. Focusing on the proposal that what was described in the bible on Mt. Siani was a volcano, you are arguing that simply because a person can stand up and say "Hey, this does that, too!", that in no way strengthens the case that god does not exist. I will except that argument, but, again, what you ignored is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate anything to support the existence of god (not just your god, mind you, ALL gods). We can support the existence of natural phenomena, such as volcanoes, but until you can demonstrate evidence to support the claims of the supernatural, accepting that claim as truth, or even accepting it as a possibility equal to the possibility that it was something completely natural, is, to quote you, "intellectually lacking".

Nice way to change the argument.

We have a reported phenomenon. We have a video of someone purporting to explain that phenomenon with no more evidence to stand on than "Hey, this does that, too!"

Except even that argument is a fail, because he ignores much of the report in order to make his conjecture sound the least reasonable. He'd do much better taking lessons from Velikovsky.

I have no problem with it being something natural; odds are that the event at the crossing of the Red Sea wouldn't have seemed supernatural to any of us who could go back and observe; the extraordinariness of it was the confluence of events, not their occurrence. The Psalmist declares, "You are a God who hides Yourself!" partly for this very reason: God indeed does things from in-yet-behind the storm or the quake. But that video made no more sense than if a French scientist back when it was first established that rocks really did sometimes fall from the sky suggested it was people running around with giant catapults as a prank. They are both intellectually lacking because the proposed "explanation" addresses nothing more than superficial similarities.

 

[Kulindahr]

The beauty and wonders of Nature, the smallest atom, the smallest of crawling creatures aught to be enough to answer the question of the support for the existence of God, for God can be found through the Beauty and Wonders of his Creation, and an excellent Artist he is. As for your idea of evidences, you would not be able to comprehend it unless you have the gift of Faith which you have not.

This is a good argument that it is not unreasonable to believe in a Creator. I'm not sure it crosses into the realm of demonstrating that it is reasonable to do so, but "is not unreasonable" is certainly a prerequisite for "is reasonable".

 

[FirmaFan]

Nice way to change the argument.

We have a reported phenomenon. We have a video of someone purporting to explain that phenomenon with no more evidence to stand on than "Hey, this does that, too!"

Where are you getting this "too" from? What other method do we have evidence for that can account for what is said in that passage? Why is the supernatural claim that it was god a reasonable proposal? Ah, see, the argument hasn't changed, I am still asking for the same thing the OP did, but it appears quite difficult for you to even begin to attempt to try to show that god exists when, in your mind, it is already a given, and you seem to ignore the fact that existence of god is not something that everyone immediately throws into the mix of possibilities for explaining claims of the bible. That is why you are constantly saying that the argument in the video is "Hey, this does that, TOO!" when there actually is no "too".

 

[Kulindahr]

You are content to assume that just because someone once wrote something down that eventually ended up in someone else's religious texts, that the thing in question actually happened and that the writer wasn't just telling a tale?

I wonder if you give the same creedence to the 'miracles' and events recorded in the 'sacred' texts of any of the other religions.

...as for a stream flowing from a rock ... it has probably been there for many millenia and I am quite sure that previous religions may well have had their own 'divine' mythological explanations for that too.

I was working on a nice way to break this one to Mikey. He's regarding it as recorded fact, but it should be looked at as a report, especially in this thread's context; only once one has considered the collected reports can one make the step to regarding things as facts.

Where are you getting this "too" from? What other method do we have evidence for that can account for what is said in that passage? Why is the supernatural claim that it was god a reasonable proposal? Ah, see, the argument hasn't changed, I am still asking for the same thing the OP did, but it appears quite difficult for you to even begin to attempt to try to show that god exists when, in your mind, it is already a given, and you seem to ignore the fact that existence of god is not something that everyone immediately throws into the mix of possibilities for explaining claims of the bible. That is why you are constantly saying that the argument in the video is "Hey, this does that, TOO!" when there actually is no "too".

Ah, so in your view there's no book in his hand, no account of alleged events, he's just talking about a volcano with no prior reference. That's even worse; it's just making shit up out of nowhere.

 

[FirmaFan]

Ah, so in your view there's no book in his hand, no account of alleged events, he's just talking about a volcano with no prior reference. That's even worse; it's just making shit up out of nowhere.

Not exactly sure when I said any of that, I even clearly referenced the book he was talking about in my response when I talked about explaining the events in the passage. I guess, what I should of said was "passage from the bible he is clearly holding in his hand in the video I posted" so I am slightly confused when you say that I am arguing that he has no book in his hand, unless...ah, of course, you are saying that the book itself is enough evidence to bring god into the mix of possibilities, which I dismissed when I said "there is no 'too' ", prompting you to argue that I claimed there was no book, and that even though the volcano can "do that too", the other part of that "too" is the supernatural intervention of god, which would be supported by the book he has. I just can not believe what is written in that (or any) book without supporting evidence, and it is illogical for me to consider it as support for the supernatural in a list of possible explanations for an event, and even more illogical to consider it as support for the supernatural in a list of possible explanations for an event, when the list includes the possibility that the event never even took place.

 

[bankside]

The Psalmist declares, "You are a God who hides Yourself!" partly for this very reason: God indeed does things from in-yet-behind the storm or the quake. But that video made no more sense than if a French scientist back when it was first established that rocks really did sometimes fall from the sky suggested it was people running around with giant catapults as a prank. They are both intellectually lacking because the proposed "explanation" addresses nothing more than superficial similarities.

The Psalmist declares "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The Great Oz does indeed hide himself very well. By the way, the catapult explanation is not unreasonable either. It is just superseded by better, not unreasonable, explanations.

This is a good argument that it is not unreasonable to believe in a Creator. I'm not sure it crosses into the realm of demonstrating that it is reasonable to do so, but "is not unreasonable" is certainly a prerequisite for "is reasonable".

Religious people do not ever operate on the assumption that the tenets of their religion are "Not unreasonable." They behave as though these tenets are self-evidently the only reasonable proposition going. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the smallest crawling creature is the result of a deliberate act of imagination, any more than to suggest rocks come raining down from catapults.

Why is it unreasonable to suggest that random chance over billions of years of subtle [STRIKE]trial and error[/STRIKE] trial and perish or reproduce couldn't also be responsible?

Whilst we're being rational about it, now let's just look at which is more probable?

I was working on a nice way to break this one to Mikey. He's regarding it as recorded fact, but it should be looked at as a report, especially in this thread's context; only once one has considered the collected reports can one make the step to regarding things as facts.

My god you are an atheist after all!

All these reports. I hope Mikey will understand the importance of not dismissing contradictory reports...like say the reports of buddhists, zoroastrians, pagan animists, roman pantheonists, atheists, and even latter-day saintists. As they say, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact."

God thinks, therefore I am! Why not Zeus or Shiva, or (and again not mockingly to go along with the teapot.) the Great Green Arkleseizure?

Kulindahr, you are moved by the number of people who have believed profoundly and to the last that your shared beliefs were justified, reasonable and correct. You've said it explicitly and implicitly. There is a certain hesitation to turn away from not just one's own beliefs, but the beliefs of centuries of writers gone before. And yet, the reports of billions of keenly-felt believers in contradictory ideas are dismissed out of hand as untenable, misguided, short-sighted, or worse, twisted out of all their original plain-written meaning to allow them to be entered into the column of "supporting evidence."

I suppose I'm just making the old argument of Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

 

[conrad]

In the end, folks I read these posts and sometimes, in spite of my tendency to discount much of what is posted, I am, nevertheless, influenced by reading your thoughts.

i like to think that I could sit down with you all and have a civilized conversation; we both know that we cannot reach any agreement that will satisfy all. But, I do not look for satisfaction, I look for enlightenment. Thanks for trying to enlighten me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not exactly sure when I said any of that, I even clearly referenced the book he was talking about in my response when I talked about explaining the events in the passage. I guess, what I should of said was "passage from the bible he is clearly holding in his hand in the video I posted" so I am slightly confused when you say that I am arguing that he has no book in his hand, unless...ah, of course, you are saying that the book itself is enough evidence to bring god into the mix of possibilities, which I dismissed when I said "there is no 'too' ", prompting you to argue that I claimed there was no book, and that even though the volcano can "do that too", the other part of that "too" is the supernatural intervention of god, which would be supported by the book he has. I just can not believe what is written in that (or any) book without supporting evidence, and it is illogical for me to consider it as support for the supernatural in a list of possible explanations for an event, and even more illogical to consider it as support for the supernatural in a list of possible explanations for an event, when the list includes the possibility that the event never even took place.

When you acknowledge that he was holding a Bible, you've got your "too". My point is that your argument that "there is no 'too'" is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if it's the Bible, a spy novel, or (as we did in physics class in college) a Warner Brothers cartoon, the material is a referent WRT which you can say, "This does that, too" (the one sticking in my mind is a Bugs Bunny bit where he flows up over the edge of a cup, and a guy said liquid helium does that, too).

Whether you believe a report's claims or not isn't relevant; you should still demand that alleged explanations actually come close to fitting the bill; "This does that, too!" is not an argument when the correspondence between the two is otherwise quite low (e.g., Bugs Bunny was not a supercooled liquid).

 

[Jacquemar]

Wasn't it the God of Abraham, who spoke to Moses in thunder and lightening on Mt. Sinai shrouded in a cloud, after the crossing of the Red Sea? Wasn't it the God of Abraham who told Moses to strike Rock with his staff, and water flowed, and still flows to this day?

I don't know because I wasn't there... and the only thing to support those beliefs is a mythological document which isn't exactly reliable, nor do I give that document any credibility.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Psalmist declares "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The Great Oz does indeed hide himself very well. By the way, the catapult explanation is not unreasonable either. It is just superseded by better, not unreasonable, explanations.

LOL -- I love the Oz connection. I have an image in my head of a group of agnostics with a little dog, looking for the curtain....

The catapult explanation to me is silly on the face of it. But in both cases, if someone pokes a hole in the proposal, the search for better should begin -- and that volcano bit just got sillier as he went.

Now if he could convince me from geological evidence that there have been wandering volcanoes in Sinai....

Religious people do not ever operate on the assumption that the tenets of their religion are "Not unreasonable." They behave as though these tenets are self-evidently the only reasonable proposition going. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the smallest crawling creature is the result of a deliberate act of imagination, any more than to suggest rocks come raining down from catapults.

Why is it unreasonable to suggest that random chance over billions of years of subtle [STRIKE]trial and error[/STRIKE] trial and perish or reproduce couldn't also be responsible?

Whilst we're being rational about it, now let's just look at which is more probable?

I'm too accustomed to the original Intelligent Design people I used to hang out with back before the movement got hijacked by witch doctors in Christian trappings.

While you're asking such questions, I'll ask why is it unreasonable to suggest that a Creator merely set the parameters and turned the universe on, intervening only occasionally to get a certain set of conditions the way He wanted for a later purpose? That to me is far more impressive than a cookie-cutter God who set the place up like a kid playing with toy animals and all -- but it seems to infuriate a lot of people both Christian and atheist.

My god you are an atheist after all!

Skeptic, not atheist. I've seen the original texts, or as close as we have thereunto, to consider what we have to be more than reports. One can get around to regarding them as fact, as Mikey does, after a serious process, through which I presume he's gone, but in this context that's not much help.

It reminds me in a way of a family of Christians who just about threw me out of the house when they saw a book I was reading one day, called Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? They considered it an affront to their faith. The horror of it to me was that they couldn't at all relate to the fact that they were once in the position of asking precisely that question.

People who have, so to speak, gone beyond the 'spiritual event horizon' drive me crazy.

Something has come up; I'll get to the rest of this later. One last comment ere, though, which I aim to a large degree toward Mikey: I find it harder and harder to recall the process/fight/struggle it took me from skeptical agnosticism (with a streak of rebelliousness toward anything supported by an authority structure) to faith; that worries me, and IMHO it should worry anyone with faith. I think what 'saves' me is the ingrained scientist who sees a body of data between the covers of the Bible -- a body corrupted by a number of processes which haven't affected its core integrity, but which have in more than a few places wreaked havoc in varying degrees.

Blast -- that doesn't look as coherent as I intended, but time is not forgiving; I go.

 

[Jacquemar]

These documents/reports are not Mythological, they are in fact Historical, as they did happen back then. The reports are reliable.

No, they're not historical. They're mythological. There's about as much evidence to support the historicity of the Greek myths as there is to support the historicity of the Bible, i.e. almost nil.

 

[Jacquemar]

Here's Something to Chew on: Are there reports/documents that proves Our existence on this earth through out history? if so, then they too are mythological, and yet, we do exist.

I'm glad you feel that way because there aren't really any documents at all until the Sumerians start writing, and they aren't mythological at all: they are legal documents and storehouse records. Their mythological writing doesn't begin until roughly 2,500 B.C.

Exactly how are you trying to define mythological as opposed to historical?

 

[Jacquemar]

Greek Myths are exactly what they are, Myths. BTW, who in History did Judeo/Christianity spring from, and Why.

How about Joseph and the 7 years famine in Egypt? try explaining that one.

I'll try explaining that story if you can provide the non-Biblical evidence that it actually happened. Please present, and I will explain.