No scientific proof of god

[pureinheart]

You bring up a good point. It can even be argued, biblically, that pride (or lack of humility) is the single biggest hindrance to receiving truth from God.

 

I agree with you M30, she brought up a profound point, pride clouds the mind from any truth for that matter IMO- BTDT

 

Another point that has been getting under my skin as of late is Christianity is deemed "close minded", "restrictive", "bigoted" and many other wonderful negative labels. As if there is something "wrong" with those who believe a particular way (mainly Christianity).

 

I appreciate OP (and others) stating that he/she feels the same with all "faiths"...at least that is not partial and more diverse and not targeting Christianity.

[todreaminblue]

Pride also can hinder science. But you cant dispute that science accomplished a lot whereas faith has not. I have not seen any statistical evidence of a god, but there is evidence of gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, evolution, ect. With god, there is not proof whatsoever. The bible could have been used to scam people. How many institutions of religion are corrupt? I think that God was invented to scam people or because people want to believe that there is an afterlife, but cant handle the realities of a permanent death.

 

 

scientists once though the earth was flat, shrinks thought that you should labotomize people with depression...scary how wrong science gets it isnt it.........its all bias and conjecture........in fifty years it will be different again.....

 

 

another example........put the babies on their stomachs to prevent cot death ...no on their back....no on their stomach..........changes often.......the bible never changes...to me ...it remains steadfast in principal belief and knowledge of historical happenings............truth never changes..truth is steadfast.only peoples personal bias and leanings on what they believe is true....ever changes........science will always change........and will continue to change as people figure out they were dead wrong........men are imperfect so will never have perfect knowledge until after this mortal life is over...i find comfort in the fact...one day for me ...i wont be so confused but have a knowledge of things that were in my life.......why things happen....no one on earth has those answers for me..

 

 

 

luckily i dont live way back when learned people labotomized the mentally ill, i would have been considered a waste of space by science and thrown in some deep dank mental asylum a drooling vegetable, unable to feed myself until i died a slow and painful death...glorious historical relevance of science and proof undeniable of complete error and lack of insight......

 

 

here is beauty though

 

 

to god i am not a waste of space and no person ever was or ever will be a waste of space...i find beauty in that...beauty that god exists for all of us........i find beauty in the steadfastness of truth in the bible..a constant unchanging book that stands the tests and variables of time..science will never be steadfast or hold answers for me and my life or what has happened or how i got through it...it is useful and a god given gift to have that intellectual capability, to study and become a scientist...they are however ...not god and are imperfect in knowledge ....deb

[TaxAHCruel]

No scientific proof of god

 

I am not sure this goes far enough.

 

The thing is I have spent over 18 years talking to people of faith and I do not ask them for "scientific" "proof" of god.

 

Firstly I think "proof" is too far. Secondly I think "scientific" is too limiting.

 

Instead, to borrow a phrase from a writer I like on another forum, I ask them for ANY "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the notion that there exists a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

 

Alas despite lowering the bar and widening the net I STILL have not got a coherent response in 18+ years of asking.

[TaraMaiden]

So far, no one has proven god. When I ask a religious person for any evidence, all they tell me is to read the bible or to have faith. Faith and feelings are not proof. The bible is nothing but a book which also contradicts itself. I do not understand how anyone can blindly follow religion of any kind, not just christianity.

 

Could you explain to me exactly why this should matter to you?

 

If you don't believe in God, it really is of no consequence whether anyone can prove it to you or not - isn't it?

[todreaminblue]

I've had more than my fair share of discussions with religious people, and I found it to be absolutely pointless and I try to stay away. But one think I can't ignore is when someone makes false claims to try to drag down science as an equal of religion.

 

a. you've seen things that there are no scientific explanations for yet

b. you're aware that science isn't "done" yet, some things are possible to explain through laws of nature but at this point humanity is not able to do it yet, but will most likely in the future

c. because of a. and despite b., you believe the event you've witnessed is somehow proof of God.

 

Do you see how that doesn't rhyme?

 

 

No. We do not believe in gravity because there are thousands of books saying it exists. We believe in gravity because we can test it ourselves. While we can't see it, we can test it, hell I'm sure this very day thousands of teenagers worldwide are doing an experiment dropping a weight off a table, measuring the speed and doing calculations. It's verifiable through reproducible experiments in a controlled environment. The same is true for every other piece of scientific knowledge: if you had hundreds of billions of dollars, you could recreate the CERN experiment that discovered Higgs Boson.

 

You shouldn't even compare that to reading some stories in a book that was written decades after some things allegedly happened, which we have absolutely no proof of, which became or stayed popular through the centuries just because it happened to fit the political interests of the people in power at the right times.

 

 

 

sure you can test gravity.........but it isnt visible but you know its there..you didnt define the term or were you present when they decided to call it gravity.....but you trust tests and theories involving gravity...in my opinion you can find out if is god is real too...you pray and trust what you feel just like gravity...you are acted upon......you either believe....or you dont...all is your agency to choose....or...you can close your mind and believe what you will...believe you know better, and that someone other than yourself has to prove to you the existence of god......which is defeating the purpose of personal faith and agency which we were given..and that agency to believe in god...is entirely based upon........personal choice....not anyone else's choice...itr has to be yours......and you dont believe......i respect that you have chosen not to......deb

[TaxAHCruel]

If you don't believe in God, it really is of no consequence whether anyone can prove it to you or not - isn't it?

 

Of course it is. Were someone to substantiate the claim that there is a god then I would change my position on the matter entirely and willingly. Just like I would on any subject.

 

I like to know what is true. If there is something true that I do not currently know about - or do not currently think is true - then I most certainly want to be corrected on the matter.

 

But I hasten to repeat what I said in my first post. It is not "proof" I seek from such people. Any modicum of substantiation lending the claim an iota of credence would be a great start.

 

i respect that you have chosen not to......deb

 

While I can not speak for the user you are replying to - I can certainly speak for me - and for me belief is _not_ a choice. If you give me an entirely empty box I can not _choose_ to believe it is full of money. I can try - and try until I turn blue - but it simply will not happen.

 

If there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning to lend credence to a claim then I simply can not _choose_ to believe it. If there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning - much less from this thread - on offer to suggest there is a god then my failure to believe that claim is as far from "choice" as it gets.

[Eve]

Could you explain to me exactly why this should matter to you?

 

If you don't believe in God, it really is of no consequence whether anyone can prove it to you or not - isn't it?

 

Hope it is ok to attach this to the comment made. I am not trying to bother you or anything, just what you said made sense to me.

 

Lol, I always think the same thing. I am not sure of the line that someone else has to prove it. This is not something I demanded in my seeking prior to my baptism. What on earth would they say anyway? Could I believe someone else on such an important question? How would the scientist construct the experiment?

 

Maybe it was obvious to me that God, if He is to be approached, is to be approached as a person, not a thing? Or maybe it is to do with politeness maybe? I don't really demand anything off anyone, I am kind of repulsed by that thought. It is not natural to me at all.

 

.. I would not want to piss anyone off, least off all God.

 

Genuine seeking seems to yield results though and I am happy to hear those results. The hearing is what causes faith proper methinks It is something which cannot be shaken off. Faith is alive.

 

I am often shocked that those who claim to want scientific evidence do not follow the basics of scientific investigation themselves; evidence is not only empirically based!!!!! Also not many even know the full title of the origin of the species, which always makes for interesting conversations.

 

I can only assume taking such a stance makes the person feel that they are in the right or are already righteous in some way. Which I have not seen and think generally is a hazardous stance to take.

 

.. but hey!

 

Take care,

Eve x

[todreaminblue]

Of course it is. Were someone to substantiate the claim that there is a god then I would change my position on the matter entirely and willingly. Just like I would on any subject.

 

I like to know what is true. If there is something true that I do not currently know about - or do not currently think is true - then I most certainly want to be corrected on the matter.

 

But I hasten to repeat what I said in my first post. It is not "proof" I seek from such people. Any modicum of substantiation lending the claim an iota of credence would be a great start.

 

 

 

While I can not speak for the user you are replying to - I can certainly speak for me - and for me belief is _not_ a choice. If you give me an entirely empty box I can not _choose_ to believe it is full of money. I can try - and try until I turn blue - but it simply will not happen.

 

If there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning to lend credence to a claim then I simply can not _choose_ to believe it. If there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning - much less from this thread - on offer to suggest there is a god then my failure to believe that claim is as far from "choice" as it gets.

 

 

 

you believe enough in your point of view to share it with me..so you chose to share it....i can try like you...to believe what you say until i am blue in the face...but i cannot...i can put all your words in a rainbow colored box and it comes down to logic for me........there's just no scientific evidence to prove what you say is true........or that you have any answers for me that make any sense...god however....makes sense to me...........no where in your post is there something that i can choose to believe is true...other than you believe what you write.....nothing in what you say is proof but merely personal bias .....with no credence for truth absolute...so i choose to believe what i believe and i wish you well....and yep...smilin atcha..i dont have the answer for the chicken or the egg ...creation or evolution....but i have rabbits..:bunny: if you choose to see them......deb

Edited May 7, 2013 by todreaminblue

[TaxAHCruel]

you believe enough in your point of view to share it with me..so you chose to share it

 

Expressing a point of few and substantiating a point of view are two entirely different things. I am not sure what you hope to achieve by connecting them. The point again is: You suggest that belief in a proposition is a matter of choice and I am telling you that - for me at least - it is anything BUT a choice.

 

If there is no reason to think X is true I simply can not choose to believe that X is true. If other people can then that is fascinating. But I sure can not. Until someone can lay out some actual substantiation for the claim there is a god I simply can not _choose_ to believe there is one. Nor do I _choose_ To believe there is not.

 

there's just no scientific evidence to prove what you say is true

 

I do not recall making any claim at all? Which claim have I made which required scientific evidence?

[todreaminblue]

I've had more than my fair share of discussions with religious people, and I found it to be absolutely pointless and I try to stay away. But one think I can't ignore is when someone makes false claims to try to drag down science as an equal of religion.

 

a. you've seen things that there are no scientific explanations for yet

b. you're aware that science isn't "done" yet, some things are possible to explain through laws of nature but at this point humanity is not able to do it yet, but will most likely in the future

c. because of a. and despite b., you believe the event you've witnessed is somehow proof of God.

 

Do you see how that doesn't rhyme?

 

 

No. We do not believe in gravity because there are thousands of books saying it exists. We believe in gravity because we can test it ourselves. While we can't see it, we can test it, hell I'm sure this very day thousands of teenagers worldwide are doing an experiment dropping a weight off a table, measuring the speed and doing calculations. It's verifiable through reproducible experiments in a controlled environment. The same is true for every other piece of scientific knowledge: if you had hundreds of billions of dollars, you could recreate the CERN experiment that discovered Higgs Boson.

 

You shouldn't even compare that to reading some stories in a book that was written decades after some things allegedly happened, which we have absolutely no proof of, which became or stayed popular through the centuries just because it happened to fit the political interests of the people in power at the right times.

 

 

 

I haven't seen any scientific evidence that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist either.

 

 

Actually, the Ancient Greeks already were aware that the Earth wasn't flat. During the Middle Ages scientists were actually affraid to publish papers that didn't fit with the Bible because they risked prosecution by people like yourself.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how that works, eh?

 

 

I have never prosecuted anyone..........but you just did......"people like yourself"....you dont even know me......scientists however have prosecuted people like me in the past....in fact i have had my right to choose taken away from me undergone treatments i didnt believe in, signed the dotted line with absolutely no faith in what they did to me........i am hoping that you have never had to experience that...

 

 

 

 

bad things happen..people are prosecuted every day.....just as many people of faith have been found guilty of simply believing and put to death..jesus christ was stoned crucified whipped beaten and tortured......for simply being a loving savior ...healer of the masses.... feeder and teacher of the people ......deliverer.......i am so happy i have been given the right to choose what i believe in........i have not prosecuted anyone....my best friend in the whole wide world...is an athiest....and i love her as a friend would.....dont agree with her...love her anyway..who is prosecuting who?..deb

[todreaminblue]

Expressing a point of few and substantiating a point of view are two entirely different things. I am not sure what you hope to achieve by connecting them. The point again is: You suggest that belief in a proposition is a matter of choice and I am telling you that - for me at least - it is anything BUT a choice.

 

If there is no reason to think X is true I simply can not choose to believe that X is true. If other people can then that is fascinating. But I sure can not. Until someone can lay out some actual substantiation for the claim there is a god I simply can not _choose_ to believe there is one. Nor do I _choose_ To believe there is not.

 

 

 

I do not recall making any claim at all? Which claim have I made which required scientific evidence?

 

 

you made the choice already....everything else is moot point....

 

 

 

you keep saying for you, its not a choice......you keep wanting scientific evidence to substantiate your view, your own beliefs...you want someone to lay it out....where is the scientific evidence that proves you dont have a choice and why should anyone make you believe.........do you want your agency to choose to be taken away from you...if you dont have a choice in this ....does that mean soemone else does?...no one should prove to you anything.......that you are not willing to choose to believe...its pointless...and controlling ...deb

[TaxAHCruel]

you made the choice already

 

Which is the exact opposite of what I am telling you. It is like you are just playing your record without reading what I actually wrote.

 

Again: If there is no reason to think something is true then I simply can not think it is true. There is no "choice" in this. Anywhere.

 

you keep wanting scientific evidence to substantiate your view

 

Once again you are not actually reading what I wrote. Please read again post #29 in the thread where I made it abundantly clear that "scientific evidence" is by no means the only thing I seek.

 

There is not just a lack of scientific evidence substantiating the claim there is a god. There is NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning of ANY kind - much less from you - lending the claim even a modicum of credence whatsoever.

 

As I keep saying - if there is no basis for believing something then I can not simply believe it anyway. If YOU can then so be it - I am merely pointing out that not everyone can do this. Just because you can believe unsubstantiated claims - do not automatically presume others can too.

[TaraMaiden]

Of course it is. Were someone to substantiate the claim that there is a god then I would change my position on the matter entirely and willingly. Just like I would on any subject.

Well, as the matter cannot be proven either way, the only way you have to substantiate this 'claim' is if you prove it to yourself. By direct research or experience.

What someone else 'believes' is their business. What you believe - or not - is yours.

 

WHY does it matter?

 

I like to know what is true. If there is something true that I do not currently know about - or do not currently think is true - then I most certainly want to be corrected on the matter.

 

Define anything to me that True©. You like to know what is 'True' but in matters of faith and belief, what is true and untrue is objective.

It's not a question of what is 'true' in this case.

it's a question of whether it works for you, or not.

If it does, it's 'True'. If it doesn't - it ain't.

 

But I hasten to repeat what I said in my first post. It is not "proof" I seek from such people. Any modicum of substantiation lending the claim an iota of credence would be a great start.

Oh don't be ridiculous....Of course it's proof you seek....You're resorting to semantics.

That's just being defensive.

 

sub·stan·ti·ate (sb-stnsh-t)

tr.v. sub·stan·ti·at·ed, sub·stan·ti·at·ing, sub·stan·ti·ates

1. To support with proof or evidence; verify: substantiate an accusation. See Synonyms at confirm.

2.

a. To give material form to; embody.

b. To make firm or solid.

3. To give substance to; make real or actual.

 

 

While I can not speak for the user you are replying to - I can certainly speak for me - and for me belief is _not_ a choice. If you give me an entirely empty box I can not _choose_ to believe it is full of money. I can try - and try until I turn blue - but it simply will not happen.

 

If there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning to lend credence to a claim then I simply can not _choose_ to believe it. If there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning - much less from this thread - on offer to suggest there is a god then my failure to believe that claim is as far from "choice" as it gets.

 

Fine.

So you don't believe because there is no proof.

Sorted.

What's your problem with them believing because they _choose_ to?

[TaraMaiden]

Which is the exact opposite of what I am telling you. It is like you are just playing your record without reading what I actually wrote.

 

Again: If there is no reason to think something is true then I simply can not think it is true. There is no "choice" in this. Anywhere.

Of course there is. Everything you do, is a 'choice'.

 

You have chosen to be of the mindset that you cannot choose to believe something.

Whichever way you put it - you've made a choice.

man up and admit it.

Nothing has been taken away from you. Simply because you have exercised your right to discriminate between 'belief' and non-belief, doesn't make you the lesser person.

 

...

As I keep saying - if there is no basis for believing something then I can not simply believe it anyway. If YOU can then so be it - I am merely pointing out that not everyone can do this. Just because you can believe unsubstantiated claims - do not automatically presume others can too.

Fine, great.

 

So what?

Where are you now then, in all of this?

And why care?

[TaxAHCruel]

Well, as the matter cannot be proven either way

 

I do not make that assumption. It requires too much data I simply do not have. It is quite credible that if there is a god that there is somewhere some evidence, argument, data or reasoning which will point to that fact. Just because I do not have it / know it does not mean it is not there. All I can validly assert is that no one has shown me even the tiniest scrap of it. Ever.

 

In the interim I will simply ask people who espouse such belief to me as to whether THEY are aware of any such argument, evidence, data or reasoning. If they are not - so be it - I can but ask.

 

WHY does it matter?

 

Odd. I answered this in the post you are replying to - yet you are asking me again. To repeat therefore: "I like to know what is true". I endevour to ensure in every way that my world view maps as closely to reality as it is possible to. If there is a god entity therefore - I most certainly want to be made aware of that.

 

Every day - with every decision I make - moral or otherwise - I attempt to ensure that the data set I am basis such things on is as accurate as can be. My political - moral and philosophical outlooks are based on the most accurate and up to date information I have available and I wish to ensure it remains as accurate and up to date as it possibly can be. Therefore if there is a truth claim that is unknown to me - or can be substantiated to me - than this very much IS important to be. And will remain so.

 

Oh don't be ridiculous....Of course it's proof you seek....You're resorting to semantics. That's just being defensive.

 

I am telling you what my own position is. If you want to ignore me and presume to tell me what my position is - despite not knowing me or anything about me - then conversation is useless and pointless. You may as well talk to yourself - as then at least you can mold the person you are talking to into being what you want them to be.

 

In the mean time I am telling you what my position actually is. If you want to pretend otherwise then so be it - but I shall not be pandering to that.

 

So you don't believe because there is no proof.

 

Again: I do not believe the claim because there is not even an iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend it even a modicum of credence - let alone substantiate it.

 

What's your problem with them believing because they _choose_ to?

 

Oddly I do not recall espousing the notion that I did have a "problem with them believing it". Could you perhaps quote where I expressed such in order to jog my clearly failing memory?

 

It appears I require a metaphorical tooth pick to remove all the words from my teeth that people have been inserting in my mouth in the short time I have been on the thread.

 

Of course there is. Everything you do, is a 'choice'.

 

Clearly not given I just told you that this is something I do which is not a choice.

 

Once again: If there is literally no basis for believing a proposition then my failure to believe it is not a "choice" any more than my failure to flap my arms and fly is a choice. In both cases I am merely unable to do either.

 

Once again: If you give me an empty box and tell me it is full of money there is no amount of staring at the box - no buttons I can press in my brain - no change in my thinking - nothing - which I can do to suddenly "CHOOSE" to believe there is money in that box. I _simply_ _can_ _not_ _choose_ to believe what there is no reason to believe.

 

So you can keep calling it a "choice" all you like but saying something over and over and over is not going to make it true I am afraid. You point makes no sense - any more than saying my inability to flap my arms and fly is because I have chosen to be in the mindset that I can not fly. It is just egregious nonsense.

 

I am physically incapable of flying. I do not choose to be incapable of flying. I am mentally incapable of believing things there is no basis for believing. I do not choose to not believe them.

 

If YOU can then great. I can not and if you think I can just because you can - then you are just projecting.

 

man up and admit it.

 

I have literally no idea what any of this has to do with my being male.

[Gunny376]

One needs but to look toward the heavens, stare at the Milky Way, see the birth of a child, a kitten, a puppy, hold such in their hands, study mathematics, physics, hear the rambling of a brook, look upon Mountain's high, spend the night in the desert, live in the Arctic, travel throughout the World and see the wonders of the World? Have new born curl their tiny fingers around your one finger! To know there is a God!

 

But? If that's not enough for your agnostic/atheist azz?

 

Join the United States Marine Corps and go through an Iraqi artillery barrage or mortar barrage? And come out the other side of it!

 

I grant you! Your happy azz won't be agnostic/atheistic afterwards!

[TaxAHCruel]

To know there is a God!

 

That appears to be a complete non-sequitur to me however. Unless there is something I am missing but by all means adumbrate your reasoning for me here.

 

I grant you! Your happy azz won't be agnostic/atheistic afterwards!

 

Not a safe assumption at all I am afraid given the number of people who have gone through such things and come out still not believing the god proposition at all.

[sweetkiwi]

I was born into Mormonism, raised Christian, and now am closer to Buddhism than anything else. My god is not a man in the clouds. It's energy.

 

And no one needs to prove to me what I believe is true. I feel it. I see the proof when I do a kind act for my fellow man. I see proof of my deceased Aunt continuing to bless and enrich my life.

 

I used to be atheist. After I rebelled from Mormonism/Christianity because of the hypocritical people within those churches and within my own family. Like you OP I needed proof. I put the burden of proof on everyone else.

 

What I didn't realize was how negative I felt. Literally becoming embittered and angry over *people* and *religion*. Putting blame on everyone else's shoulders. Then I was introduced to Buddhism by an ex. After reading a book I couldn't believe I'd found what was missing from my life!!! There it was. Beautiful. Elegant. Truth. My truth. I never felt so at ease than after I began to think differently.

[Mint Sauce]

One needs but to look toward the heavens, stare at the Milky Way, see the birth of a child, a kitten, a puppy, hold such in their hands, study mathematics, physics, hear the rambling of a brook, look upon Mountain's high, spend the night in the desert, live in the Arctic, travel throughout the World and see the wonders of the World? Have new born curl their tiny fingers around your one finger! To know there is a God!

 

Tim Minchin used that exact argument to argue against the existence of a god: "Why is this amazing natural world, the physical world, not enough? Why do you need meta-physics on top of this amazing world we live in? Why ruin the perfection and beauty of it all by putting something humanoid above it?"

 

Of course there are forces at play which we humans don't understand: No human being understands quantum mechanics, which is a mathematical model far beyond what the human brain can grasp intuitively. These laws of nature, roughly reproduced with mathematical models, are far beyond our feeling of understanding, but they are natural and predictable, and they don't answer to prayer...

 

Another quote from Tim Michin, very closely related: "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." Science doesn't insist on explaining, only on detecting. For most medication, it isn't known why it works, but it was proven to work, and that's what matters.

[M30USA]

Pride also can hinder science. But you cant dispute that science accomplished a lot whereas faith has not. I have not seen any statistical evidence of a god, but there is evidence of gravity, laws of physics, chemistry, evolution, ect. With god, there is not proof whatsoever. The bible could have been used to scam people. How many institutions of religion are corrupt? I think that God was invented to scam people or because people want to believe that there is an afterlife, but cant handle the realities of a permanent death.

 

Faith has accomplished nothing, you say? Maybe faith in polka-dot fairies has accomplished nothing, but faith in the true God has never turned up void.

 

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones. By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. (Hebrews 11:2-12, 17-31 ESV)

[TaxAHCruel]

Faith has accomplished nothing, you say? Maybe faith in polka-dot fairies has accomplished nothing, but faith in the true God has never turned up void.

 

It is a difficult question to explore. Certainly pasting swaths of text from what you have faith in does not explore it. That is little more than reasserting your position as evidence for your asserted position. It is entirely unlikely to move any conversation forwards.

 

While I am entirely willing to accept that subscribing to unsubstantiated claims can have occasional benefits to the occasional few I am unsure what you feel "faith" has "accomplished" in general.

 

The difficulty in exploring such a question however is not small. For example the standard response from your theistic cohorts tends to be to give a short list of some people who engaged in some form of philanthropy or other and then assert that they only did this because of their faith. This assertion tends to be difficult to verify as there is no way to show the same people would not have done all the same things without faith.

 

Further the above tends to avoid the “big picture” as it were. While some isolated examples of philanthropy might have been motivated by nothing but the persons faith in god one has to evaluate whether these cases together “pay” for the harms religious faith causes and has caused in our world.

 

It is easy… on both sides of this issue… to laud praise or pile guilt on “faith” but a real exploration of it is much harder to attain than throw away sentences like we are seeing here.

[M30USA]

That is little more than reasserting your position as evidence for your asserted position. It is entirely unlikely to move any conversation forwards.

 

You speak as a natural man, seeing only natural things. The Holy Spirit does not operate by the standards of physical proof because it speaks on behalf of God and his "witness". Unfortunately, if you receive testimony by the Holy Spirit and you choose to ignore it, you will be judged as if you received proof.

[TaxAHCruel]

You speak as a natural man, seeing only natural things. The Holy Spirit does not operate by the standards of physical proof because it speaks on behalf of God and his "witness". Unfortunately, if you receive testimony by the Holy Spirit and you choose to ignore it, you will be judged as if you received proof.

 

The lame empty threat at the end aside - the above simply sounds like a cop out. Rather than admitting there is simply no support for the position you espouse - you instead make excuses for the lack of support for the position you espouse.

 

Worse those excuses pre-suppose the validity of the thing you are making the excuses for. In other words: You not only fail to substantiate the existence of this "Holy Spirit" you speak of but you then go on to assert equally unsubstantiated claims about it's attributes which you then use to explain away your lack of substantiation for the original claim.

 

Its circular assertions hidden within circular assertions.

[will1988]

I was born into Mormonism, raised Christian, and now am closer to Buddhism than anything else. My god is not a man in the clouds. It's energy.

 

And no one needs to prove to me what I believe is true. I feel it. I see the proof when I do a kind act for my fellow man. I see proof of my deceased Aunt continuing to bless and enrich my life.

 

I used to be atheist. After I rebelled from Mormonism/Christianity because of the hypocritical people within those churches and within my own family. Like you OP I needed proof. I put the burden of proof on everyone else.

 

What I didn't realize was how negative I felt. Literally becoming embittered and angry over *people* and *religion*. Putting blame on everyone else's shoulders. Then I was introduced to Buddhism by an ex. After reading a book I couldn't believe I'd found what was missing from my life!!! There it was. Beautiful. Elegant. Truth. My truth. I never felt so at ease than after I began to think differently.

 

An Italian American (soon to be Italian-American-Italian ) was raised a Mormon (not Catholic, which is strange), then "normal" Christian, was an atheist, and is now a Budhist? Whoooha! You are one complex individual Kiwi.

 

I was raised Roman Catholic, in a devout conservative Irish/Italian American family. Even though I thought church was boring as hell (no pun intendid), and did not like CCD, and never felt the spark for the faith, I still went through the motions and was proud to be Catholic. That was until I went to college, and realized it is ok to embrace the fact that I just don't have faith. My family thinks otherwise. Have you ever seen movies where a kid comes out as gay to his family and they shun him or give him hell all the time. That is my family when I told them I was agnostic. Every time they bring up religion I am like uhoh time to change the topic or gtfo! They love me, but they think unless I change my ways I may go to hell or something. Not a fun feeling. Now, it is kind of a not talked about subject, and when religion is brought up I know better to just not participate or go along with what they are saying.

 

Personally, I've never really felt faith. And in all honest, I find relgion in general to be boring. I know now-in-days it is hip to love learn and reading about other religions etc... but I personally, find it boring as hell. So if that makes me unenlightened and uneducated, so be it. Religion bores me and just is not my thing. If my parents could not get me to read the bible, when I was catholic, what makes you think I will read the coran or the tora when I'm agnostic? lol. Now, the reason I consider myself to be Agnostic is simple. When I was a kid my house was haunted. My mother, who was Protestant (but converted to catholicsm for a short time and then converted back when they got devorced) and one of my brothers and i, all had a tone of ghostly encounters in the house that I grew up in. The house was only about 50 years old, but there had been other house built there before it. My dad even forced me to go to a shrink when I was 14 because he thought I was nuts, the shrink said I was totaly normal! So I can't explain those things, and that is the main reason I'm agnostic and not an atheist. Although I do not have faith, and couldn't really care less about religion, I believe there must be something greater than all of this. What that is, I do not know. My motto is, "I will find out when I'm six feet under". However, just in case, I want to make my mark on history and be remembered for centuries after i am gone.

 

 

Also, I believe in just being a good person, abide the law, and I also believe a little bit in karma. thats about it.

[M30USA]

The lame empty threat at the end aside - the above simply sounds like a cop out. Rather than admitting there is simply no support for the position you espouse - you instead make excuses for the lack of support for the position you espouse.

 

Worse those excuses pre-suppose the validity of the thing you are making the excuses for. In other words: You not only fail to substantiate the existence of this "Holy Spirit" you speak of but you then go on to assert equally unsubstantiated claims about it's attributes which you then use to explain away your lack of substantiation for the original claim.

 

Its circular assertions hidden within circular assertions.

 

If my intent was to engage you in a debate of "proof" and I shyed away, then you would be correct. I have engaged in no such debate because I understand the futility of speaking about spiritual things through a natural medium/route.