Conversations with God

I have a friend who is, like you, very intelligent. He works at Ball Aerospace and designs various outer space stuff. (He helped design and build the Mars Global Surveyor) and one thing he likes to do with his spare time is argue with irrational people. Lately he has been having arguments with the flat-earthers. Yesterday we were talking about the arguments that his unlearned opponents make. You and he would likely see eye to eye.I keep trying to convince him to become a believer in God and I will say that if he ever did consider it, it would be because of my credibility with him as much as any objective evidence which would be confirmed.I get mad at you when you become irrational and I guess what Im mad at is that you don't agree. I never get mad at him, though. Perhaps I need to treat you more like i treat him.

I see ringo as a man who once attended church (perhaps in what he saw as a cell of ignorance) and being dissatisfied with the whole idea of trusting God and other fellow believers, went outside the cell in search of more rational truth/data. I joke to him that now, rather than marrying the One Who comes for his Bride, ringo will stand at the altar forever if necessary awaiting evidence that the communion is even necessary.Perhaps some of you see me as a tragic figure trapped in the cell of organized religion.I see myself not as in a cell but as in the house of God. Life outside of that is quite scary, and I don't trust humans alone as capable of providing the final answer. To our credit, we do comfort each other and add to our collective knowledge base. And the fact that so few of you see the idea of One God as rational and anything other than human-centric shows me that I see you as trapped in a cell where evidence and rationality rule.

First of all, thanks for your courage to be honest and unafraid of discussing the possibility that God exists. Most Humanists here at EvC say that they are science fact based rather than leap of faith based yet they also want God to be more in line with how they see Him logically being rather than the common apologetic version...which jar repeatedly points out as reprehensible. You once started a topic titled I Know That God Does Not Exist where you defended your choice of rational choice based on facts or data rather than feelings and leaps of faith. You and ringo are similar. I like your arguments better for they respect my choice, whereas many others attempt to forc me into throwing my preferred fantasies away and doubling down on logic, reaso and reality as many of you have done. Personally I feel that ringo--nor anyone else--will EVER find raw data based objective evidence leading to God.Many of you see that as unimportant. I see it as crucial, for I believe that through Him ALL things were created and where we live and breathe and have our being. I will agree that caution and patience are warranted before taking any leaps of faith. Perhaps you feel that IF God existed He would understand. First of all, thanks for your courage to be honest and unafraid of discussing the possibility that God exists. Most Humanists here at EvC say that they are science fact based rather than leap of faith based yet they also want God to be more in line with how they see Him logically being rather than the common apologetic version...which jar repeatedly points out as reprehensible. You once started a topic titled I Know That God Does Not Exist where you defended your choice of rational choice based on facts or data rather than feelings and leaps of faith.Even though I am a believer who would say that God created/imagined us long before we imagined/created Him, I can totally see your logic and honesty and do not disagree with you.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You were dissatisfied with God, or as you may have seen it, "The God Concept." For whatever reasons, you were unable to relate to or have communion with God. To you, He became a manufactured myth rather than a living reality. I'm not sure how this happened...though you have said it before. Mine and everyone elses "made-up god" either exists or does not exist. You concluded that He did not. To me, that is what I mean by dissatisfaction. You elevated yourself and your own critical thinking process above the thinking/believing process of the rest of us. You became better satisfied with yourself and less satisfied that a God existed who cared about you and loved you. (and Who was quite capable of Communion with you)Now...before you go off on me, I will give you credit for taking the message to heart and doing more in your community to help the needy than many Christians do. I seriously doubt that "my god" as you so glibly put it would have a problem with you for simply and honestly ceasing to believe in Him. Biblical Creationists are a bit different than believers in my experience.

You rationalize by saying that you in effect "grew up" and that many of the rest of us cling to childish fantasy regarding our religious beliefs. We are able to choose. You simply swapped God (and in your mind unicorns and Leprechauns) for Critical Thinking and scientific standards. Which then begs the question of why some of our best scientists are also believers. Lies. You cant crawl inside our head and tell us what we have experienced. You cant even assume the nature of why we experienced it.Stay in your own lane. The idea that you could be proven wrong was your faux pas. You only proved that the belief that you chose to have regarding God was juvenile and simplistic. Indeed you chose the process that worked best for you at that time and nobody is trying to take that away from you. I am only suggesting that you chose prematurely. Its your choice, however. Dont pretend you only had one option.

Just as you once told me that I dont get to have my own private definition of "evidence"...you dont get to assert that everyone gets their own god. TThere is only One God. (or none, were you right) There is no umpteen gazillion. Just because you dont see it and concluded it a myth gives you no room to assume that your conclusion should be adopted by everyone. You claim facts but I see no way to provide them. And absence of evidence never suggests evidence of ab sense.And for the record...I insist that my beliefs are the right way because of my experiences. You insist that yours are right based only on tour deductive logic. WWhich is no default conclusion.

Thats only based on your assumption/conclusion that God is strictly a made-up character and that people choose the character which they adapt. Irrelevant. God chose me long before I even had the capability to choose Him. Tangle may have a dog in this hunt by asserting that religion and "gods" are entirely cultural, but I am unconvinced by this typical atheist/humanist argument for several reasons.(which you can ask me later) Oh stop with the leprechauns. We all (by a large majority) agree that Leprechauns were a cultural myth, as is bigfoot as is Loch Ness. Likely we could throw Santa Claus in there without much disagreement. As for the seriousness of a chosen religion and acceptance of a Deity, we would have much more push-back in regards to Allah vs Yahweh/Elohim/God the Father and Jesus vs gods that people take seriously. Hindus have a dog in this hunt as may the ancient Romans, though I dont know why you are so afraid to proclaim the beliefs of another culture as WRONG. The Apostle Paul certainly was not. What are you suggesting? That we all will,after all, arrive at the same conclusion? I hardly think so, though perhaps it would be notable. As I explained earlier, we all may or may not agree on what are cultural myths and what are actual deities. You embarrass yourself by suggesting that Leprechauns are anywhere near on par with Jesus Christ or Allah Most Merciful. Then again, it appears to be your chosen argument. I conclude that though many claims of evidence are questionable and that many should be rejected out right, I do NOT concluse that all claims of personal healings, more than coincidental manifestations, and signs and wonders experienced by large groups of people in the mainstream religions should all simply be rejected because ringo of Saskatchewan personally concluded it all a load of crap and then has the gall to suggest that he was right and everyone else was wrong., To wit: [qs] My presuppositions were based on voices that I and others heard that sounded like chipmunks and which literally caused my hair on my arms and legs to stand on end. To this day,27 years later, the 4 of us present would tell the same basic story. There were countless times where a particular scripture that I would be studying was repeated back to me from laymen and Pastors alike that same day. I suppose I could call it coincidence though it happened too often for that.In addition, Isaiah Saldivar,Alexander Pagami, Vlad Savchuck and other supernatural revivalists have yet to show me that they are in any way dishonest, lying, or making stuff up. For the record, I am aware that any Pastor can choose the dark side and I freely admit that any Christian can turn out to be evil, selfish, or a bad witness for their faith. I am not looking for perfect teachers or perfect humans. I am looking for an absolute truth vs a Relativistic truth. I am unimpressed with Spinozas god.In essence, I am trying to present an argument to you and the peanut gallery. I suspect, however, that you all will reach different conclusions that I do/did. You all are largely the same. You don't accept the God marketed....you equate Christianity with Right Wing Authoritarianism, You conflate Christian Believers with Biblical Creationists and you all preach the idea that god is simply a character in a book. So why do I even bother hanging around here?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

And so we discuss ad nauseum. There is a lot that I learn, though it is difficult to change my preconceived bias. I did not simply fall for some carny barker in a tent somewhee.Nonsense. Look at what you believe: Everything is made up in ...somebodies head... That is one of the flaws in your thinking which led you to atheism. You fell for too many doctrines of demons. But of course I'll never convince you. Even if I sold all that I had and went and split it with homeless people you would never change your beliefs. You might think that I finally respected Jesus, but you would still think of it all as characters in a book. Its time we exposed this PRATT for what it is. people dont simply choose cultural objects and local icons to believe in. And if they do, they are more likely to choose idols and demons than they are to choose the real deal. Sin and idolatry are far more popular than obedience, sacrifice, and letting it all go. You may have a reason for accusing me of ignoring what Jesus said, but if so you can level that accusation at the church-at-large. Which you may have done. Which come to think of it is one main reason you abandoned belief because it made no sense to you. Yet you failed to realize the signs that we are in a war. And godless humanistic socialism is a rather attractive idol...it seems to work. I say look closer. God is missing. And yours. We are all wrong. None are righteous. Prove it. Name 4 of them. Moral relativism is a convenient copout. It has limited value. Absolute truth suffered due to the rise of Right ing Authoritarianism, which hijacked the purpose and goal. I disagree. I am quite mainstream. Oh I get your argument. I simply disagree. My objective conclusion is that there is a Creator. You whine for evidence and refuse to consider the objectivity. The problem is, as a potential Bride of God, you stand at the altar forever waiting for evidence before even considering marriage. I took the plunge. And it ain't koolaid neither.

In response to your thought provoking response, I've decided to start a new Book Nook topic where I can explain some of the ideas in a recent book that I have read which I by and large agree with and will attempt to articulate. The book, The Coming Civil War was written by Tom Kawczynski, who appears to be an evangelical conservative (were I to categorize him) but whose arguments resonated with my own rationale and argumentative process. I realize that I am strongly encouraged to use my own words in our discussions, but keep in mind that my beliefs are and shall likely always be absolute and not relativistic wishy washyness.Here is the authors partial bio at Amazon (more on them in a minute! )

quote:

---

Tom Kawczynski tells the everyman story of what is happening in history and politics today. Controversial yet accessible, his books cover the questions people whisper about but are not allowed to discuss openly. Identity politics, civil strife, and the darker side of politics, control, and finance are common themes .

​

After successfully working in both the private sector and as a civil servant, Tom was fired without cause from his post of Town Manager in Jackman, Maine in a story that made national headlines in his assertions that Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization, that Whites deserve the same rights and consideration as all other people, and against Marxist subversion.

​

A new focus asks how we fight the spiritual battle by reclaiming our Christian faith from all who introduce false doctrine and division, and the ideas no one else will touch feature prominently.

---

Now about Amazon and Bezos The Clown: Amazon Begins Censoring Books
I saw this first in the local newspaper and was dumbstruck. Though I have called myself a political moderate (in the quest for a fair and balanced outlook on reality) I must say that I side with the conservatives on this one. This whole idea of relativism as a world view is wrong on so many levels. Granted I can see a few examples where it is right, but my jury is definitely still out!Listen to my boy Ben Shapiro as he lets reality be known: You cant argue against his absolute truth logic. Moral relativism, while free to profess, is not a default standard.

well so much for arguing that book! But I do respect Ben Shapiro and his intelligence. And I also note that several of you here at EvC have a decidedly Left leaning bias. My point is that Conservatism does not automatically equate to evil. Shapiro makes that point real for me very eloquently in his video above.

My rants are part of my processing. One weeks rant may turn out to be the next weeks epiphany...or not. Ranting is part of the emotional process. Now for my response. The fact is, our recollections of the event have not changed. I am in touch with two of the other three witnesses. Anyway I wont nitpick. Your problem is that you went out of your way to avoid confirmation bias and ended up confirming the opposite (according to your newly chosen bias). How did you conclude that God did not exist when you once believed He did exist?Oh lemme guess....you realized that you never heard any audible answers or encouragements from the Deity Himself, right? You probably read a few scholarly articles on the phenomenon of inner voices and of how it was generally depicted among psychotics. If not, do explain. How did God become unreal to you? How did the book become merely a product of humans and not a rhema word confirmed through the Holy Spirit? Matter of fact, how did you willfully and actively choose to deny that the Holy Spirit is real? You yourself claim that you once accepted such beliefs.

Well enlightn me then.
I found this:
CensoredMy beef is with Bezos. Who in the hell does he think he is?

You get me to think. Or at least to investigate what others say...that's one way that I gain some sort of perspective on the consensus of popular culture and the ideology that is expressed. Now...one thing that EvC has taught me is that things are not always as they seem. So in my search for confirmation (or challenge for) your statement, I found Stephen Law. Liberals Are Relativists

quote:

---

This is the website/blog of Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is retired, formerly Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He is editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK, and has published books including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit.

---

Of course I found several others which agreed more along the lines of my bias, but I compared 5 or 6 sources from the search engine and thought that Laws challenged my bias the most. I don't defend conservatism nor liberalism as much as I defend my belief that God exists, is alive through Jesus Christ, and is not simply some human derived character in a book. My faith is getting more broad based if not stronger. I seriously doubt that I would ever leave it as many did here at EvC. I still cant figure out why you people think the way you do and choose to believe what you do, but I keep plugging away. Edited by Phat, : added features

I'm searching for that interview now. Once I watch it, I may have further comment.Edited by Phat, : as I gather information...

Earlier, I said Message 141
While looking at Professor laws blog, I found a response from one of his critics/colleagues (Larry Hamelin) that encapsulated and that may explain how many of you think.

quote:

---

As you note, the passage might not be an accurate representation. Without even a single substantive quotation, I'm utterly unable to have any opinion whatsoever on Sim himself or his book.

​

As you might have (correctly) inferred from my earlier comments, I don't give the humanities the same benefit of academic methodology that I give scientists.

​

I'm very skeptical about work in the academic humanities. This is not to say that I simply disbelieve everything, but I do want to see the whole argument and sufficient data every time to draw any conclusion from any work.

​

My skepticism isn't due to perceived ethical failings within the humanities vs. the sciences (although I have seen anecdotes of unconscionable intellectual slack), but rather because the subject matter of the humanities is inherently more ambiguous and ungrounded in experiment. (...)I think I also should say that as a professional engineer and an amateur scientist, I tend to use words such as "skepticism" in their scientific sense. Both the humanities and the sciences draw terminology from each other, but often change the substantive meaning.

​

"Skepticism" is a perfect case in point. It's original use in ancient Greek philosophy seems to connote a radical epistemic nihilism. In the sciences, however, it simply means not believing an idea except insofar as you've actually tested it against experiment.

​

Now Sim might well mean "skepticism" in the original philosophical sense. I don't know. As a scientist, however, the idea of being skeptical about Enlightenment values is entirely unproblematic. In the scientific sense, of course I should be skeptical. Even the Enlightenment values are not unquestionable dogma; I should investigate what the are and test them against my own understanding and my own moral intuitions before I approve of them, even (and perhaps especially) if it is my own understand and intuition that are changed by the persuasive power of the work.

---