What makes you unbelieve Crash ?

Many have said a similar thing to me. Many have said that in believing in God they are trying to get blood from a stone. But the scripture says the Kingdom of God is within you. When you find the blood comes from your hand, when you are squeezing the stone, you infact - look for blood where it doesn't exist. The blood came from you because the Kingdom of God is within YOU.As for coincidences, I assume that you mean when we pray?When a prayer comes to pass it could seem like coincidence. I tell you I have had so many of what you would call "hits" that coincidence becomes an irrelevance to the mind when concerning prayer. I have found that when I pray for things I need or for things that are for others - they come to pass. Infact, Crash - I tell you no lie when I say that all of my prayers are eventually hits. I know this won't convince you of anything, it is not the hits that make the believer. But I know for a fact if you were a believer then you might have had "hits" that you explained away as coincidence.But why do you require such things in order to believe? I have discovered that it is the reality of our existence that is miracle enough.Crash, you yourself have recently said that you wouldn't believe even if God appeared to you? What then would make you believe?If you set it up so that nothing would make you believe, why do you think we are of a similar nature?PS (I made this cos Crash seems to ask this a lot, and I often wonder why he seeks to know why we believe) How can he "know" God doesn't exist?

Oh no, it's not that less of a chance deludant Dan Carroll. I'm still convinced I can convert you. Maybe I am deluded afterall. This one's for Crash though, as he gives us tasters but never comes clean. I want to know what makes him unbelieve, or what makes him think we should not believe.

I suppose I am particularly interested in people with a similar view to his. If he is uninterested, then I aim the post at similar people. As I say, there are a lot who insist on God not existing and say to me that when they believed it was like trying to get blood from a stone. Some people even say that they still have faith but it is in other things, like themselves. They blame God even though it is only them who have changed their minds. If they changed their minds back again - they might start to realize that God never went anywhere - they did. Well, atleast we are still buddies. I thought after that debate, you might go and sulk, as I thought you were angry with me. Some people take things personally.Okay, I know there is nothing that will convert you. Maybe it's a "been there done that" thing for you. Or, maybe my preach methods are louzy. We'll do a deal. If I become evo you become christian.

Well, people say they "were" believers. I must conclude that they mean to say - they were full believers. If they were - which I find hard to believe, then surely they were born again. Crash, regularly says that he had faith, yet the parable of the sower seems relevant.

Well, I read your stuff about God sometimes. You seem to mention him quite a bit, and you insist on his none-existence. I don't mean to put words in your mouth but I've heard you say stuff similar to "God doesn't exist" or "I realized he doesn't exist". With your lottery example, this also seems like you are setting it up so nothing can make you believe, almost like a defense mechanism.If an answered prayer isn't enough for you, or him appearing, I must wonder what would convince you. Remember, this pertains to you - it can't really be anything silly like - "I want the world to be like this....." So you basically think I should ignore the fact that all of my prayers have been answered?
Isn't that like saying to the man who won the lottery; "Listen, you didn't win the lottery afterall - because nobody else did"?

I know. But in the OP you seemed interested in knowing why a believer thinks he has arelationship with God. This is a topic I have planned recently, and your timing was helpful. It is not an attack on you, as there are others who have similar questions for me. I don't get it. The reason I do believe in my God is it is obvious to me he exists. if only he acted like he didn't exist with me, then I would not believe. But I have no reason to not believe, I cannot undo my answered prayers, I concede it may seem he is not around at times, but that is not a sufficient reason for me to not believe.It just seems that you vehemently insist on his none-existence, this interests me - that's all.

Got to go to bed, is late in England, will reply tomorrow to all posts.

Not really. I mean, if I think God does exist and you don't, it doesn't mean I reach my conclusion through faulty reasoning. It just means it is obvious to me that he exists. I have only mentioned prayer because of what you mentioned about coincidences. I do not believe in God because of answered prayer. I believed before answered prayer, and how should my reasoning be faulty? Could it be that you simply disagree? Well, I don't mean this in a bad way but why are you so special? If people can believe without seeing, why would God go to lengths to satisfy those who don't believe? "Blessed are those who believe when they have not seen" (similar words).Furthermore, I don't think my prayers can be shown as similar to the lottery. People don't win the lottery every week, they win it once. But I recieve answers every time. It is not chance that I recieve answers. Since I am the only witness, I would be irrational to say it was chance as it is simply too obvious when it happens. The "hits" have gone beyond chance as there are simply too many. You say nobody else recieves these "hits" - well, surely there are others. Buzsaw has also said he has "hits".

But with other religions, do you visit empty tombs on pilgrimage?You see, I see a big difference between my so called "religion" and others. the difference to me is Christ. If you could point me to a similar event in history then that might change my mind (unlikely). But the fact is Christ was very different in what he said and done. Has there been anyone else who claims to have taken responsibility for the mistakes of others in this fashion? You see, to me it's very obvious. but then, my religiosity is something that doesn't exist with you, so I can understand your position. If you don't think of God often then I can see that you are pretty uninterested. However, I prefer your position slightly more as you don't seem to make rash statements like, "God doesn't exist". I am glad you are not against God yet Therein is the difference. If God is just a word then he is an irrelevance to your life, or a occasional thought. This is a similar mindset with my close relatives - and one I have never understood or can understand. I am not against them, but the difference between us will remain vast. I guess I am born with some kind of strange and terribly important religiosity towards God. However, if he is just a word to you then you will find it very hard to understand me maybe, we might be talking about a different thing even. Most secular people - (and all my family are) are foreign objects to me - they are a bizarre biological robot who cares for meaningless worldly things, that's one example of what I am discussing. Religious is not what I am. For example - church would be a bore to me and I would never partake in such things, yet I have a religiosity towards God that involves no rituals. That is why it doesn't sit well when people say "your religion". If a relationship is more of an accurate description then why should I call it religion?BTW, I do occasionally think of voyager and how far out it will be.

Ofcourse, I have recently said to Schrafinator, that for me, - yes, there can be only one God but there is definately a few religions to me, that can still hold some truth.The Jews worship the same God as I do. That means nearly 50% of the world worship the same God.
Also, I do not necessarily think it a bad thing if you believe in God but have no religion, like Percy. Even if you believe in a none-personal God, that is not a necessarily bad thing to me.Muslims, - I do not necessarily see it as a bad thing that they believe in God. (Unless their god is not our God) But again if their God is our God we again come back to the God of the bible!! Yes. We have different faiths, but the fact is I can only accept my faith for many reasons, including that of sin. And just look at what humans do. There is no justifying the violence that has taken place on this planet and there seems to me, to be only one way back to God. I can only see it as an act of the God to do something so un-selfish as to suffer for the sins of mankind. That's one reason..and one crucial difference.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2004]

This isn't the place for you to tout ant-bible things at me. Similarities in nature will not justify violent acts, and I don't really care for excuses for them. As far as I am concerned, Christ said "Love your enemy, bless those that hate you" (similar words). Yawn. God hasn't killed, humans have. God has lived his example of how to live - he has shown us and taught us, and Christ lived a life with no sin. "Thou shalt not kill" remains a teaching aswell as to love one another aswell as your enemies. If you are arguing that because of nature we kill, that is not an excuse. You are not an animal with no sense, you know what you do if you kill. Events in the Old Testament are irrelevant to this topic.How is it that as soon as I defend Christ your side tries to use events in the OT against me. In your two examples, I am confident I will find no teachings aimed towards us. Do not do this again as I am sick of none-believers using the Jewish bible against me. God isn't the bible but he is Christ. He lived more in Christ and he is more alive than a book is, therefore you cannot defeat his living example with events in the OT. If you can show me how a book is more alive than the living Word then you win, but you can't ofcourse.I know how sin was dealt with in times past, it was an eye for an eye in times past but not now. Bring hither these life forms so they can read or write the Commandment to not kill.

But evidence cannot conclude God or no God. Science does not have a conclusion because God cannot be deduced using Methodological Naturalism. If you think you have evidence that says God doesn't exist - I can now say science is flawed and anti-God. Do you really want to invite the creos in? I have just gave you one. My prayers are all "hits" with no none-hits and no answers "no". The answer is hardly ever "no" and to be honest, I cannot even remember an answer that was simply "no" or (no = nothing happened).But ofcourse, we will have to over-simplify the prayer to understand it in that context. Lol, I guess I am a dumby who falls in line then. However, there never was a "line" to be honest. It was a discovery of my own.

You misunderstand me MrH. I have already admitted that you win in regards to MN not including God. He is seemingly untestable, but if you are now saying that it is likely he isn't there then I now have to be cynical about the previous discussion. People have suggested MN either says nothing - which is fine by me, or it concludes his none-existence. If it is the latter then like Buzsaw, I have to complain. To say there is no God because we have scraped the surface with a usable mechanism is speculation of the highest order. MN might not show a God. Personally, I see evidence all around me. I understand that you can not conclude he exists, is it more reasonable to conclude he doesn't exist? Do you conclude he doesn't exist? - Why is that more reasonable with our limited knowledge?All I am doing is concluding he exists because I have read the bible and followed the prayer instructions. As it was written, it has been done. I have followed and the prayers are succesful.I do not see my prayers as anything other than personal evidence. I completely understand if you utterly reject my PE as total fantasy, yet I myself am convinced. Is that so bad? This is why my prayers are a good example. If you want something that can only happen outside of your senses, then you will know that it is not yourself "making it happen". If I prayed for say - freedom, and recieved it, that cannot be caused by delusion.

You are assuming that God is something we imagined - like a cheese planet or an easter bunny.Then again -Easter exists, bunnies exist and planets and cheese also exist. We imagine these things to an extent, yet they all contain some reality. Should you so easily dismiss that there could be some reality to God? So then you think for now, there is no alien life in the universe, and no other possible earth-like planets? Lack of evidence is not necessarily helpful to a conclusion.What would be evidence of God in the natural anyway? Crash is asking for something new that someone has never seen before. You guys want evidence of God yet you think MN makes no conclusions. Therefore - you have to accept what I am saying, evidence can be negotiated - belief and faith IS required in itself. If say MrH said "this and that would be evidence of God" what would stop me from saying "no it isn't" ? -- ? -- ?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2004]

If MN says nothing about things that cannot be tested, verified etc, why then do you conclude:
" Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence, "Sorry to dissapoint you, but if you'd have read the topic that I made, with your name on it, you would have seen how easily I conceded that MN can have no view on God. I couldn't give a monkey's uncle what it says. However, if YOU say it says nothing about that which cannot be tested and verified and then you say " Not only does it conclude God's nonexistence " - well, how would it conclude anything? There is a contradiction in your post.I think the truth is, MN doesn't say God doesn't exist but you do. Science cannot judge that which it cannot see.'You can't hit what you can't see' Muhammad Ali