I Know That God Does Not Exist

I will respectfully disagree. At the risk of using the appeal to popularity. The other candidates simply don't get the attention. And why do my posts evoke emotions in you? You know what....I think that you lie to yourself and others when you claim that evidence would change your mind. Your mind is made up. And you are effectively challenging God Himself to prove you wrong. But its a free country and a science forum so I'll leave you alone with your topic.

The *We* is not unanimous. Obviously some people found *something*. What sense would it make for so many people to unknowingly pretend? I can understand that peer pressure would allow for some to fit in. Some people have a total life change, however. And their stories are all similar. None of them ascribe the change to Zeus, Thor, or Gandolf. Of course some ascribe change to things like new diets, positivity, and healthy negative ions. A valid question would be whether a measurable percentage of those who claim to have been born again or finding God(Knowing vs Knowing About)is available.

whats irrational is when people make up gods. jar claims that Biblical Christians make up God (and Jesus) in their image of what such a God would be. I can accept that to a degree but would insist that within the church and various clubs in general there is little variance. Granted Mormons are way off as are Jehovahs Witnesses but within the mainline clubs the idea is similar. Faith never goes to church and hangs with political ideology over Theology though she knows better.I get mad and show my carnal nature also....I cant stand shoplifters, for example...though God is telling me to love them. I'm slowly coming around. They just make me so mad when they dare to take stuff that isn't theirs.

When I became born again in 1993, there was most definitely a dramatic change. Critics could say I was brainwashed or emotionally predisposed to fitting in to the charismatic culture but I am 95% convinced that an actual change occurred in that I "met" God.
jar would and does continue to nag me about how I would or could *know* such a thing, but I refuse to get on his merry-go-round of endless questioning which prevents me from declaring my belief. Some of course would argue that its better to be scientifically certain before committing oneself to belief at all. You (Stile) are likely one of them. And my only question would be to ask how it is even possible to have "spiritualism" without a Spirit? Unless of course you mean the human spirit, which you likely identify as metaphorical...this changes the definition of what spirit is, however. Both. Everyone has the opportunity, but they must make a choice. If they choose to ignore the reality of A Creator who is over and above their own human thinking and reasoning, they will be left to their own course...which will end up destroying them. Ultimately a minority of today's global population will accept Him and we will go through the time of Jacobs Trouble. I will grant everyone that this is simply a belief and cannot be factually proven. I also acknowledge that some may portray those of us who believe in the prospect of Last Days Theology as being negative and perhaps even vindictive against the idea that humans without God (or need of one) will flourish and grow in this brave new secular universe that they imagine. All that I am suggesting is that we all need Jesus. There is no rational reason to reject that pronouncement. I agree. Having objective physical evidence of God as most Christians understand Him is an impossibility as He is invisible. Some cling to hope in relics such as the Shroud of Turin or a supposed "splinter" of wood from the cross or Noah's Ark remnants high on some Turkish Mountain, but I tend to lean more towards the subjective evidence that I have experienced on my belief journey. I'm glad to see you back at EvC again. You have grown and matured in the past 5 years since you last posted here. I would like to have a conversation online someday. Did you ever see my online page? I would be interested in having a discussion via facebook,skype, or audio phone call with you and/or your brother sometime. I am more of a charismatic(some say charismania) as you say Charlie also is, but I have studied a bit about Orthodox and Catholic beliefs also...I don't write them(Catholics) off as being "of satan" as so many ignorant charismatics tend to do---they vilify Islam as well, and I don't agree with that either.Stile insists that this topic be approached scientifically rather than based on faith, tradition, and dogma...so all I will conclude in this post is that I believe that subjective experience should be allowed as a valid consideration within the available scientific evidence. Edited by Thugpreacha, : fixed a few glitches

In a scientific sense, discuss further your definition (and what you claim "most" people define) as spirit?

I would tend to argue that the idea of a creative intelligence behind creation itself is logical. Some scientists, such as John Lennox agree. Others, such as the late Stephen Hawking, do not. The idea of the Christian God, transcendent of humanity yet anthropomorphized through Jesus Christ, can be argued both ways---as rational and as irrational. Now to be fair, I had heard the basic arguments over how the Christian mythos developed, and I'm not too impressed with many of them, though some would make logical sense given other assumptions.

the belief becomes rational if one accepts it. If one questions it, it becomes simply a discussion of characters in a book and the authors of that book. If one accepts it, (and I know I wont be able to prove this) the character becomes living in you. The character becomes potentially alive in every living being with a free will to accept or reject such a premise.

This is normally a logical statement. The premise brought up often by atheists and agnostics is that any "God" worth His salt(and light) should reveal Himself to all and not just some. The intellectual batle lines are drawn. One side flies the flag of faith. The other side flies the flag of evidence.
Matt Dillahunty haggles it out with an unprepared and confused Christian caller on one of his many shows:
Matt does mention that every bit of evidence ever obtained is the result of personal experience. Many Christians, myself included, would argue that we have satisfactory evidence based on our personal experience but our critics, you among them, would counter with the idea that subjective personal experience is not evidence--that evidence must be objective. And round and round we go.

But scripture even alludes to the fact that not all will understand, whereas the evidence based skeptics claim that in order to be valid, the understanding must be seen by all.

Could be. Or it could be that I am experiencing something that you are not. I don't believe that God owes it to any of us to be objectively available as evidence.

In my mind, IF God existed, the idea would not be falsifiable. God is not simply a concept within our mind. The idea itself is plausible and rational(reasonable) ringo is asking you to hypothetically discuss whether belief in such a deity is rational. If you limit ratonality to ideas that can be falsified, you basically state that human wisdom itself is the source for any and all possible deities. Which is itself irrational.

the idea of women voting has changed and we now see it as rational. Perhaps in your mind the idea of the rationality of a Deity has also changed. ringo essentially asked you to imagine one and(I'm assuming a personal one such as Jesus) give us your hypothetical reasons why such a concept is not rational. At least thats how i understood him. Im amazed, by the way that ringo and Tangle are actually supporting the argument of a believer! In conclusion, I will state that the idea of a Deity,(a knowable friendly One, at any rate) has to include the premise that such a Being is not a product of the human mind. Only then can you deal with the aspect of whether such a Deity (Jesus will fit nicely) is in fact rational or irrational as a possible belief and concept. To insist that evidence must be the standard for even allowing for such a Deity limits the entire belief paradigm to the human mind---and you and Stile both have predetermined that without evidence, the Deity cannot exist. Im proposing that a Deity need not conform to the traditional standard of evidence, since that would present the Deity as fact for 100% of the population when the scripture suggests that the population needs to decide individually whether or not such a Deity has any place in their mind and heart. This involves surrender and as jar would argue "parking ones brain at the door". Of course jar also believes that God does not pick and choose but essentially saves everyone...which allows for a 100% evidential standard. I would argue that only those who want such a Deity will even be allowed to find this Deity. This is likely by the will of the Deity itself.

Because God by definition is not the same as "everything else". God is not beneath human wisdom. He is not in a box. I know this is unscientific, so I will leave it there.But essentially my argument here is this:When you say that *we* have been looking for God for many many years and have found nothing, all you really mean is that some of us who insist on evidence and the usual way of discovering things have found no objective evidence. For the global population as a whole, however...and using the popular definition of what it means to *find* God, many people would disagree with your statement. I also realize that critics will say I am invoking the appeal to popularity.

OK I will agree with that assessment.

a lot also depends on what the jar was intended for. McDonalds menu was never intended for sharkfin soup. Stiles brain, managed by him, was never intended to have God in it because Stile deemed God unnecessary. Thus the brain remained void of God the same way that the jar is now void of peanut butter...except for the added fact that Stile never labled his brain as "containing God". You wont find something in a place you never intended to put it...withing your own personal realm of control.On the other hand, we often misplace things. Absentmindedly. Maybe the knowledge of good and evil symbolically misplaced God. Instead of a jar of peanut butter(whether or not previously full) we now have a jar of peanut butter and snake venom. Which nobody wants to open. The intended use of the contents is now spoiled....