What if you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Holy Bible?

If I were you I'd start doing some more fun things and forget about the thought of "god" altogeather.After all if the bible is the word of "god" why would it be written by humans?

quote:

---

Have you ever been in love crashfrog? If so can you prove it? Do you have facts and evidence on proving that love actually exists?

---

I can't speak for Crash, but I can say quite certainly that I am very much in love with someone. And that's quite good enough for me. I don't feel the need to prove it.Of course, I also don't think our schools should teach children that my girlfriend should be loved. I don't feel we should pledge allegiance to one nation, under my girlfriend. And I don't think our currency should be stamped with, "In Rachel We Trust".If I did start trying to do all these things, don't you think you might want a little proof that my girlfriend is actually that loveable?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

So you were there billions of years ago were you? You observed it did you? It requires more faith to believe in billions of years than it does to believe in thousands of years.

---

Like crash said, the numbers aren't that important. It's the correlation of every major field of science that convinces me. You're attempting to hide in a shrinking area of uncertainty. I think it's indefensible to keep pointing to the imperfections in our knowledge even as they are whittled away by new discoveries. For a good example, get into our ongoing discussion of radiometric dating. You can either say "we don't know everything, therefore we can know nothing, therefore let's assume science is wrong and this other book with no supporting evidence is right" or you can say "the paleontologists, biologists, geologists, and many specialists agree that life has gradually diversified from something very simple that appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, and the uncertain parts of their knowledge are continually being solved and continue to agree... so maybe they're right."

No, it's really not. My girlfriend is accessable to scientific inquiry. Her existence can be verified. So the object of my love is sufficiently real to rule out the possibility that my love for her is an illusion.Show me some acts of god. Show me some evidence of his existence. I've been looking for years. I've been asking around. If you think you have some, share it. If you're so sure there's evidence of god, why don't you tell me what it is? Which means that science is in constant approach to greater accuracy. Sounds good to me. I'd rather be almost right and getting closer, than totally and eternally wrong.It sounds to me like you'd rather believe the confortable and unchanging fiction because it's less metal work for you than keeping up with science. I don't understand how someone could live like that.

I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence. Do your beliefs have that kind of flexibility?As for "interpretation", if something is red, it's red. There's no way to "interpret" it as blue. No matter what your "interpretation", all our dating methods - each independant of the other in terms of mechanism - point to a very old earth indeed. The only way to interpret that differently is with a theory of creation with apparent age, and if that's the case, why would you believe in a god that would lie to you?

quote:

---

I think it's indefensible to keep pointing to the imperfections in our knowledge even as they are whittled away by new discoveries. For a good example, get into our ongoing discussion of radiometric dating. You can either say "we don't know everything, therefore we can know nothing

---

I, the same as you, do not know EVERYTHING but we do know things, lots of things! Anyone who thinks 'therefore we can know nothing' is, like you said, attempting to hide in a shrinking area of uncertainty. That is not me. I am certain of some things and you are certain of some things. I am unsure of other things and, so are you.

quote:

---

So the object of my love is sufficiently real to rule out the possibility that my love for her is an illusion.

---

Ok so lets say that love is actually just an illusion. Where then did the illusion come from?

quote:

---

Show me some acts of god. Show me some evidence of his existence. I've been looking for years. I've been asking around. If you think you have some, share it. If you're so sure there's evidence of god, why don't you tell me what it is?

---

You are either not looking hard enough or you are choosing to ignore An evolutionist with great knowledge who is not bent on disproving the existence of God will tell you straight down the line that there are some things that point more towards a creator then something that has evolved. 'Language' I have read recently is a hard one for evolutionists to prove has evolved.

quote:

---

science is in constant approach to greater accuracy. Sounds good to me. I'd rather be almost right and getting closer, than totally and eternally wrong.

​

It sounds to me like you'd rather believe the confortable and unchanging fiction because it's less metal work for you than keeping up with science. I don't understand how someone could live like that.

---

Hehe and I could twist that right around and say I'd rather be eternally right, than almost right and getting closer. I could also say it's more comfortable and much less metal work to believe we have no creator. To walk with Jesus is a hard road to take crashfrog I try and keep up with science as much as I possibly can. My apologies if my knowledge is not as good as yours, or anyone else in this forum but I do my best to learn whatever I can whenever I can, as I hope you do.

quote:

---

I also don't think our schools should teach children that my girlfriend should be loved. I don't feel we should pledge allegiance to one nation, under my girlfriend. And I don't think our currency should be stamped with, "In Rachel We Trust".

---

I'm Australian, they don't pledge allegiance(I don't think) and our currency is not stamped with, "In God We Trust" I do however believe your girlfriend Rachel should be loved, and not just in school either.

quote:

---

Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence. Do your beliefs have that kind of flexibility?

---

I believe in the Bible. I believe it was written by God through man. I believe it is perfect and there is nothing flexable in perfect. So no they don't

quote:

---

As for "interpretation", if something is red, it's red. There's no way to "interpret" it as blue. No matter what your "interpretation", all our dating methods - each independant of the other in terms of mechanism - point to a very old earth indeed. The only way to interpret that differently is with a theory of creation with apparent age, and if that's the case, why would you believe in a god that would lie to you?

---

Dogs are colorblind. When they see something red, they see a different color. The dog is positive that the color is some sort of mixture of black and white. All the other dogs are certain of it too, it is a fact. There is NO WAY to interpret it as red As zephyr mentioned earlier, there is an ongoing discussion of radiometric dating between evolutionists and creationist. I believe nobody is perfect, in fact I believe nothing on this planet or universe is perfect. So I don't see how something man-made like radiometric dating could be anything close to accurate. I can also say the same about my knowledge of God. But that doesn't stop me from trying to perfect it. And it doesn't stop you from trying to prove that we all evolved

Who said it was an illusion? I said that love wasn't an illusion. You, apparently, are choosing to obfuscate. Again, if you have evidence, show me. Don't tell me "it's there" unless you can show me where it is. To the contrary - the vast scope of different communication techniques employed by animals is more than enough evidence to suggest an evolutionary origin for language. Well, if you grant that science is in the process of approaching "rightness", how do you explain that science appears to be moving away from your position? Does that really suggest you're right? My point exactly. I find it highly arrogant you could be so certain about this that you'd allow no possibility for your own error. But, whatever. They don't see a color. (They're color-blind.) And so what? Is your argument that creationists are blind to certain types of evidence? I'd certainly agree with you on that. You don't think that humans are capable of accuracy within limits? Do you distrust grocery scales? Computers?Or do you trust measurements that conform to your presuppositions, and ignore those that don't, with these kinds of mental hand-waving? A little more intellectual bravery on your part might help you look at data that might not agree with your worldview.

quote:

---

You don't think that humans are capable of accuracy within limits? Do you distrust grocery scales? Computers?

​

Or do you trust measurements that conform to your presuppositions, and ignore those that don't, with these kinds of mental hand-waving? A little more intellectual bravery on your part might help you look at data that might not agree with your worldview.

---

Of course humans are capable of accuracy within limits. My point is it IS within limits. It is not perfect it can never be 100% accurate. It can never be perfect. A computer is never wrong, but it was made by man by materials from earth. It is still not perfect. I feel I have been very clear on this.

quote:

---

They don't see a color. (They're color-blind.) And so what? Is your argument that creationists are blind to certain types of evidence? I'd certainly agree with you on that.

---

That is why I said a mixture of black and white, which are not colors. I thought that was odvious. And yes creationists are blind to certain types of evidence. So are evolutionists and humans, and color-blind dogs and every other other living creature the roams this planet That was the point I was trying to make.

quote:

---

So the object of my love is sufficiently real to rule out the possibility that my love for her is an illusion.

---

Sorry, my mistake, I totally miss-read that :$ Agian I was not refering to the object of your love but love itself. Not acts of love or objects of love, but Love. You can't see it, hear it or physically feel it. You can't get any physical evidence for it. Does that mean it does not exist? Or is it just an illusion like what I thought you meant before?

quote:

---

how do you explain that science appears to be moving away from your position?

---

It is by the fault of man that science appears to be moving away. Like I said before we are not perfect. We could be just like that dog, not seeing it right because we know any better. And we don't look with perfect eyes, feel with perfect hands, think with pefect minds and we most certainly do not use perfect tools to measure things by.I will answer your other replies later, I am very busy atm but I will get back to you asap. My apologies.
Also how do I do the quote's the way you do them with the borders? I'm using bcode but I like yours better HTML is it?

And no one claims that radiometric dating is perfect. However, the accuracy limits are very well understood, and there's no amount of error that scientists would accept that would give a date of 60,000,000 years when the real date was more like 6000.If you want to discredit radiometric dating, you'll need a mechanism other than the fundamental resolution limits to explain how they could be off by a factor of over a thousand. One that explains how so many independant dates could be off to exactly the same degree. No such mechanism, to my knowledge, has ever been seriously proposed. Love is a concept invoked to explain a number of physiological sensations and behaviors people feel towards other members. Almost all humans agree that love exists, so I'd say it's as real as beauty, or truth, or any other abstract concept. Not everything has to be physical to be real.On the other hand, you're not apparently talking about god the concept. You're talking about god the phsyical being, who acts and speaks, in your view. If you want me to accept that as more than just make-believe you'll have to present some evidence. I've noticed you've stopped talking about that. Are you prepared to present evidence of god? If not, why do you claim that such evidence exists? Nobody says we do. But the scientific method is a process designed to eliminate as much inaccuracy as possible from the data our fallible senses provide.If minds are so fallible, how can you be sure the bible is infallible? How can you know that's just not your erroneous interpretation? And even if it is infallible, how can you know your interpretation of its literal truth is at all correct?Sorry, I'll take science any day over a 2000-year-old book. It's just the way you're doing it, but use "qs" instead of "quote". If you're in the message composition page, there's a link "UBB Code is ON" next to the message box. That'll link you to all the UBB codes the forum uses. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-28-2003]

I am trying tell you my view of what faith is to me. I am trying to put it into words but as you can see it's pretty hard So when I refer to love I liken it to faith (and God to a point) as in it is something not provable by physical evidence but none the less, still exists.
As far as providing some evidence of God, this particular forum is about Faith and Belief, which is what I am discussing. Anyway like I have mentioned earlier, what would be the point, neither of us are going to come to an agreement on evidence given. We see and think about the same facts in different ways like I have said before. Correct, the truth that I believe the Bible is, and God, could be just another matrix and I don't know any better Many ppl interpret the Bible in many different ways, I could be way off, who knows?!? Can you admit you could be way off in your beliefs?
But by faith I know He is there, like love. The Bible also says 'God is Love' but thats a whole other story I cannot deny God, I feel his presence everyday, I talk to Him every day. The emotion and Love I get from God far surpasses anything I have ever experienced or felt in my entire life. Call it an illusion or whatever it does not bother me. And if your wondering I don't use it as an excuse either, when I don't have any physical evidence for the existance of God. If and when I don't have the knowledge to prove red is red, I will be the first to admit it. ------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.[This message has been edited by Spud, 06-28-2003]

But still, I'm not interested in your faith. I'm sure you have it. I'm interested in the potential existence of the object of your faith. God. So, sure, your faith is like love. Whatever. But regardless of my love for her (or even my faith in her), my girlfriend has an independant, verifiable existence. Does god? No, if you can present sufficient evidence for which the only simplest explanation is the agency and existence of an omnipotent god, I'll believe it. I seriously will.But if natural explanations can account for your "evidence", it's not really evidence for god. So you have to take Occam's razor into account. Unfortunately, as the claim of the existence of a god is a major one, I'll need pretty significant evidence. But if god really does exist this shouldn't be a problem. I can and do (and have). That's why I tend to believe that with the most evidence in support. It's a way of making sure my beliefs are as accurate as they could be, in light of current data, which is always incomplete. I felt that too, once. I felt as though god were speaking inside of me. And then I discovered that by concentrating, I could make that "small, still voice" say anything I wanted it to, and I couldn't tell the difference. So I came to the obvious conclusion that I had been talking to myself all along. That my own personal feelings were a terrible arbiter of what was real and what was not. That it had to come down to evidence - and there simply wasn't any that suggested a god was at work, intervening in man's affairs.

quote:

---

That my own personal feelings were a terrible arbiter of what was real and what was not.

---

Very well said.

quote:

---

That my own personal feelings were a terrible arbiter of what was real and what was not.

---

quote:

---

Very well said.

---

This is the worst kind of nostalgia for me... I went through that for a long time and really screwed up my own head with all the internal conflict. I can only conclude in hindsight that I heard what I expected to (anyone sufficiently indoctrinated knows or can guess what God should say to someone in any given situation), that I generally disagreed with it, and that my mind took a very long, hard route out of that dilemma. What I find telling is that, in all the tangible ways, I still live much as I used to. The only difference now is that I look to humanity as the source of good and evil, and to myself and to nature for improvement. This view seems to be just as instructive, just as helpful - maybe even more so for me.

I too went through years of internal conflict with my beliefs. I was a "believer" for many years. Other than the initial feelings of belonging that accounted for my baptism at the age of 15 after a summer of revival meetings, I never could quite figure out what everyone else was supposedly feeling. I always felt that it was something wrong with me that I couldn't feel this too. I attended and participated in church services at least twice a week, belonged to a very active youth group, attended all the extra church meetings, read all the literature that was recommended to me to supplement my bible studies. I felt more alone in my years of belief than I ever have since.In later years, after talks to friends that had gone through the same kind of things I had, I figured out that most of those that I "thought" were feelings all these feelings of being blessed were just mouthing the words, just like I had. They felt no more from god then I did. If they had at anytime felt anything, they attributed it to a mild brain washing rather then any descent of a holy spirit. We knew what was expected of us as far as feelings and saying the right things, we just didn't actually feel anything.I am happier now then I ever was then, I am responsible for my character and my values. I answer to myself for my good points AND my bad.(Oh, and I know many children younger than five who having been brought up in a christian home, know exactly what to say about Jesus and god. Children, who at a very young age had already heard the stories about Jesus taking you to heaven after you die, a Jesus who will meet you on the other side.)------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Platoedited for spelling errors[This message has been edited by Asgara, 06-29-2003]

I went through something similar growing up. My sisters and brother were raised as Catholics, although my parents were so unhappy and codependent it made for a pretty unpleasant home life. Dad was an "Easter/Christmas" Catholic, and Mom and the kids went every Sunday. We never talked about God or anything at home, though. I mean, never. There were just things we were expected to do; hoops to jump through.I always considered CCD and Mass a pretty big waste of time. I was always terribly bored, although we got a new priest when I was a teenager whom I liked a lot and who had useful things to say in his sermons. (He actually married my husband and I, and I am nearly certain he is gay) I was a sort of de facto, casual believer until I began to seriously question everything in my early adulthood. At that time, I also began the process of dealing with and recovering from my abusive childhood.At the other side of all of this, I emerged happier, more self-accepting and more accepting of others than I ever was before. Christianity and Catholicism injects an awful lot of guilt and self-loathing into a person's psyche. I also couldn't understand the point of believing all of this and going through all of the motions if the result was people as miserable and cruel as my parents, or as wonderful and loving as my grandparents. Clearly, belief had little to do with behavior or self-esteem.Anyway, that's my story.