Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
What's Needed To Believe ?
79 Answers
I was asked by a theist what would be needed to cause me to:
1. Believe in God .
2. Believe in the bible.
I said 1. A number of verifiable miracles, would make me think about it.
2. Nothing would make me believe in fairy tales.
I then said I'll make it easy for you, just repeat two claimed 'miracles already carried out by Jesus. Make the blind see and the lame walk. If the son can do it then it would be even easier for the father.
So lets start with two people we all know .
Give David Blunket sight and Steven Hawkins mobility.
Do that and you might not have so many empty churches.
What would our non believering ABers need, to at least reconsider , their non belief .
1. Believe in God .
2. Believe in the bible.
I said 1. A number of verifiable miracles, would make me think about it.
2. Nothing would make me believe in fairy tales.
I then said I'll make it easy for you, just repeat two claimed 'miracles already carried out by Jesus. Make the blind see and the lame walk. If the son can do it then it would be even easier for the father.
So lets start with two people we all know .
Give David Blunket sight and Steven Hawkins mobility.
Do that and you might not have so many empty churches.
What would our non believering ABers need, to at least reconsider , their non belief .
Answers
Modeller... far too logical and rational I'm afraid. These people believe in fairy tales, so are hardly likely to understand logic and rational. Trying to debate anything with theists is like trying to nail custard to the wall.
08:44 Fri 26th Jul 2013
I prefer to ask the question in a different way, not as a means of disproving the existence or otherwise of god, but of assessing how plausible the claims are for particular "revelations". Question 1 might be: what are the characteristics we might reasonably expect of a work which had been dictated by the Supreme Being? Any number of answers here: precisely worded predictions of the future, i.e. verifiable prophecies, for one. But that's the magic stuff. One of the main attributes of such a work that I would expect is clarity in the explanation of God's plan for us and His requirements of us in matters of behaviour and belief. Don't you think the (frequently violent) disputes over fundamental features of the faith among the myriad Christian sects could have been avoided if God had chosen to be less ambiguous, or (perhaps) more careful in His choice of amanuenses?
Or the Koran. Let's take the Sunni/Shi'a split. The "perfect word of God" leaves no doubt who's speaking on His behalf, but is strangely silent on the leadership of the Ummah after the prophet's death.
So NT and Koran have failed my test. The "revelation" is that they're works of human manufacture and invention. I'm welcome to hear suggestions from other believers who think that their holy writs may stand up better. (No, no, not the Book of Mormon, Dianetics or the collected works of Mary Baker Eddy!)
Or the Koran. Let's take the Sunni/Shi'a split. The "perfect word of God" leaves no doubt who's speaking on His behalf, but is strangely silent on the leadership of the Ummah after the prophet's death.
So NT and Koran have failed my test. The "revelation" is that they're works of human manufacture and invention. I'm welcome to hear suggestions from other believers who think that their holy writs may stand up better. (No, no, not the Book of Mormon, Dianetics or the collected works of Mary Baker Eddy!)
Modeller, I think this creature the books call ‘God’ existed … but I won’t go into that here.
VE, //The "revelation" is that they're works of human manufacture and invention.//
They are all works of human manufacture, but the Old Testament holds the clues, and therefore I agree with you that both the New Testament and the Koran are redundant.
VE, //The "revelation" is that they're works of human manufacture and invention.//
They are all works of human manufacture, but the Old Testament holds the clues, and therefore I agree with you that both the New Testament and the Koran are redundant.
There are some excellent answers to this question in the public domain that (I've seen on Youtube - will try to hunt them down. Miracles aren't good proofs, by the way (as in "they will cast out demons in my name..." etc.). If, for example, followers of a particular religion were obviously and on the whole better people than followers of different religions (or none) this would be consistent with (though not proof of) their's being the true faith. Societies dominated or heavily influenced by it would have lower crime rates, better caring services and so on than societies lacking that influence.
I suppose the term 'existed' is open for debate. I don't believe Gods exist
as entities , but they may exist in the minds of man. To be more precise it's a part of our DNA. What man has done is to give this inate sense some substance, through myths, legends, rituals . Every natural happening and event has been twisted to include some religious component.
As we become more educated the religious component is steadily reduced
unless it is artificially kept up by the ruling classes, as in the US.
as entities , but they may exist in the minds of man. To be more precise it's a part of our DNA. What man has done is to give this inate sense some substance, through myths, legends, rituals . Every natural happening and event has been twisted to include some religious component.
As we become more educated the religious component is steadily reduced
unless it is artificially kept up by the ruling classes, as in the US.
Why would Gods need to have come from a planet . They are not tied to any place. Didn't they make the universe. If they are tied to a planet the nearest would be several light years away. Which is a problem.
The problem is Abraham was around about 6000 years ago but the Gods would have had to leave the nearest planet outside our solar system a quarter of a million years before there were even any humans on the earth . Unless of course they could travel faster than the speed of light or can warp time and space.
It's gibberish like all religions.
The problem is Abraham was around about 6000 years ago but the Gods would have had to leave the nearest planet outside our solar system a quarter of a million years before there were even any humans on the earth . Unless of course they could travel faster than the speed of light or can warp time and space.
It's gibberish like all religions.
-- answer removed --
naomi //Modeller, I didn't say they were gods - but not to worry. ;o) //
I did wonder what you meant but if you swop the word God for an entity
from another planet the problems I mentioned still apply.
On the other hand I may have missed the point, put it down to my old age.
You might like to start a thread on your mystery subject .// Modeller, I think this creature the books call ‘God’ existed … but I won’t go into that here// It looks interesting.
I did wonder what you meant but if you swop the word God for an entity
from another planet the problems I mentioned still apply.
On the other hand I may have missed the point, put it down to my old age.
You might like to start a thread on your mystery subject .// Modeller, I think this creature the books call ‘God’ existed … but I won’t go into that here// It looks interesting.
Well their contrast. The light on God’s Word, true to his promise, is shining ever more brightly: it say...........The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established. But “the way of the wicked ones is like the darkness; they have not known at what they keep stumbling.” - Prov. 4:18 Simble.