The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
God
62 Answers
I was interested to read Styleys post referring to heaven and what happens there.....
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by angeldraws. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chakka It's called "Shall We Dance", and it's in the same format as the others, so yes, it is good. You're not too late - it doesn't have to be in until the end of February - and since there are only 20 questions, that gives you loads of time to complete it! :o)
Sorry for interrupting your thread, Angel.
Sorry for interrupting your thread, Angel.
My understanding would be that the notion of a God was probably conceived by a handful of powerful people back in the day. I feel that there are 2 possible reasons for this:
1. They wanted to put a fear into their subordinates etc. and also promise them a reward if they live their lives well and hence did not do anything to annoy or affect said powerful people; and/or
2. These powerful people perhaps at the time felt that society as a whole was desintigrating and with the best of intentions conceived the idea of God/heaven etc. to calm things down.
Neither of these notions are based on fact, just my personal feeling about the situation. But as far as I'm aware it is a fact that there was only a select few people who decided what went into and what stayed out of the bible, so go figure.
1. They wanted to put a fear into their subordinates etc. and also promise them a reward if they live their lives well and hence did not do anything to annoy or affect said powerful people; and/or
2. These powerful people perhaps at the time felt that society as a whole was desintigrating and with the best of intentions conceived the idea of God/heaven etc. to calm things down.
Neither of these notions are based on fact, just my personal feeling about the situation. But as far as I'm aware it is a fact that there was only a select few people who decided what went into and what stayed out of the bible, so go figure.
Waldo, I don�t think it is a sin � well nothing that a quick confession can�t cure � it�s the potential lack of vision from too much that I worry about. Fortunately the wife is always there to lend a hand and guide me along the right path.
Why oh why oh why do I have to reconcile my god / beliefs simply because you ask me to? Its up to me how I live my life generally and religiously aint�ent it? I don't think I have ever "affected" any of you lot.....
Why oh why oh why do I have to reconcile my god / beliefs simply because you ask me to? Its up to me how I live my life generally and religiously aint�ent it? I don't think I have ever "affected" any of you lot.....
styley, I don't think God was 'invented' in the way you suggest. The earliest gods were probably related to the weather, the seasons and crops and other phenomena that early men could not understand and so assumed were controlled by invisible beings. The earliest notion of a single being behind all this was probably 'the goddess', the earth mother, responsbile for fertility - that is, crops and by extension human ferrtility.
But different people developed different ideas of who or what was behind things; the ideas merged and mutated a lot as people came into contact with each other. Increasingly, the gods became seen as male - perhaps as society itself became more male-dominated - and came to acquire priests who claimed to understand the gods better than ordinary mortals. Maybe these are the people you have in mind? But I think the gods themselves are thousands of years older than the priests.
The Jewish god was, I think, the first monotheistic god - initially a sort of war god, ordering the Israelites to wipe out other tribes in his name; but ultimately having the creation of all life attributed to him, and responsibility for everythinng (no separate rain gods or anything like that: he's a jealous god, as he says, and won't have you worshipping anyone but him).
Christians believe in a more amiable god because of the New Testament and the life of Jesus, who reinterpreted much of the teaching of the Old Testament in a less fire-breathing way. Jews and Muslims, I think, believe in something closer to the Old Testament God.
But different people developed different ideas of who or what was behind things; the ideas merged and mutated a lot as people came into contact with each other. Increasingly, the gods became seen as male - perhaps as society itself became more male-dominated - and came to acquire priests who claimed to understand the gods better than ordinary mortals. Maybe these are the people you have in mind? But I think the gods themselves are thousands of years older than the priests.
The Jewish god was, I think, the first monotheistic god - initially a sort of war god, ordering the Israelites to wipe out other tribes in his name; but ultimately having the creation of all life attributed to him, and responsibility for everythinng (no separate rain gods or anything like that: he's a jealous god, as he says, and won't have you worshipping anyone but him).
Christians believe in a more amiable god because of the New Testament and the life of Jesus, who reinterpreted much of the teaching of the Old Testament in a less fire-breathing way. Jews and Muslims, I think, believe in something closer to the Old Testament God.
Gods were not supernatural or holy. The Gods of mythology (including the biblical God) were people (or beings) from space. It's the only logical answer.
http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html
I'll post this link as a separate question. It may spark further interesting debate.
http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html
I'll post this link as a separate question. It may spark further interesting debate.
Thanks for your patience... like most, if I had complete control over scheduling demands, I would have retired, long ago to Tuscany...
You state, Waldo, that God would know your level of skepticism and provide adequate proof of Himself equal to the level of disbelief (unbelief?). I think that you may be speaking of "proof" when, in fact you are asking for "certainty". How is it,that a seemingly rational, thinking being, such as yourself (yes, I'm happy to grant that premise) can inquire of evidence available to all and yet, come to an entirely different conclusion as to it's "provision of certaintiy" than another, rational, thinking being (I present myself as such)?
Are there not an immense number of things in life that provide "proof" of their existence, yet one comes away as "uncertain"? Evolution, is one example, and among that elite, small handful of theoretical scientists that understand and argue the merits of the Grand Unification Theory, it's apparent that none are certain of their "proofs".
Sincerely, this is not an attempt to segue into another subject to avoid a direct answer to your important (and, I think possibly, a heartfelt) question. There's a number of arguments one can present, but this one is the most cogent to me...
"Yet even if God provided proof that was satisfactory to everyone, faith and trust would still be required to follow God. The atheist's question would merely change from "Why doesn't God prove his existence?" to "Why doesn't God explain why he did this and not that?" Atheists themselves would become theists, but not all of them would become Christians: one can believe God exists without believing he's worthy of worship, or that Christ's death atoned for our sins.
Contd.
You state, Waldo, that God would know your level of skepticism and provide adequate proof of Himself equal to the level of disbelief (unbelief?). I think that you may be speaking of "proof" when, in fact you are asking for "certainty". How is it,that a seemingly rational, thinking being, such as yourself (yes, I'm happy to grant that premise) can inquire of evidence available to all and yet, come to an entirely different conclusion as to it's "provision of certaintiy" than another, rational, thinking being (I present myself as such)?
Are there not an immense number of things in life that provide "proof" of their existence, yet one comes away as "uncertain"? Evolution, is one example, and among that elite, small handful of theoretical scientists that understand and argue the merits of the Grand Unification Theory, it's apparent that none are certain of their "proofs".
Sincerely, this is not an attempt to segue into another subject to avoid a direct answer to your important (and, I think possibly, a heartfelt) question. There's a number of arguments one can present, but this one is the most cogent to me...
"Yet even if God provided proof that was satisfactory to everyone, faith and trust would still be required to follow God. The atheist's question would merely change from "Why doesn't God prove his existence?" to "Why doesn't God explain why he did this and not that?" Atheists themselves would become theists, but not all of them would become Christians: one can believe God exists without believing he's worthy of worship, or that Christ's death atoned for our sins.
Contd.
Contd.
God wants us to trust him, not just believe he exists. If our every demand for proof and explanation were satisfied, we'd only trust and follow God to the extent that he proved himself to us. We would be relying on the external evidence and our own judgment of it, not actually trusting God. For us to actively trust God, we have to continue in our belief even when what we believe in isn't proven. And why is trust so important? Because it requires a deeper relationship with the one trusted."
I've used this quote, since 1. it's readily available and I don't have to type the whoe thing, and 2., it made a profound change in my approach to "God" when, believe it or not, I was in the same philosphical position as you. I wish I had orginated it!
In my opinion, "proof" is presented... absolute psychological certainty is another matter and I've come to understand that that type certainty is available, but only when one "... shall seek Yahweh your God, and you shall find him, when you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Dt. 4:29).
Now, you continue and state "... the same bueden of proof is required for an extraodinary claim..." But is establishing the historicity of Yeshua "an extraordinary" claim? I think not. If one accepts the existence of Yeshua in history, then and only then, must one work on the "extraodinary claims". I've always used (sometimes with great success and other times...) the presentation of the Christ as historical and once that fact is accepted, then we can come to what that historical figure means, no?
Contd.
God wants us to trust him, not just believe he exists. If our every demand for proof and explanation were satisfied, we'd only trust and follow God to the extent that he proved himself to us. We would be relying on the external evidence and our own judgment of it, not actually trusting God. For us to actively trust God, we have to continue in our belief even when what we believe in isn't proven. And why is trust so important? Because it requires a deeper relationship with the one trusted."
I've used this quote, since 1. it's readily available and I don't have to type the whoe thing, and 2., it made a profound change in my approach to "God" when, believe it or not, I was in the same philosphical position as you. I wish I had orginated it!
In my opinion, "proof" is presented... absolute psychological certainty is another matter and I've come to understand that that type certainty is available, but only when one "... shall seek Yahweh your God, and you shall find him, when you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Dt. 4:29).
Now, you continue and state "... the same bueden of proof is required for an extraodinary claim..." But is establishing the historicity of Yeshua "an extraordinary" claim? I think not. If one accepts the existence of Yeshua in history, then and only then, must one work on the "extraodinary claims". I've always used (sometimes with great success and other times...) the presentation of the Christ as historical and once that fact is accepted, then we can come to what that historical figure means, no?
Contd.
Fini
I don't accept for one minute, your assertation that the acceptance of Jesus demands that "cosmology is wrong, physics is wrong, biology is wrong... etc.," In fact, though it's not a "scientific" tome, the Bible does address, succintly just such subjects. I'd also argue heatedly, that evolution is an "elegant explanation". But it's not just me, it's hundreds if not thousands of highly qualified scientists of all persuasions that cannot accept Darwin's theory and a lot of those are not theists, let alone Christian. That's probably a subject for yet another debate.
(Here's a challenge... define "species").
Thanks for your effort and the time taken to participate.
No, chakka35, I'm not neglecting you...one at a time!
I don't accept for one minute, your assertation that the acceptance of Jesus demands that "cosmology is wrong, physics is wrong, biology is wrong... etc.," In fact, though it's not a "scientific" tome, the Bible does address, succintly just such subjects. I'd also argue heatedly, that evolution is an "elegant explanation". But it's not just me, it's hundreds if not thousands of highly qualified scientists of all persuasions that cannot accept Darwin's theory and a lot of those are not theists, let alone Christian. That's probably a subject for yet another debate.
(Here's a challenge... define "species").
Thanks for your effort and the time taken to participate.
No, chakka35, I'm not neglecting you...one at a time!
Clanad, I can assure you I'm not looking for certainty, merely proof. I�ve seen the Bible. It doesn�t convince in the slightest. I haven't seen anything to convince me that there's anything to this stuff worthy of further investigation. To be fair, I'm not exactly looking particularly deeply (my question that you thought was heartfelt was more facetious, to be honest), any more than, say I'm looking into the proof of fairies, because it's obvious at a very superficial level that there's nothing to be found.
You mention evolution, and say you don't want to get sidetracked into that discussion. Why not? It's relevant, as far as I'm concerned. Apart from anything else, my atheism isn't simply the result of a one-dimensional, 'I asked God to appear in a puff of magic, and he didn't therefore he doesn't exist.' It encompasses multiple elements, of which evolution is but one, but a good one. You see, not only is evolution elegant, as we both agree, but rejecting it doesn't just cause one problem (Intelligent design offers no answers), but it also causes a massive problem of how come a false theory explains so much?
For example:
How does intelligent design explain hiccups? It can't. evolution can, because evolution knows we evolved from amphibians that needed to be able to use the epiglottis to close off the lungs while underwater.
Evolution can cure the child killer cardioencephalomyopathy because we know that mitochondria evolved from microbes, and we can test cures on the decendents of these microbes.
How does intelligent design explain varicose veins? It can't. evolution can, because we know where those veins used to go when we were fish and thus why they take such ridiculous, non-optimised routes.
How does intelligent design explain male groinal hernias? It can't. evolution can, because we know how our testes descended from the chest area to their current position, creating a weakness
You mention evolution, and say you don't want to get sidetracked into that discussion. Why not? It's relevant, as far as I'm concerned. Apart from anything else, my atheism isn't simply the result of a one-dimensional, 'I asked God to appear in a puff of magic, and he didn't therefore he doesn't exist.' It encompasses multiple elements, of which evolution is but one, but a good one. You see, not only is evolution elegant, as we both agree, but rejecting it doesn't just cause one problem (Intelligent design offers no answers), but it also causes a massive problem of how come a false theory explains so much?
For example:
How does intelligent design explain hiccups? It can't. evolution can, because evolution knows we evolved from amphibians that needed to be able to use the epiglottis to close off the lungs while underwater.
Evolution can cure the child killer cardioencephalomyopathy because we know that mitochondria evolved from microbes, and we can test cures on the decendents of these microbes.
How does intelligent design explain varicose veins? It can't. evolution can, because we know where those veins used to go when we were fish and thus why they take such ridiculous, non-optimised routes.
How does intelligent design explain male groinal hernias? It can't. evolution can, because we know how our testes descended from the chest area to their current position, creating a weakness
In all cases, evolution can explain these things by reference to the fact that our design is a compromise between what we are and what we've evolved from. With ID, there's no such possibility. God (or whatever the nameless intelligent force is) has simply made an incredibly poor design.
For reasons such as this (and it's non-falsifiability, failure to account for itself, oh and outright lies), I reject ID. This, along with cosmology, ties in with rejecting the Biblical story of creation.
Essentially, all you have to do is know that Genesis is rubbish, and the edifice tumbles. Try the patantly absurd story of Noah. You need no scientific knowledge whatsoever to be able to drive great big holes through this story. Frankly, why waste time on the rest when you know it's (ironically) a house built on sand?
Any proof of God, Jeebus etc has to more convincing than our alternative theories, and they simply aren't. They raise more questions than they answer and aren't supported by evidence.
For reasons such as this (and it's non-falsifiability, failure to account for itself, oh and outright lies), I reject ID. This, along with cosmology, ties in with rejecting the Biblical story of creation.
Essentially, all you have to do is know that Genesis is rubbish, and the edifice tumbles. Try the patantly absurd story of Noah. You need no scientific knowledge whatsoever to be able to drive great big holes through this story. Frankly, why waste time on the rest when you know it's (ironically) a house built on sand?
Any proof of God, Jeebus etc has to more convincing than our alternative theories, and they simply aren't. They raise more questions than they answer and aren't supported by evidence.
OK, Waldo, in just a few minutes that I have, let me ask this question; How do you then explain the real, substantive, disagreements from various disicplines of science on the subject of evolution? You take it as fact, however, as I mentioned in an eralier post, there isn't any agreement on the seemingly simple and most basic component of the theory, that being a deffinition of species.
To be intellectually honest, you must concede that every aspect of Darwin's theory is questioned. It doesn't take much effort on Google's site or my own library to see that your acceptance is based on your desire to fullfill your worldview as it is any constancy.
Since the 1850's when Darwin first proposed (he wasn't the first, of course) descent of species from common ancestors, not one segment hasn't been denied, argued over and hotly debated and in many cases refuted or modified... not by Creationists or theists but from within the scientific community. You see this as falsifiability, I see it as one book is titled, "A Theory in Chaos".
Each example that you provide can easily be refuted by radically alternate explanations, no?
Again, defering to intellectual honesty, I have just as much "certainty" concerning the nature of God, the historicity of Jesus and the changes in my life (and others) based on investigation of the evidence, as you do in your "beliefs".
Contd.
To be intellectually honest, you must concede that every aspect of Darwin's theory is questioned. It doesn't take much effort on Google's site or my own library to see that your acceptance is based on your desire to fullfill your worldview as it is any constancy.
Since the 1850's when Darwin first proposed (he wasn't the first, of course) descent of species from common ancestors, not one segment hasn't been denied, argued over and hotly debated and in many cases refuted or modified... not by Creationists or theists but from within the scientific community. You see this as falsifiability, I see it as one book is titled, "A Theory in Chaos".
Each example that you provide can easily be refuted by radically alternate explanations, no?
Again, defering to intellectual honesty, I have just as much "certainty" concerning the nature of God, the historicity of Jesus and the changes in my life (and others) based on investigation of the evidence, as you do in your "beliefs".
Contd.
Contd.
Having said that, I do believe that there is a middle course that doesn't rely on "God of the Gaps", scientific dishonesty or refutation of the ancient age of the world and universe. I think you may be relying on "Young Earth" creationist's literature and I disagree with their position at least as strongly as you do. But, part of their position is based on fear... fear that, given enough time, evolution might be a viable theory. Many on my ilk, however, can reasonably show that infinite time would not produce the results we see today.
I do appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with you. Thanks!
Having said that, I do believe that there is a middle course that doesn't rely on "God of the Gaps", scientific dishonesty or refutation of the ancient age of the world and universe. I think you may be relying on "Young Earth" creationist's literature and I disagree with their position at least as strongly as you do. But, part of their position is based on fear... fear that, given enough time, evolution might be a viable theory. Many on my ilk, however, can reasonably show that infinite time would not produce the results we see today.
I do appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with you. Thanks!
WOW!! AB seems to be working!!!
Angel, I have to say that what you said to Clanad wasn't fair. She is offering her side of the debate, and is extremely knowledgeable. I would have thought her input here, together with the input of those who disagree with her, may have helped you to consider the possibilities, and to, perhaps, find the answer to your question. You said in your original question that you have no wish to offend anyone, but in my opinion your comment to Clanad was very rude indeed.
Angel, I have to say that what you said to Clanad wasn't fair. She is offering her side of the debate, and is extremely knowledgeable. I would have thought her input here, together with the input of those who disagree with her, may have helped you to consider the possibilities, and to, perhaps, find the answer to your question. You said in your original question that you have no wish to offend anyone, but in my opinion your comment to Clanad was very rude indeed.
"How do you then explain the real, substantive, disagreements from various disicplines of science on the subject of evolution? You take it as fact, however, [�] there isn't any agreement on the seemingly simple and most basic component of the theory, that being a deffinition of species."
Hmmm. This is the fact that there is no universally-applicable definition of species. A good example being that if one were to say 'species are differentiated on the basis of interfertility', then one has a major problem with organisms which reproduce asexually.
You seem to think this is a problem, but scientists don't, since if evolution is true, it must involve cumulative changes to a lineage until the descendants constitute a different species, as determined by the appropriate definition for the organism type (i.e. you wouldn't use the interfertility definition for asexual organisms, but one appropriate to that type of organism). If evolution is true, there *must be* transitional organisms that are difficult to classify as one thing or t'other - and lo; there are! Evolution *necessarily requires* that 'species' is not a clear cut issue. It's not a problem, because it's innate and predicted.
What we shouldn't take from the lack of a universal definition, is that there's any difficulty in determining what definition of species is appropriate to use for a given organism.
"To be intellectually honest, you must concede that every aspect of Darwin's theory is questioned."
Nothing to concede; it'd be peculiar if it were not. The same equally happens with other scientific ideas. In any case, the theory of evolution itself is not in question among the people you're discussing; some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs are under discussion.
Hmmm. This is the fact that there is no universally-applicable definition of species. A good example being that if one were to say 'species are differentiated on the basis of interfertility', then one has a major problem with organisms which reproduce asexually.
You seem to think this is a problem, but scientists don't, since if evolution is true, it must involve cumulative changes to a lineage until the descendants constitute a different species, as determined by the appropriate definition for the organism type (i.e. you wouldn't use the interfertility definition for asexual organisms, but one appropriate to that type of organism). If evolution is true, there *must be* transitional organisms that are difficult to classify as one thing or t'other - and lo; there are! Evolution *necessarily requires* that 'species' is not a clear cut issue. It's not a problem, because it's innate and predicted.
What we shouldn't take from the lack of a universal definition, is that there's any difficulty in determining what definition of species is appropriate to use for a given organism.
"To be intellectually honest, you must concede that every aspect of Darwin's theory is questioned."
Nothing to concede; it'd be peculiar if it were not. The same equally happens with other scientific ideas. In any case, the theory of evolution itself is not in question among the people you're discussing; some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs are under discussion.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Crosswords67 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles125 mins ago
