nicetohave:

in a way i can see where your spirituals deficiency is facing, you are only concerned about the seen world which is how, and not the unseen spiritual world which is why, but the difference is what is seen is temporary but the unseen is eternal,

That's a claim I do not subscribe to. Nothing is eternal. For things to be eternal, no time should exist.

nicetohave:

when your family and children and friends pass away before your eyes, what will be left of the purpose which you find in them?

Probably none. I could die happily in the knowledge that I've had a fulfilling life. I do not fear death, I only fear the process of dieing.

That's a claim I do not subscribe to. Nothing is eternal. For things to be eternal, no time should exist.

I have read with admiration our varying views on this topic but i must say i am most impressed by your deduction about the cessation of time as a quality of eternity, stunned because i wouldnt have thought about it but you are right, you are right and yet you do not see your need of eternity.as an intellectual you will do well to check up this bible verse (Revelation 10: 4-6) time shall be abolished and eternity shall be inevitably ushered in, this life as we know it in the physical goverened by time shall pass away and eternity as God has prepared it for us, not governed by time or any known laws of gravity shall be ushered in.

Probably none. I could die happily in the knowledge that I've had a fulfilling life. I do not fear death, I only fear the process of dieing.

Death is not to be feared, it is merely a transition----to life or to death, in eternity.

nicetohave:

I have read with admiration our varying views on this topic but i must say i am most impressed by your deduction about the cessation of time as a quality of eternity, stunned because i wouldnt have thought about it but you are right, you are right and yet you do not see your need of eternity.as an intellectual you will do well to check up this bible verse (Revelation 10: 4-6) time shall be abolished and eternity shall be inevitably ushered in, this life as we know it in the physical goverened by time shall pass away and eternity as God has prepared it for us, not governed by time or any known laws of gravity shall be ushered in.

But you also see that this implies nothingness, the non-existance of substance, as there is only self-reference

exactly!!! the that is the reason why people feel spirits or ghost can permeate matter and move through walls without opposition, but then that is because the spirit being does not possess the same quality as the physical being, it is not limited by time because time is created to govern us and not the spirit realm, that is why death is a transition into timelessness, is it formlessness----? you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

i know u guys are talking about where God exists or not and stuff like that, can you please summarize the whole thing for me, anybody? if i have any contirbution, i'll put it in but meanwhile, where are u guys now? As in on this topic?

We're not acting any drama here. I think you'll understand better if you read from page 1.

nicetohave:

exactly!!! the that is the reason why people feel spirits or ghost can permeate matter and move through walls without opposition, but then that is because the spirit being does not possess the same quality as the physical being, it is not limited by time because time is created to govern us and not the spirit realm, that is why death is a transition into timelessness, is it formlessness----? you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

And by definition, this is all beyond our grasp. It is futile to talk about it or even try to understand it, because we cannot. Death being a transition of the spirit implies existence of that spirit in the first place
When people feel spirits or ghosts, the ghosts have substance, which is in contradiction with their non-physical properties. Our senses require matter to work on, even light has some properties of matter.
If these spirits exists, we cannot know anything about them. If we can know something about them, they are material in a sense and thus self contradictory.

The only non-contradictory God, is the God of the agnostic theist, which is a retreat into ignorance about the properties of that God, an eternally unknowable mystery.

I disagree with you, nferyn. When we talk of spirits, we're talking about the supernatural. You do not feel spirits with your senses. When people feel spirits, whatever goes on within that person at the moment is supernatural. It's now beyond human comprehension. So they are not material in any sense.

As nicetohave has said, you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

There's actually more to this world than what we humans can explain. It only takes the inspiration of God to understand them. But since you do not believe there's God, you will continually use what you know as a human being to defend your arguments.

nferyn:

If these spirits exists, we cannot know anything about them. If we can know something about them, they are material in a sense and thus self contradictory.

Why cant we know anything about them? What if i tell you that you are a spirit beign as well but lives in a human body just for u to function on this physical planet---a part of GOD's grande design to build and usher your spirit into eternity?

Have u got any proof against the existence of your very own spirituality?

goodguy:

I disagree with you, nferyn. When we talk of spirits, we're talking about the supernatural. You do not feel spirits with your senses. When people feel spirits, whatever goes on within that person at the moment is supernatural. It's now beyond human comprehension. So they are not material in any sense.

Ok, I follow you here, but where does that leave us? We make sense out of this world through our senses. Everything that does not ultimately come from our senses cannot be communicated. It is a non-topic, pointless conversation about the sex of the angels.

goodguy:

As nicetohave has said, you will never be able to tell honestly, because you can only explain form with your finite senses.

I don't understand the point here

goodguy:

There's actually more to this world than what we humans can explain. It only takes the inspiration of God to understand them. But since you do not believe there's God, you will continually use what you know as a human being to defend your arguments.

We can explain many of the things we could not explain before. These things used to be attributed to the supernatural and are now firmly in the realm of the natural. It is a continuous retreat of the God-of-the-gaps. Sure, today there are still a lot of things we cannot explain naturally. Does that mean that you have to insert a God by default?

layi:

Why can't we know anything about them? What if i tell you that you are a spirit beign as well but lives in a human body just for u to function on this physical planet---a part of GOD's grande design to build and usher your spirit into eternity?

This reaches the core of the argument. You assume that it is so. You cannot possibly know this to be so, you can only believe in it. If you had knowledge of it, you would need evidence.

If you dissect your last sentence:
(1) GOD: assumption of existence, no evidence
(2) grande design: based on (1), assumption: knowledge of intentions of (1), in logical contradiction with omnipotence and omniscience of (1), no evidence
(3) eternity: assumption of existence of non-temporality, not knowable to temporal beings (us)

This is all talk without a solid basis. It only makes sense if you ascribe to (1) and if you do not question the foundations of your belief in (1)

layi:

Have u got any proof against the existence of your very own spirituality?

I have not made any positive statements regarding the existence of spirits. If you make an assertion, it is up to you to bring the proof, not up to me to disprove your assertion

nferyn:

Ok, I follow you here, but where does that leave us? We make sense out of this world through our senses. Everything that does not ultimately come from our senses cannot be communicated. It is a non-topic, pointless conversation about the sex of the angels.

We make sense out of this world through our senses because we're humans. But when things that have to do with the supernatural are involved, our senses play little or no roles.

nferyn:

I don't understand the point here

What I mean is that you are explaining things based on your human nature.

nferyn:

We can explain many of the things we could not explain before. These things used to be attributed to the supernatural and are now firmly in the realm of the natural. It is a continuous retreat of the God-of-the-gaps. Sure, today there are still a lot of things we cannot explain naturally. Does that mean that you have to insert a God by default?

The fact that some things cannot be explained naturally is one reason to believe there's actually a God somewhere. I wouldn't call that "inserting God by default" because so many people have actually felt God one way or the other.

nferyn you and many of the contributors here have read a lot to some extent about evolution, how do you validate what they present yo you? have you read any literature on God, is workings (we are not even mentioning the bible here which is the ultimate directory) written by many who have experienced him and his workings and who have likewise documented same? i have made references to you but you have not read, i believe-----if indeed you have in anyway done anything to validate the works of evolution, have you done any in regards to the existence of God?

, i didnt say u were acting

ok i'll read .

Good.

goodguy:

We make sense out of this world through our senses because we're humans. But when things that have to do with the supernatural are involved, our senses play little or no roles.

So you agree with me that all talk regarding the supernatural is just speculation and that in fact, you cannot really say anything about it?

goodguy:

What I mean is that you are explaining things based on your human nature.

I can obviously only work within the limitations that I have as a human being. I will never see through sound as a bat does.

goodguy:

The fact that some things cannot be explained naturally is one reason to believe there's actually a God somewhere. I wouldn't call that "inserting God by default" because so many people have actually felt God one way or the other.

They have felt something and, because of their past experiences, they call that something God. It is still not very substantial and remains a case of inserting God by default. They do not look for other explanations of that feeling.

nicetohave:

nferyn you and many of the contributors here have read a lot to some extent about evolution, how do you validate what they present yo you? have you read any literature on God, is workings (we are not even mentioning the bible here which is the ultimate directory) written by many who have experienced him and his workings and who have likewise documented same? i have made references to you but you have not read, i believe-----if indeed you have in anyway done anything to validate the works of evolution, have you done any in regards to the existence of God?

I have read the Bible and quite some Church history. The Bible is very confusing, contradictory and hard to read. Do I need to read more? To accomplish what exactly? What will I find? Can you not summarise the points made, so that I can determine whether or not it is worth investing my limited time?

all i can do is just smile, what about other christian literatures and accounts and testimonies, proven ones of God's goodness, they are too hard to read and contradictory too....................? nothing has endeared God to your heart? i have to summarize here for you to make time out of your limited time before that can happen, id try but im afraid you will need more than my summary here to convince you to read, why not let me send you my copy of "I believe in Miracles" by Kathryn Kuhlman, i actually offer to let you have it for keeps, maybe that might help?

nferyn:

So you agree with me that all talk regarding the supernatural is just speculation and that in fact, you cannot really say anything about it?

No, I do not agree. Supernatural talks are not just speculations. When you've got God residing in you, you'll be able to understand and interprete supernatural things. Then, you'll know it's real.

nferyn:

I can obviously only work within the limitations that I have as a human being. I will never see through sound as a bat does.

Let God dwell in your life and you'll know you're more than HUMAN.

nferyn:

They have felt something and, because of their past experiences, they call that something God. It is still not very substantial and remains a case of inserting God by default. They do not look for other explanations of that feeling.

You'll never be abe to tell what they feel or not. The fact that you do not believe does not mean God does not exist. For someone like you, even if God shows himself to you physically, you'll still doubt whether it's really God or you're probably hallucinating. Sooner or later, I believe God will show himself to you (the way He wishes). I only pray you'll be able to recognise Him when He reveals Himself.

@ goodguy
We're obviously occupying different realms of reality and are unable to communicate. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me. I hope you're happy with what you claim to be your supernatural encounters. To me this is just on equal footing as children talking about the monsters the've seen under their bed.

No matter how far we drag this issue, each of us will still hold on to our views. It's actually a pointless waste of time..

_{But at least, I get to learn new words from you and others.}

I do find it interesting... a non representative sample for my personal sociological interests. I should formalise the whole thing, though

@ goodguy: have you ever, at any stage in your life, questioned what the church has taught you

Hi nferyn,

looks like i'm late to this discussion. I'm truely saddened that almost no christian here has been able to make a half decent argument. Most of the views and posts made here may be enough to convince someone who currently is not a christian and is looking for something to believe in and already believes in the existence of God, but all fall short of convincing someone who needs more than emotional appeals to sway them.

I'm a christian and an engineer and I've given this a lot of thought myself, and through discussions with others - the question of if I was not already a christian at this point, could I convert myself. The answer is NO. In fact, I have determined that it is impossible to scientifically prove that God - ever. This means that no matter how knowledgeable mankind becomes, it could never be done. Even if the world was to end and Jesus comes to raise the dead, I still couldn't prove that God (by definition) exists - at the very best, I could demonstrate the existance of a being that is waaay beyond humans - which does not neccessarily indicate the existance of "God".

Since the bible is acknowledged to have been written by humans, it cannot stand alone as evidence of the existance of God. The fallability of humans taints the very books we hold as holy.

After the third page of this topic, I thought nferyn was actually going to quit as he said given that at best the arguments given to him were like this: God exists, you are wrong - Humans are incredibly complex, therefore only God could have created them.

Well, the first as nferyn has pointed out over and over again is an assertation and itself does not prove anything. The second is a silly statement. If there were a people that were so isolated from rest the world that they had no knowledge of anything that had happened in the past 1000 years and I came to them with a computer, apparently, I would immediately become God. The argument of something being so complex, it must have a designer is an old one dating to the 1700s. However, its fallacy was also proven at that time too.

At the very best, I think there are arguments that could be made for the existence of God. However, there is no way to say if this God is that of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion. Also, that argument would not only hold true for the existence of one God, but many of them. I'm not a logician and I have not had much time to go through much of the arguments assumptions and statements to see if they would hold up to scientific rigor (since I just heard them recently - a radio show with a very convincing Apologist).

In any case, once I heard it, I determined that at best, a person could convince someone of the existence of a being or beings that we define as God, but it is impossible to say which religion if any has got it correct.

If you want nferyn, I'll try to lookup the exact phrasing and post the argument. I will say that you have . . . something really good . . to be able to continue to post in this thread . . . I would have pulled out around where you originally suggested in order to save myself from going crazy. In fact, I stopped reading around that point and skipped to the end to see if you actually were still posting here. .

allonym:


In any case, once I heard it, I determined that at best, a person could convince someone of the existence of a being or beings that we define as God, but it is impossible to say which religion if any has got it correct.

you have not said anything to lay credence to the existence of God either, you have merely paraphrased all we have said, and God is a spirit, he practise no religion, however he has set standards whereby a man can reach him and even stricter standards of how man can reside with him, in eternity

nicetohave:

you have not said anything to lay credence to the existence of God either, you have merely paraphrased all we have said, and God is a spirit, he practise no religion, however he has set standards whereby a man can reach him and even stricter standards of how man can reside with him, in eternity

Your point? I already acknowledge in my own post the extreme lack of any evidence to the existence of God. I suggest that there may be an argument that could be enough to convince someone of God's existence, though I still need to analyze it to see just how strong it is. As for the rest of your statement, it harks upon another observation I made just this morning:

All (at least Christian) and probably most (religous) definitions of God are circular. Your statement is an example of that. In order to "prove" that God exists, it is required that I have some sort of personal communication with God. As a result, it is easy to dismiss because the skeptic could never have an encounter with God and the believers would just say its because he didn't have the right heart, mind, etc or wasn't open to recieve God.

But, the problem cuts deeper. Even if I were to grant you that God does exists (which I actually do because I'm a Christian but for the purposes of this discussion, pretend I'm a non believer), I still have to ask, how do you know that God set standards down? You may claim he told you or told someone else. . but why should I believe them? For all I know, their claims are just the ravings of a mad person!

How exactly do you counter a statement like that?

It is no secret that the Christian religion depends upon faith. One definition we learn for it is faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We "believe" in Christ, in God.

However, proving something requires physical evidence. This evidence must be something that I can show to a room of thousands of people and all of us would roughly agree on what we just saw.

When it comes to the bible, which for the most part is the ultimate proof Christians have to offer, the world can agree that it was written a long time ago by other humans. What you cannot get people to agree on is that the bible is "pure". The known history of the church already indicates that there were many political influences that shape what the bible is now. The known behavior of humans suggests that it could be a hoax. Telling me that if I just sit down and read, eventually God will come to me and reveal the truth does not do anything to convince me otherwise. And knowing that if I die unconvinced, you would have a perfect excuse that would (for you) wrap it up all neatly in a bow only furthers the image that there is no real proof.

Just as a disclaimer - I am not targeting anyone in particualr with this post, its just easier for me to say "you" rather than "everyone reading this post who falls under the broad category of Christian/religious preson who would like to convince others of the existence of God or the "trueness" of their religion".

It is saddening to know that man cannot prove to another man the existence of God, i can only point you to reasons why he exists, i repeat it is impossible for a mortal to prove to another mortal the existence of God, bring all the argument you may allonym and nferyn will still not be swayed until the actual conviction is done by God himself, but we must need to continue to hammer in all the signs of his existence because it is in these that God will reach out to the unbelieving...............all we are doing here is pointing out the signs of his existence, the actual proving will be done by him, maybe not by a snowstorm or by a volcanic eruption but he will prove it to you in his own way, by the signs which your senses have been used to........now even then some still reject and refuse him, how do i know this? "because the grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to ALL men" all men means all men, irrespective of whether you have had a personal communication with him or not.

It is rewarding and inetresting to know that not all have read the bible and yet have believed on the triune God, did cornelius read the bible? did he hear about Jesus before he did move close to God and he subsequently set him aright? well no--that is the grace of God that appears to all men, in different ways and no two experiences will be the same

My submission remains the same, I believe in God because he exists, i will continue to tell os his existence and the unbelieving will continue to punch holes in my proof of the existence of God until God himself "knocks" it into him............people fall short of God's standards oftentimes not because they do not know he exists or has never had a personal communication with him but because man loves his flesh more than the things of God, as to the existence of God, every man has or will eventually get his fair chance to the truth, personal communcation or no, the point is who will accept or reject?

Jesus knew afterall there was going be people who will not believe. But for those of us that believe, He says we're blessed.

...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Humans say 'seeing is believing'. God says 'believing is seeing'.

nicetohave:

It is saddening to know that man cannot prove to another man the existence of God, i can only point you to reasons why he exists, i repeat it is impossible for a mortal to prove to another mortal the existence of God, bring all the argument you may allonym and nferyn will still not be swayed until the actual conviction is done by God himself, but we must need to continue to hammer in all the signs of his existence because it is in these that God will reach out to the unbelieving...............all we are doing here is pointing out the signs of his existence, the actual proving will be done by him, maybe not by a snowstorm or by a volcanic eruption but he will prove it to you in his own way, by the signs which your senses have been used to........now even then some still reject and refuse him, how do i know this? "because the grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to ALL men" all men means all men, irrespective of whether you have had a personal communication with him or not.

It is rewarding and inetresting to know that not all have read the bible and yet have believed on the triune God, did cornelius read the bible? did he hear about Jesus before he did move close to God and he subsequently set him aright? well no--that is the grace of God that appears to all men, in different ways and no two experiences will be the same

My submission remains the same, I believe in God because he exists, i will continue to tell os his existence and the unbelieving will continue to punch holes in my proof of the existence of God until God himself "knocks" it into him............people fall short of God's standards oftentimes not because they do not know he exists or has never had a personal communication with him but because man loves his flesh more than the things of God, as to the existence of God, every man has or will eventually get his fair chance to the truth, personal communcation or no, the point is who will accept or reject?

I believe so jare,Even Saul(Paul) who (was not just unbelieving but)was persecuting and killing Xtians,God still met him in His own way and at His own time and so many other who even tell the story themselves.
I believe He will reveal Himself to all our Unbelieving friends.

goodguy:

Jesus knew afterall there was going be people who will not believe. But for those of us that believe, He says we're blessed.

...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Humans say 'seeing is believing'. God says 'believing is seeing'.

Thanks , thats a good addendum

Now the argument is why should they believe in a God whom they have not seen? and i repeat why shouldnt they? his standards are believe and see, and he has given all good reasons to for you to believe, so its a pity if he will not change or bend that standard for you to "see and believe"..... did i believe because i am a christian? i repeat NO, i believed because i have chosen to from all the good reasons there is and because of his grace, that has appeared unto all men, and where some chose to disblieve and reject i chose to accept and believe.