Christians, Jews and Muslims - A Simple Question

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Without reference to the doctrine of your religion; how would you go about proving your SPECIFIC God to someone, using only nature itself from what raw materials and knowledge we currently have an understanding of?

The key word is "SPECIFIC"

I will be willing to grant you that nature itself could be considered evidence(Deism argument); but not evidence that this God expresses that the words and morals of the QuRan, the Bible or Torah are in fact the truth. As how could you possibly deduce moral absolutism from nature itself? [Theism argument is that you can]

edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Under the constraints I can not.

I will say I am a Fanatic, Fundamentalist, Heterosexual, Bible banging, Tongue Speaking, Holy Ghost Filled believer in One G-d.

So since God created the world perfect in the beginning around 6,000 years ago with out sin upon this planet. ( Sin being doing that which G-d does not want us to do, which by the way in the beginning was one simple thing do not eat from the tree in the middle of the Garden )

And Adam and Eve were in the dispensation of innocence they were able to walk in the presence of G-d because, G-d being inherently Good can not stand to be in the presence of evil. They would talk with G-d, speculation here but I would assume that they would talk of their daily experience of interaction with the plants and animals of the Garden.
You see G-d put them in the best place on earth with all the good to eat plants. And yes lions could be plant eaters their teeth are no different than that of a panda which eats bamboo.

Now since in the Beginning G-d spoke verbally to man he did not need to have his word written down.
You must realize also that after the sin man was disconnected from G-d and as population grew and less people believed that he was the creator, their attention was to the god of this world Satan.
Adam knew that G-d created it all because after he made Adam he placed him in the area that would be the Garden of Eden. Once in there he created everything before him so that
Adam could name the plants and animals of creation and that he could see that G-d was in fact the creator of it all. After the falling away the children of Adam only knew of this creation as a story dad or grandpa would tell and since G-d was not creating anymore (1st law of thermal dynamics goes into effect at the end of Day six matter can not be created or destroyed ) the feeble minded men and women (just like today) did not believe that G-d created it.

This does not mean that everyone after Adam did not believe, because there are several that are spoken of that before the Flood that were men of G-d.

Genesis 6
[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The scripture above shows how G-d was present even to man after the sin yet because we have free will they did not hearken to him or his voice.

So after the flood there were men and women that believed in G-d, and some of them were prophets that G-d spoke to directly, now mind you yes they were the Children of Israel, as this is who G-d chose to convey his will to.
The Jews are G-ds chosen people but that does not mean they are a less sinful people in anyway, they are the ones he chose to fulfill the prophecies.

I will ask you a question if you believe in G-d how do you think he would convey his will to you and yet allow you to chose through your own free will how you will live?

I mean since men do not care to have ultimate rules then how should G-d tell you what is his right and wrong?

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

So since God created the world perfect in the beginning around 6,000 years ago with out sin upon this planet

There is evidence to the contrary. If you do not believe in critical evidence, there is no hope for progression of your mind, or acceptance of truth. You will remain myoptic because of the doctrine of man (that you think is "GOD") the words of a man who had little knowledge at the time of creating the doctrine.

The earth is NOT 6,000 years old - The Age of the Earth

The age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Re Zroth:

You wrote:

"Your requirements prevent an impartial discussion."

As do doctrinal requirements. Any suggestions to a better method?


"For example, your brain has two sides. One for logic and the other emotion. Can we talk about the left side only?"

I know it was only an example, but where did you get that from? The main distinction between left and right hemispheres lie in the linear, exclusive mode and the patterned, inclusive mode.


Quote: "We are all expressions of the creators desire to experience itself. Being unknowable different people have different paths from and back to the same source."

How do you know that?

Quote: "The Tao says all the ocean is most humble, stays low and all rivers and streams return to it."

It also says, that those who know, don't speak (Tao-teh-king v 56)


Quote: "Your existence proves God's."

How?
.

Re Seed76:

You wrote:

"If Theists are wrong, and Non-Theists are right, then Theists have nothing to loose. If Non-Theists are wrong and Theists are right, what then??"

There is probably some site somewhere, where things like Pascal's wager and 'intelligent creation' are explained to the 50-years-out-of-date-pseudo-logical christian.

Until I find it:

1/ First of all, these 'ifs' are not the only options. As a methaphysicist I represent a third option, buddism a fourth. There are possibly more.

2/ If theists are wrong??...They have no nothing to loose? Except wasting their lives completely and being a pest for non-theists.

If theists are right:

3/ Which of the innumerable 'gods' is the right one then? Eventually putting a major part of theists through history on the loosing side anyway, as they can't all be right.

Quote: " In my opinion all those threads between Theists and Non-Theists, are always a debate between who is right and who is wrong, because we can not prove it or disprove it."

And in my opinion, it's a a question of mental laziness and tunnel-realities, as mankind in reality has an increasing amount of 'tools' to find answers. But the brainwashed ideologue is afraid to let go of the crutches, and 'scientism' still having some grip on what's called 'evidence'.

Sometimes only from a scientific narrowminded-nes of its own (which also then is an exclusive 'belief-system'), but also very often to put a stop to aggressive doctrinal 'explanations' of the most farfetched type.

Re ACTS

You wrote:

"So since God created the world perfect in the beginning around 6,000 years ago with out sin upon this planet."

If you're serious, then wow, a real creationist. I believed, they were extinct by now.

But you must have an interesting life. As of now when you read this sitting by a computer created and maintained by the scientific principles of quantum-physics, you on the other hand reject astronomy, astro-physics, geology, biology and carbon-14 measurements.

Ofcourse I'm being slightly unfair, because you may have a theological explanation for computers, where you can sidestep science and logics.

reply to post by bogomil

There is probably some site somewhere, where things like Pascal's wager and 'intelligent creation' are explained to the 50-years-out-of-date-pseudo-logical christian.

It is possible, but this thread is not about Creation/ID debate i think. Unless of course i misread the title of the thread.

1/ First of all, these 'ifs' are not the only options. As a methaphysicist I represent a third option, buddism a fourth. There are possibly more.

The thread title is "Christians, Jews and Muslims- A Simple question". It does not says about Metaphysicism, Buddism, or Hinduism etc. Therefor those "If´s" are representing only those options.

2/ If theists are wrong??...They have no nothing to loose?

Absolute nothing.

Except wasting their lives completely and being a pest for non-theists.

Well, that is your personal opinion.

3/ Which of the innumerable 'gods' is the right one then? Eventually putting a major part of theists through history on the loosing side anyway, as they can't all be right.

Well, based on the thread title only one God.

And in my opinion, it's a a question of mental laziness and tunnel-realities, as mankind in reality has an increasing amount of 'tools' to find answers. But the brainwashed ideologue is afraid to let go of the crutches, and 'scientism' still having some grip on what's called 'evidence'.

Sometimes only from a scientific narrowminded-nes of its own (which also then is an exclusive 'belief-system'), but also very often to put a stop to aggressive doctrinal 'explanations' of the most farfetched type.

And your contribution, to this thread is exactly what??

Peace

Re Seed76

You wrote:

"It is possible, but this thread is not about Creation/ID debate i think. Unless of course i misread the title of the thread."

The first (probably christian) answer to the OP was 'intelligent design'; and it has returned again later. Your own initial contributions were Pascal's wager, to which I also responded.

Does Pascal's wager relate better to the OP than my approach, or are you just trying to make yourself the referee of topic-frames.


Quote: " The thread title is "Christians, Jews and Muslims- A Simple question". It does not says about Metaphysicism, Buddism, or Hinduism etc. Therefor those "If´s" are representing only those options."

The 'if' of a metaphysical perspective is relevant to the OP, as it actually includes the 'rational' parameter present in (quote from OP): " using only nature itself from what raw materials and knowledge we currently have an understanding of?" I threw in buddhism as an example, as you now have added hinduism.

My original quote: "Which of the innumerable 'gods' is the right one then? Eventually putting a major part of theists through history on the loosing side anyway, as they can't all be right."

Your answer: "Well, based on the thread title only one God."

And from OP: "how would you go about proving your SPECIFIC God to someone, ....?"

So I repeat: Which SPECIFIC 'god' is eventually proven one way or another. Allah, Jahveh, Zeus, Woden .....or none?

Quote: "And your contribution, to this thread is exactly what??"

Basically by suggesting, that there is a grey zone between strict 'scientism' and claims concerning 'the invisible part' of existence (which religionists try to people with fable-creatures).

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Have you ever heard of The All?

Ephesians 4:6
"[God] is over all and through all and in all"

Romans 11:36
"from [God] and through him and to him are all things"

I believe all things to be a part of God, and the Bible supports that idea. I came to the conclusion on my own, and the Bible supports my conclusion. I didn't read the Bible and inherit the idea, I had the idea before I read the Bible.

You will forever have some cartoon definition for God, so when I tell you God is a name for all things, you will not fully understand.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Then you're a Theist, and a you would be Pantheist if you didn't need your doctrine to affirm your beliefs. If you thought God was so evident and obvious from nature and your own perception of reality.

I have no major concerns with the pantheist view, but Organized religion claims to, not only know this creator of all existence, but know it's thoughts and desires. When this religion was created they barely even knew they existed in a gallaxy never mind how they came to exist in the first place.

Just because Jesus was "immaculately" concieved doesn't mean that he was any "son" of "God"

Vicarious redemption in your doctrine is the most vile and immoral preaching you could teach to a person, let alone a child.

And the fearmongering of eternal torture, that's a concern. They can't claim to know these things, this is an un-true metaphysical claim.

But hey, believe what you want to believe right? Faith is evidence enough, even to over-rule truth? It seems that way to some beievers.

reply to post by bogomil


Be nice to have you in our other discussion, we share a similar mindset and i could use your opinion;
"God" Does Not "Care" Why Religion is False and Unscientific"

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

I will say I am a Fanatic, Fundamentalist, Heterosexual, Bible banging, Tongue Speaking, Holy Ghost Filled believer in One G-d.

Since you're a self-proclaimed fanatic, I'm not sure it's worth asking you questions or answering the questions you posed, but I will anyway...

So since God created the world perfect in the beginning around 6,000 years ago...

How do you deal with all of the evidence that says the earth is much more than 6000 years old? How old do you think the rest of the universe is? What's god's relationship to it?

I will ask you a question if you believe in G-d how do you think he would convey his will to you and yet allow you to chose through your own free will how you will live? I mean since men do not care to have ultimate rules then how should G-d tell you what is his right and wrong?

If I were to believe in such a god, I think I'd have him do it the same way parents do it with their children - be obviously present in their children's lives, teach them, and then let them go be their own person and hope for the best, but continue to guide them as they make mistakes as much as they let me. I wouldn't hide, give cryptic messages, and then condemn those who got something wrong in their beliefs about me or about my very existence. That's flat out too bizarre to believe, and if it is true, it's no god that's worthy of my worship.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Have you ever heard of The All?

Ephesians 4:6
"[God] is over all and through all and in all"

Romans 11:36
"from [God] and through him and to him are all things"

I believe all things to be a part of God, and the Bible supports that idea. I came to the conclusion on my own, and the Bible supports my conclusion. I didn't read the Bible and inherit the idea, I had the idea before I read the Bible.

You will forever have some cartoon definition for God, so when I tell you God is a name for all things, you will not fully understand.

I understand the perspective of god being all things, but then when you relate it back to the Bible I have trouble discerning what you believe. Are you Christian? Do you believe the other stories in the Bible or are the verses you quote examples of some that ring true with what you already believed prior to reading the Bible?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

Then you're a Theist, and a you would be Pantheist if you didn't need your doctrine to affirm your beliefs. If you thought God was so evident and obvious from nature and your own perception of reality.

I just got done telling you I didn't need the Bible to come to my conclusion, and now you are saying I need my "doctrine" to affirm my beliefs. If you are not going to read my posts, I don't think there is a point in trying to discuss this with you.

I was simply describing how I came to a conclusion on my own, and many other people came to the same conclusion (including those who wrote the Bible). That is why I believe the Bible is quite special.

Also, why must you label people? "Theist", "Pantheist", etc.. I don't label you, so don't label me. My beliefs are my own, and should not be labeled.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I have no major concerns with the pantheist view, but Organized religion claims to, not only know this creator of all existence, but know it's thoughts and desires. When this religion was created they barely even knew they existed in a gallaxy never mind how they came to exist in the first place.

There are many things you are not considering. One is logic and reason. The other is the so called prophets.

With an understanding of God, you can come to many conclusions as to what God would expect with logic and reason. Just like when you understand the role of a father, you can come to many conclusions as to what a father would expect from it's children, using logic and reason, to understand the fathers thoughts and desires.

If you understand that God is everything, everywhere, in everyone, you understand that many people are capable of being prophets. A prophet is someone who speaks the word of God. It's not just about predicting the future, it is about God speaking through someone, because God is in us all. Many of the "doctrines" you complain about are from people who may or may not have been prophets. God speaking through people.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Just because Jesus was "immaculately" concieved doesn't mean that he was any "son" of "God"

That is not the main reason people believe Jesus is son of God. Jesus did things which made an everlasting impression on the world. He did something that made him famous for all eternity. Supposedly he preformed miracles... I was not around to see them my self, but obviously he did something that people remembered, and figured only God could accomplish. They say nature itself followed his commands. Although I didn't witness that, there must be some truth to it because otherwise I think people would have just forgotten about him over the years.

Can you do that? Can you do something which people will be amazed about thousands of years later? Something happened.... if it didn't happen, Jesus would have just been another guy, dead and forgotten. That is not the case, he did something.... Miracles...

The words and teachings of Jesus made lasting impressions too. His words and teachings have been tested by fire and survived. There was something about Jesus... and with the belief the God is in everyone and everywhere, who knows, maybe God the Universe is able to manifest as a human.

Jesus said every person is a child of God. Not just himself. Also, it was people who thought he was God, he never claimed to be God, he only claimed to be ONE with God. Well, I claim to be ONE with God too... because that is a fact. All that is is God, and I am a part of all that is. So are you.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Vicarious redemption in your doctrine is the most vile and immoral preaching you could teach to a person, let alone a child.

And the fearmongering of eternal torture, that's a concern. They can't claim to know these things, this is an un-true metaphysical claim.

You keep showing that you know nothing about the history of religion. Let alone religion itself. You oppose that which you don't understand. It's like disliking a food before you even taste it. It's hard to discuss this topic with someone like you because you have to explain the entire history of religion and the origin of all the beliefs held within it. I just don't have time for that.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
But hey, believe what you want to believe right? Faith is evidence enough, even to over-rule truth? It seems that way to some beievers.

What truth do you think you have?

The problem I see with you is that you are using "doctrines" to disprove God. That is like using someones incorrect theory of gravity to disprove gravity.

Do you believe in God? It seems you are using other peoples beliefs of God as a reason to disbelieve God. I understand your reasons for disliking organized religion, but that is no reason to disbelieve in a God. God exists independent of religion.

Re Gift0fprophecy

You wrote:

"If you understand that God is everything, everywhere, in everyone, you understand that many people are capable of being prophets."

It would make these prophets more credible, if they agreed amongst themselves.

Quote: "Many of the "doctrines" you complain about are from people who may or may not have been prophets. God speaking through people."

Do there exist some kind of committee, which declares prophets officially authentic, or is the question settled the usual way through power-structures or violence?

Quote: " They say nature itself followed his commands. Although I didn't witness that, there must be some truth to it because otherwise I think people would have just forgotten about him over the years."

I have an alternative theory. Emperor Constantine put an impressive public relation system at the disposal of the pauline faction.

Quote: "if it didn't happen, Jesus would have just been another guy, dead and forgotten. That is not the case, he did something.... Miracles..."

I made a 'miracle' once. I cured a terminal cancer. Does that qualify?

Quote: "The words and teachings of Jesus made lasting impressions too. His words and teachings have been tested by fire and survived."

Many of the people exposed to the inquisition were also tested by fire. They never survived.

Quote: "You keep showing that you know nothing about the history of religion. Let alone religion itself. You oppose that which you don't understand."

It must be at least a week since that one was used last time. Translated to non-believianese it means: "Anybody disagreeing with me is ignorant".

Quote: "God exists independent of religion."

Seemingly religion also exists independent of 'god'..

Re awake_and_aware

Sorry I answered to a post directed to you, I simply couldn't resist the temptation. That'll probably be some extra days in purgatory for me.

Thanks for your kind invitation to the other thread. I'll be around later today.

Greetings Bogo

awake, friend, do you not see how your approach to these topics yields the same aggressive response?

is this intentional? If it isnt, i wanted to bring it to you once again. If it is, just send a U2U telling me it is indeed intentional and ill shut up about it I think such an approach has its merits if done.. properly. But if unknown to you, it will likely do nothing more than impede your own perspective and set you deeper into your bunker.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I would help him out of his misery!

Unity among mankind is the greatest!

reply to post by bogomil

The first (probably christian) answer to the OP was 'intelligent design'; and it has returned again later. Your own initial contributions were Pascal's wager, to which I also responded.

Well, in case you didn´t noticed my own intial contribution was a question. Nothing more and nothing less.

Does Pascal's wager relate better to the OP than my approach, or are you just trying to make yourself the referee of topic-frames.

Again, i simply asked. I have made a valid point on my previous posts. It´s a matter of Faith and Belief.

And from OP: "how would you go about proving your SPECIFIC God to someone, ....?"

I have answered the OP. If you have read the posts, i have made my opinion very clear. It´s a matter of Faith and Belief. Some people requiring evidence in order to believe, others do not. Just read my first 3 post and you will understand it.

So I repeat: Which SPECIFIC 'god' is eventually proven one way or another. Allah, Jahveh, Zeus, Woden .....or none?

Again, it´s a matter of Faith and belief. I have made it very clear, on my previous posts.

Basically by suggesting, that there is a grey zone between strict 'scientism' and claims concerning 'the invisible part' of existence (which religionists try to people with fable-creatures).

The scientific tools, that we have are useless, when it comes to prove God. Unless of course someone have invented an "God-o-Meter."

Peace

reply to post by sinohptik


What are you really on about? I don't get it, i'm voicing my opinion here and it's as humble as can be, I'm debating religion because it's an important subject.

For example, the american constitution was formed to separate church from state, this meant that the dogma theocracy could not encroach on state business.

This has braught freedom to very many people; blacks, women, homosexuals. IF we still lived under a theocracy like in the middle east, people would be ostracized, punished by things like stoning which is advocated in "holy" doctrine.

I don't understand your issue with me, i'm coming from the Atheist, Agnostic position and i'm letting people know why, and why religion is poision and idiocy.

I don't need to U2U to tell you that, it's clearly shown in this post and others. I'm asking questions that need answering. You don't like it, you're certainly welcome to your opinion but i am being POLITE.

I don't think religion deserves respect, respect is gained not COMMANDED.
Thanks.