What Convinced you God Exists?

[stevil]

Science, maths, stats and reasoning shows that nothing does nothing, causes nothing etc.
That there is something, the world e live in, the live we have xperience etcit follows that something caused everything.

One may not like the idea of a supernatural being causing creation, but unless one has a valid alternative explanation, one has to consider that the super natural exists and part of that is the existence of God.

This is a non sequitur.

Supernatural is not all of a sudden a valid explanation.

If one maintains that there must be a first cause, one cannot simply jump to "supernatural', one would have to instead insist that there is an unknown first cause.

 

[stevil]

I would imagine that most people who believe in a god or the gods came to their beliefs at a very young age. Before they understood how the universe works, before they developed critical reasoning. They were indoctrinated into it which is why they typically hold the same beliefs as their parents and friends.

 

[stevil]

Because all atheists want to do is make believers cry.

Oh, I must have missed that in our mission statement. Must go back and re-read those foundational papers. Now where did I put them....?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh, I missed have missed that in our mission statement. Must go back and re-read those foundational papers. Now where did I put them....?

Did you use them as kindling for your last baby bbq?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a non sequitur.

Supernatural is not all of a sudden a valid explanation.

If one maintains that there must be a first cause, one cannot simply jump to "supernatural', one would have to instead insist that there is an unknown first cause.

Indeed! First Cause is natural, in that all that is natural proceeds from it. But we may call it supernatural in that it is the ONLY thing that is not governed by external principle. I don't have a good use for the word 'supernatural' unless it is this one, about that one thing.

But there is a category difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable things. Scientists are at a loss to explain WHY art, logic and math, 'fact' and 'principle' etc. 'They just are' still demands an explanation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I didn't even say my way is correct. I only said it seems to me better than theirs.

So on these important life and death beliefs you just go with it seems better than theirs? Why not go with good evidence for your beliefs?

If it is not an argument by way of evidence, then it is considered a matter of opinion. Actually, even when there is evidence, after assuming for example, the authority of scripture --evidence, such as, what Scripture says-- it is still a matter of opinion as far as the different parties are concerned --each sure the other is wrong. All I'm left with is hermeneutics, practice and experience. And within practice and experience is of course, faith and the witness of the Holy Spirit in regards to false teaching (haha, not to mention all sorts of subjective feelings by way of bias).

And different Christians can claim this is how they determine what the Bible says is correct and have opposing views.

I don't know. Haven't gone very far into that. I wouldn't consider that to be something that I care to prove. I can see the reasons it is necessary, and the possibility of it, but the way to convince someone else who doesn't believe it is beyond me.

Ok

I don't care to convince you, beyond telling you why I believe what I do. I care to defend, demonstrate or define my positions the best I can, and leave it there.

ok

Depends on whether the person accepts the authority of Scripture. If they do, good hermeneutics (logic included) reveals many things that are usually by a poor opponent either scoffed at or outright denied without reason or by way of supposed logical contradiction with other Scripture. Short of that mere logic may suffice. The Salvation by Works crowd claim injustice and insincerity and a few other things if there is no uncaused free will. They do this without even realizing they have joined the side of salvation by works, since according to scripture they know salvation is by grace through faith. Logic shows (if one believes in the authority of scripture) that one's faith is also the gift of God, yet they insist it is man-produced. Further, they accept that no man is better in and of himself than another, yet somehow one chooses right and another wrong, without explanation, except 'by mere chance' which is a logical fail, not to mention that to say that, also denies autonomy of the believer.

This is again telling me what you believe and not why you know scripture says this. They say scripture say works are required and have scripture to support it.

 

[Tolworth John]

This is a non sequitur.

Supernatural is not all of a sudden a valid explanation.

If one maintains that there must be a first cause, one cannot simply jump to "supernatural', one would have to instead insist that there is an unknown first cause.

Something that exists outside of our universe, that is not affected by what we know as laws of science can be called ' supernatural '.
Science works on what can be seen recorded and repeated, so science has nothing to say on something that is outside of time and space.

I am interested to know just what do you call something like that?

 

[stevil]

Something that exists outside of our universe, that is not affected by what we know as laws of science can be called ' supernatural '.
Science works on what can be seen recorded and repeated, so science has nothing to say on something that is outside of time and space.

I am interested to know just what do you call something like that?

Imaginative, unsupported by evidence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So on these important life and death beliefs you just go with it seems better than theirs? Why not go with good evidence for your beliefs?

You imply that my eternal destiny rests upon my belief structure?

And different Christians can claim this is how they determine what the Bible says is correct and have opposing views.

True that. They do indeed.

This is again telling me what you believe and not why you know scripture says this. They say scripture say works are required and have scripture to support it

So I will say again, I think I would have to show it, case by case to explain further. Oh! Maybe I can say that my scriptures (to me, at least) show salvation by Grace, and their scriptures (to me, at least) also show it. I often run into opponents who even claim there is no such thing as predestination, yet also claim to believe in the authority of Scripture. If scripture says there is predestination, then there is predestination. They spend hours finding scripture demonstrating real responsible choice, to show me Calvinism is wrong, but they falsely assume Calvinism's caricature --that there is no choice.

But I am under the sincere (tee-hee) impression that you wish to show that all claims made apart from your notion of empirical evidence are pretty much equally unfounded. The truth is always trustworthy, and any claim is as trustworthy as it is true. Hopefully, what I believe, (and yes it is rational, even if not according to your empiricism), is closer to the truth than theirs.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You imply that my eternal destiny rests upon my belief structure?

If it does not then ok. Most Christians I know believe it does. Jesus said so.

True that. They do indeed.

Yes and how do you know they are false? You have said you don't.

So I will say again, I think I would have to show it, case by case to explain further. Oh! Maybe I can say that my scriptures (to me, at least) show salvation by Grace, and their scriptures (to me, at least) also show it. I often run into opponents who even claim there is no such thing as predestination, yet also claim to believe in the authority of Scripture. If scripture says there is predestination, then there is predestination. They spend hours finding scripture demonstrating real responsible choice, to show me Calvinism is wrong, but they falsely assume Calvinism's caricature --that there is no choice.

Ok, but many Christians don't believe the entire bible is true. Others point to the same scriptures and claim they say something different than your interpretation. With no standard how do you know they are wrong?

But I am under the sincere (tee-hee) impression that you wish to show that all claims made apart from your notion of empirical evidence are pretty much equally unfounded. The truth is always trustworthy, and any claim is as trustworthy as it is true. Hopefully, what I believe, (and yes it is rational, even if not according to your empiricism), is closer to the truth than theirs.

Hope is not a reliable method to knowing what is true.

 

[Tolworth John]

Imaginative, unsupported by evidence.

And your evidence to support that is?

The science behind the big bang shows that the universe had a begining.
What scientific evidence do you offer that explains the begining?

 

[stevil]

And your evidence to support that is?

The science behind the big bang shows that the universe had a begining.
What scientific evidence do you offer that explains the begining?

The expansion of the universe had a beginning.

 

[Tolworth John]

The expansion of the universe had a beginning.

Yes that can be demonstrated. What caused it to begin?

 

[stevil]

Yes that can be demonstrated. What caused it to begin?

No-one knows

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it does not then ok. Most Christians I know believe it does. Jesus said so.

Most Christians I know believe their eternal destiny rests on Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.

Yes and how do you know they are false? You have said you don't.

I doubt that is quite how I said it, but there is a point to it: that I could be wrong. But one opinion does not equal another in validity merely by also being an opinion.

Ok, but many Christians don't believe the entire bible is true. Others point to the same scriptures and claim they say something different than your interpretation. With no standard how do you know they are wrong?

No standard? How about the fact of Scripture not contradicting itself? Or the standards of good common sense, or of good logic, or of type of literature of the different books and passages?

Hope is not a reliable method to knowing what is true.

Depends on your definition of hope. The biblical term 'hoped' in Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." implies 'expectation'. Not that it wishes for something unsure, but that it waits for something sure.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Most Christians I know believe their eternal destiny rests on Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.

Ok, so how do you know you are correct and the Christians I know are wrong?

I doubt that is quite how I said it, but there is a point to it: that I could be wrong. But one opinion does not equal another in validity merely by also being an opinion.

Mine is not an opinion it is a lack of evidence that anyone has the correct interpretation.

No standard? How about the fact of Scripture not contradicting itself? Or the standards of good common sense, or of good logic, or of type of literature of the different books and passages?

How do you know these are the standards that get to the correct interpretation?

Depends on your definition of hope. The biblical term 'hoped' in Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." implies 'expectation'. Not that it wishes for something unsure, but that it waits for something sure.

If you are sure of something you would have evidence that convinces you, why would you need faith? Just provide the evidence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, so how do you know you are correct and the Christians I know are wrong?

I actually laughed out loud. You are really something!

They are not entirely wrong. What I'm guessing is that if I was to press those you quote concerning the matter, they would agree with me.

Mine is not an opinion it is a lack of evidence that anyone has the correct interpretation.

So how do you know you read anything right? Your interpretation is arrived at one way or another.

How do you know these are the standards that get to the correct interpretation?

Wow. These are not THE standards. They are some of the standards.

If you are sure of something you would have evidence that convinces you, why would you need faith? Just provide the evidence.

You say you were once a believer. I doubt you found worthy evidence to take you away from God, but rather, lack of evidence to keep you. 'The flesh' won, as it always does with those who are not regenerated.

So what do you do when FAITH is the evidence? Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

[cvanwey]

@Mark Quayle

Were you going to address my last batch of responses to you? Or, do you feel there is really nothing left to address, between you and I?

 

[cvanwey]

They are not entirely wrong. What I'm guessing is that if I was to press those you quote concerning the matter, they would agree with me.

Yes they are, apparently. I was raised Catholic, and later became a non-denominational. I later sat with hundreds, as they had their family members dedicated to God, and 'are now saved', because they are no longer a Catholic

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I actually laughed out loud. You are really something!

They are not entirely wrong. What I'm guessing is that if I was to press those you quote concerning the matter, they would agree with me.

So you think you can get every Christian that disagrees with you on doctrine to agree with you? How is that going in the Christian forums?

So how do you know you read anything right? Your interpretation is arrived at one way or another.

Well it depends on what I am reading. If I am reading a poetry book then my interpretations will be different than another's. If I am reading a physics book then my interpretation can be tested to see if it is correct. It can be independently verified to be true or not. Not so with the Bible.

Wow. These are not THE standards. They are some of the standards.

What are the standards and how do you know they are the correct standards?

You say you were once a believer. I doubt you found worthy evidence to take you away from God, but rather, lack of evidence to keep you. 'The flesh' won, as it always does with those who are not regenerated.

Nope and please do not tell me what I think or what my reasons are for not believing. I don't believe because the evidence does not convince me anymore. It has noting to do with my flesh or any religious doctrines that cannot be substantiated.

So what do you do when FAITH is the evidence? Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is never good evidence that is convincing for belief. You can believe anything on faith. I can believe Allah is the real god by faith because I can hope He exists and is not seen. Same with bigfoot.