If I would have

@fmf said
One does decide to believe.

One tealizes. One doesn't decide.

EDIT: One realizes. One doesn't decide.

@josephw said
I'll respond to your post above this one as soon as I find time.
I gotta think about it for a while.

This is dodging tactic which you use too frequently Joseph.

@suzianne said
Why are you choosing not to answer?

Can you prove God exists? Then it is not 'evidence'.

It’s his way, similar thing with KellyJay.

@kellyjay said
Psalm 18:25-27
English Standard Version

With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless; with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous. For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.

Are you then suggesting that Joseph when cast into the put by his brothers, David when hiding from the raging murderous Saul, Esther when she was abducted, Jesus when he was sacrificing himself and the friend in their pain …. as listed in their situations in the OP poem … where each merciless, blameful, impure, crooked and haughty?

@josephw said
I'll respond to your post above this one as soon as I find time.
I gotta think about it for a while.

Take your time sir. (The longer you take the more I'll believe I have you flummoxed).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge."

Agreed. So what is to be done with the unbeliever who has weighed up the knowledge available and does not consider it sure and certain? As they can not force themself to believe in something, are they destined for eternal damnation?

I don't think an omniscient God would have it so.

There is also the picking and choosing of what evidence you will accept, and how much weight you give to each piece. Simply having an odds calculator doesn't help you find truth without those data points in play being correctly analyzed. The everything from nothing question, the information driving universe, life from non-life, error checking in life, morals, consciousness, right and wrong, have been dismissed. Questions about what came first the material or the immaterial left untouched, without cause. Typically, once things start pointing toward God, pet excuses arise, talking snakes, or some offense spotted in the scripture, and the questions go untouched and insults begin.

@kellyjay said
I saw this quote and thought it profound.



“If I would have pulled Joseph out. Out of that pit. Out of that prison. Out of that pain. I would have cheated nations out of the one God would use to deliver them from famine.


If I would have pulled David out. Out of Saul’s spear-throwing presence. Out of the caves he hid away in. Out of the pain of rejection. I would ...[text shortened]... for this road you’ve been on.”


Originally posted by Kimberly Henderson, Proverbs 31 Ministries

Profound unscriptural nonsense. Judas Iscariot is your hero.
Funny how you never find anything Jesus said is profound.

@rajk999 said
Profound unscriptural nonsense. Judas Iscariot is your hero.
Funny how you never find anything Jesus said is profound.

zzz

@indonesia-phil said
There's no opinion about it. You and I could meet on either side of a table and enjoy tea and biscuits together, and I'm sure we would agree that existential discussion notwithstanding, the table exists. So that's my bit done, and now I ask you to prove that your god (or any god for that matter) exists. Gods and tables are different.

The tea and biscuits are on me.

Tea and biscuits, and friendly conversation. Though there be contentious debate here with some, it is in my heart not to make enemies of any. I am but an ordinary person with no particular credentials to speak of, I simply came across this forum some 15 years ago looking to play chess, but found myself embroiled in this ageless debate unawares.

So here I sit with you enjoying tea and biscuits across a table that neither of us will deny exists, burdened with the task of proving the existence of an invisible God.

What have I gotten myself into? 🤔

To be honest, there doesn't appear to be much material evidence, except perhaps the material existence of the universe itself, which we both agree exists, but the fact of its existence doesn't prove it was created by a God.

Maybe.

But here it is, and here we are. The alternative to a "creation" model is a scientific theory of evolution, which in my opinion is much more untenable.

Take for example the simplicity of the concept of creation. Even the most simple person can grasp the idea, but not so with evolution. The idea is simple enough, but the science behind it isn't.

Here's the thing; as an artist, and not a scientist, I'm pursuing a line of reasoning that brings to bear a spiritual perspective in juxtaposition to a purely material or scientific view.

What is apparent, visible and tangible to our senses, and because it is, doesn't prove there isn't something invisible and intangible to our physical senses, or that we don't possess a component of our being that can be aware of more than meets the eye.

So then, providing "proof" based on the visible, of the invisible, is superficial at best, and as has been shown in the realm of debate, not practical.

Clearly, science has demonstrated that within matter, such as DNA, there exists information, which infers intelligence. Of course it's debatable whether or not said information is from an intelligent being or merely as a result of the evolutionary process.

I digress.

Everything is questionable. If it weren't so there would be no learning or forward advancement, no matter which position one assumes, though forgone conclusions are reached on both sides of the debate.

Moving forward...

@indonesia-phil said
Well, you may not see the logic, but the logic is irrefutable.

We are not talking here about an 'object' such as a table, which setting aside existential discussion as to whether anything actually exists, is there for all to see and drink a cup of tea on.

The 'object' to which you refer is a supernatural being, which cannot be seen, or proven to exist, but can ...[text shortened]... et, and an atheist such as myself will say that all religion is indeed blind obedience to ignorance.

Do you realize that God is beyond knowing only due to how you define God? As you define God by your beliefs you have removed any possibility of knowing God, so what you are complaining about is the very thing you too are doing. Also simply because there is nothing that we can do to force God to reveal Himself to us, but nothing stopping Him from knowing us by revealing Himself to us.

@kellyjay said
The everything from nothing question, the information driving universe, life from non-life, error checking in life, morals, consciousness, right and wrong, have been dismissed. Questions about what came first the material or the immaterial left untouched, without cause.

You don't have convincing answers to any of these questions either.

@josephw said
The alternative to a "creation" model is a scientific theory of evolution, which in my opinion is much more untenable.

What if the laws of physics and the mechanics of evolution and the nature of the universe, together, IS the nature of the creator entity? What's with the analytical fealty to the Bronze Age anthropomorphization of such an entity?

@kellyjay said
Do you realize that God is beyond knowing only due to how you define God? As you define God by your beliefs you have removed any possibility of knowing God, so what you are complaining about is the very thing you too are doing. Also simply because there is nothing that we can do to force God to reveal Himself to us, but nothing stopping Him from knowing us by revealing Himself to us.

I'm not sure what makes you think that I'm 'complaining' about anything. Your posts so often remind me of an old joke: Person A asks person B the directions to somewhere, where after person B says 'If you're trying to get there, you're starting from the wrong place.' Everything you write here begins with the assumption that there is a god, and you fit the world that you see around that assumption., and it's only your belief that leads you to that assumption. Take your belief out of the equation and everything changes.

By the by, some time has elapsed since you wrote the post, so is this one of those situations where your opinion has changed (you know 'on a dime' ) , since you wrote it, and just to be clear, do you in fact hold the exactly opposing view at the same time as you hold this view, as you apparently think commonly happens?

I leave you with these thoughts, and give you fair warning that I'm about to do one of my 'disappearing acts' , I have a trip to Vietnam and Thailand in the offing, so I won't be doing much if anything by way of reading or writing in the forums for a couple of weeks. I leave you with my best wishes.

@indonesia-phil said
Everything you write here begins with the assumption that there is a god, and you fit the world that you see around that assumption., and it's only your belief that leads you to that assumption.

As he often says: "It's the only narrative that aligns with the facts". And what is the preeminent "fact" that he touts? Ah yes, it's that only his narrative is self-evidently true.

@josephw said
Tea and biscuits, and friendly conversation. Though there be contentious debate here with some, it is in my heart not to make enemies of any. I am but an ordinary person with no particular credentials to speak of, I simply came across this forum some 15 years ago looking to play chess, but found myself embroiled in this ageless debate unawares.

So here I sit with you enjoy ...[text shortened]... ne assumes, though forgone conclusions are reached on both sides of the debate.

Moving forward...

Well you know what, I don't have time right now to to do this justice, but a couple of thoughts to be going on with: The simplest answer isn't always the right answer, and of course it's easy to blame everything on a supernatural creator entity, all religions have one of those, but it doesn't follow that there is one.

Questioning things is the thing....Unthinking and unquestioning acceptance of the existence of a higher entity does indeed involve no learning or forward advancement; I'm not a scientist either, but I do understand that true science begins with no assumption, and we (as in humankind) have made considerable progress in understanding the world and universe around us since we started to ask the big questions.

Anyway, we're probably on our second cup of tea by now, and if this goes on much longer we're going to need sandwiches.