18 Jul 14
Originally posted by AgergFrom your perspective, when did critical thinking begin?
If this so-called "G"od has brought about some manifestation of his otherworldly powers in this plane, then at some point there should also have been some sort of evidence of it.
As an example: your god, if it has the properties you suppose, could interact with this planet now in such way to convince us all that either he exists, or, for the die-hard sceptic ...[text shortened]... cing banjo (I see no reason why he could not do this) ... that would be pretty compelling to me!
I don't mean it offensively, but at what point do we stop extending to historical figures the (seemingly) inherent intellectual curiosity for which we give ourselves credit?
What makes us think our perspective and analysis ought to carry more weight than those who have gone before us?
Put another way, do we really think those who claim to have had the interactions with the God of the Bible were simply easily duped?
18 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI like the cut of your jib.
My answers would be no, and no, for reasons I've outlined before.
But the way you put this started me thinking. The questions seem like they have relativistic weight, that is, the answer could change based on the belief status of the answerer.
If one does not believe, then no, there can be no evidence. Yet if one does believe, there can be evidence ...[text shortened]... r model everywhere. 🙂
Edit: This is how people see Jesus in their pancake or their tortilla.
Like you, I find the evidence of God everywhere.
I haven't found His likeness on a tortilla as of yet, but I haven't really been looking there.
Also like you, I think there's just enough "absence" to keep the issue from being 'concrete,' for lack of a better way of describing it.
Which is part of the point I am trying to drive home: faith in the expectation of results or reality from events within the physical world is the smallest faith of all.
It is the slightest hope, a nearly thrown-away confidence lacking any significant reward owing to its next-to-nothing risk.
We put seed into the ground = a very good chance a crop will eventually follow.
My awkward attempt here is to somehow link and relate that which constitutes faith with the elusive nature of God.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf there is any evidence for God I find truly crass its when people claim to find his likeness in chips, crisps and other random foods. Really there is such a thing as dignity and if God exists then (s)he's not going to appear in junk food.
I like the cut of your jib.
Like you, I find the evidence of God everywhere.
I haven't found His likeness on a tortilla as of yet, but I haven't really been looking there.
Also like you, I think there's just enough "absence" to keep the issue from being 'concrete,' for lack of a better way of describing it.
Which is part of the point I am trying to ...[text shortened]... here is to somehow link and relate that which constitutes faith with the elusive nature of God.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd they will sell it on Ebay too because it is so sacred to them.
If there is any evidence for God I find truly crass its when people claim to find his likeness in chips, crisps and other random foods. Really there is such a thing as dignity and if God exists then (s)he's not going to appear in junk food.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNot only did he create the sun and stars but he also planted evidence
God made our sun and all the stars. That shows His might power right there. .
pointing to his non-existence! He then randomly selected from the
feeble-minded and gave them "belief". That is AWESOME!!!
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf people take comfort in believing Jesus has appeared to them, then good for them. I see no harm in it.
If there is any evidence for God I find truly crass its when people claim to find his likeness in chips, crisps and other random foods. Really there is such a thing as dignity and if God exists then (s)he's not going to appear in junk food.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHwe cannot expect there to be evidence and equally he cannot expect us to believe when there is no evidence. the onus is on him.
Assuming the God as depicted in the Bible is true, is it reasonable to also assume there ought to exist some form of evidence for His existence on this plane?
The God described transcends normative thinking, appears to be outside time/space/creation; can we really expect for there to be any evidence at all?
Originally posted by stellspalfieActually, no, the onus is on you. God is not on trial here. Man is the one on trial.
we cannot expect there to be evidence and equally he cannot expect us to believe when there is no evidence. the onus is on him.
And yes, He can and does expect you to believe when there is no evidence. It is called faith.
The benefit of learning about Him is yours and the consequences of rejecting Him are yours as well. So make your choice. The thing is, people do not choose a plumber without researching them six ways from Sunday, and yet they don't bother to learn about God, thinking they already know it all.
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry, I don't know what you are asking. Are you asking what monuments I know of that have lasted, or are you asking what current monuments I think will last, or are you asking me to devise a monument I think will last?
Given the ephemeral nature of history (lush gardens become deserts, gigantic boulders reduced to sands on the beach, entire societies rise and fall), what testimony or monument would you consider sturdy enough to withstand the ravages of erosive time?
And how is it relevant anyway?
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know why you brought up history here. I know plenty of people living today that claim to have had interactions with the God of the Bible. I believe there have been critical thinkers in the past, and that critical thinkers exist today. None of this means I give much credit to people claiming to have interactions with God past or present - just the same as I don't give much credit to people claiming to have interacted with aliens. And this applies to critical thinkers or otherwise.
What makes us think our perspective and analysis ought to carry more weight than those who have gone before us?
Put another way, do we really think those who claim to have had the interactions with the God of the Bible were simply easily duped?
What are your thoughts on aliens? Do you really think those who claim to have had interactions with aliens were simply easily duped?
19 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe was asking Agerg, and, by extension, all the atheists, if they should really think that those in the Bible who claimed interaction with God were just "easily duped". He wasn't talking of himself. One could assume he doesn't agree with that assessment.
I don't know why you brought up history here. I know plenty of people living today that claim to have had interactions with the God of the Bible. I believe there have been critical thinkers in the past, and that critical thinkers exist today. None of this means I give much credit to people claiming to have interactions with God past or present - just the ...[text shortened]... you really think those who claim to have had interactions with aliens were simply easily duped?
A more direct comparison would be for you to answer your own question yourself. Do you really think those who claim to have had interactions with aliens were simply easily duped? Or is that just reserved for those of Godly faith?
19 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWe are not cheapening the intellectual integrity of those that came before us by saying their accounts of the supernatural are not trust-worthy** There were a great many critical thinkers back in antiquity - and I trust them in many circles of inquiry - just not when it comes to the supernatural.
From your perspective, when did critical thinking begin?
I don't mean it offensively, but at what point do we stop extending to historical figures the (seemingly) inherent intellectual curiosity for which we give ourselves credit?
What makes us think our perspective and analysis ought to carry more weight than those who have gone before us?
Put another ...[text shortened]... those who claim to have had the interactions with the God of the Bible were simply easily duped?
The difference we have in this day and age is the access to information, and the ability to document new events in numerous formats. If a miracle really does happen, there will likely be the means to record it on an unbiased medium (like video for example), and the means for those qualified to analyse (and possibly debunk) it.
In Bible-time history the only real way (for the majority whom I believe were not literate) of documenting that (if) something miraculous happened would have been to share one's supposed experience with another by word of mouth who may or may not write it down. In this information exchange there are two sources of error:
1 - the person recounting an event in that they may omit details, over-emphasise details, purposely or inadvertently introduce details that never actually happened.
2 - the listener in that they may disregard certain details, place unwarranted emphasis on details, "fill in the gaps" with additional details that might never have happened.
Also, acknowledging that the person in 2 might have passed on this information to another person 3 (introducing another 2 sources of error - indeed one can argue that with n people in the chain from the point of experience to the physical recording of the event there are 2(n-1) sources of error), the majority of people who are said to have experienced these miracles were unlikely to have been scientifically, philosophically, or logically trained and so I can say with a certain degree of confidence that they were easily duped (as per my footnote almost also was I once!)
------------------------------------------------------------------
** Many of us would like to believe in the supernatural and the strength of this desire can be dependent on the circumstances - but testimony is inherently untrustworthy.
I, as I'm sure you are well, aware don't keep my non-belief a secret - yet I could have been forgiven for wavering in my conviction when, as I still recall today, on the night my dad died 7 years ago I felt what seemed like a hand placed on my shoulder in some re-assuring sense. Weeks later I was able to rationalise this in that it was most likely a fiction created by myself in response to having lost someone so important (I wanted to think he hadn't gone forever, and so on...). Others without that analysis would probably take it as evidence that their father was saying good-bye for one last time.