P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
Please discuss.
Besides faith, we have an intellect.Please discuss.
No it doesn’t.Faith without evidence is irrational because evidence includes subjective experience.![]()
I agree!I would give two answers to this.
- The evidences provide both a confirmation and a strengthening for faith
I’m calling you a No True Scotsman on this one, for the time being.Peace
- The evidences are useful in discussion with those who do not believe but are truly seeking.
James
The strengthening can be of much greater duration. For instance. God spoke to me once very briefly and quietly - a single statement, but the strength derived from it has lasted for years.I agree!
Believing something on the grounds of evidence is only as lasting as the evidence - which may be of very short duration.
Surely. But then the same can be said for the claims of atheists.Much of the evidence that theists claim to be evidence of God is actually indirect, circumstantial - a matter of interpretation.
Well since I am American of German descent who never claimed to be a Scotsman of any type…I guess I have no opinion in this comment…I’m calling you a No True Scotsman on this one, for the time being.
As I use the term, I am speaking of those who are open minded in their seeking. We meet many who question our beliefs, but not so much to seek greater understanding but rather to reenforce their own, already hardened, conclusions.There is no consensus on what “a true seeker” is.
How do you know it was God?God spoke to me once very briefly and quietly
I knew it was God because of the specific situation, what was said, and what I felt in my heart upon hearing it - Something that stemmed from such an overwhelming Love and peace that it actually startled me.How do you know it was God?
In other words you don’t know it was God, you just decided it must be.I knew it was God because of the specific situation, what was said, and what I felt in my heart upon hearing it
Ya think?Now this may not be an explanation that fits with what some consider “evidence”, and indeed it is not something that can be “explained” in any sort of scientific way,
You mean they assume. Based on a pre-existing belief.but believe me, when it happens, the person of faith, or the seeker of faith, knows it…
Do you have something in particular in mind?If people believe in God on faith, why is this alleged evidence so important to them? Please discuss.
Consider the possibility that it was God.In other words you don’t know it was God, you just decided it must be.
We have indeed come to a better understanding of the study of the human mind and brain but, there are delusions and visions caused by maladies of the brain and there are apparitions of the Divine.Ya think?
People have been having delusions/ visions for centuries. And science can give pretty good explanations now.
Ha! Read the latest?Besides faith, we have an intellect.
Physics believe that the bosom of Higgins exist. They already know its structure and characteristics. Yes, they are spending billions to discover it.
I say I know - You say I assume…In other words you don’t know it was God, you just decided it must be.
Ya think?
People have been having delusions/ visions for centuries. And science can give pretty good explanations now.
You mean they assume. Based on a pre-existing belief.
Me too. I think it is what really keeps me going. Of course it is only evidence to me and there is no way for me to ‘prove’ it to someone else.The strengthening can be of much greater duration. For instance. God spoke to me once very briefly and quietly - a single statement, but the strength derived from it has lasted for years.
Correct.I say I know - You say I assume…![]()
It’s not evidence.What is my “evidence” is to you nothing at all…That’s free will…
Seems to me you have no basis on which to make either of these claims. Can you read the other persons heart and mind? I don’t think so.Correct.
Because you don’t know, you assume and believe.
It’s not evidence.
According to you, how would one KNOW? How can one make sure that one is not ASSUMING NOR SIMPLY BELIEVING, in your book?Correct.
Because you don’t know, you assume and believe.
So, if Jesus wanted to appear to you or speak to you directly, he would have to do so according to body of knowledge of science that humans have as of the date of the occurrence? He would have to respect the laws he created? How could this be? According to science there is no resurrection and no God. So, according to your rule for God, he cannot participate with his creatures nor creation.It’s not evidence.