Not enough evidence sir

[cranster]

I’ve been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

 

[inocente]

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

You seem to be putting words in Russell’s mouth - according to your quote he didn’t say empirical evidence, just evidence.

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek, love, and serve Thor, Apollo or whatever… Why do you choose to reject Thor, Apollo or whatever when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?

Both your questions are asked by a hypothetical god, and none of us believe in a hypothetical god. Or at least, I hope not.

 

[cranster]

You seem to be putting words in Russell’s mouth - according to your quote he didn’t say empirical evidence, just evidence.

You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek, love, and serve Thor, Apollo or whatever… Why do you choose to reject Thor, Apollo or whatever when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?

Both your questions are asked by a hypothetical god, and none of us believe in a hypothetical god. Or at least, I hope not.

I didn’t put words in Russels mouth. I included empirical evidence in the follow up question because when it Comes to God, empirical evidence is the only evidence that secular humanists in my experience will accept.

I said they were hypothetical questions, not a hypothetical God. I did name Jesus as that God.

I’m not sure who you have asking the question about Thor and Apollo? God or the person God is speaking to. If it’s Jesus asking the question, why would He be asking anyone why they didn’t follow Thor or Apollo?

They are simple questions. No need to overcomplicate it.

 

[User124]

I’ve been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

Well humanity has made thousands of gods and religions, there is no undeniable proof that any of these gods and religions are true, because if there is a god and it is that much clear you won’t see any atheists, agnostics, skeptics or unbelievers, or even different religious beliefs, even your second hypothetical question is confusing, because not all religious people or theists have same views on what they are serving or loving, if a god is that much clear for all believers, you won’t see anyone arguing at least over this (these) god(s) character(s) and his (their) desire(s).
I don’t think believers founded sufficient evidences for belief, for it won’t be called “faith”.
And Russel did not " choose" to “reject”, he only was not convinced of what you believe in, he said he would acknowledge any god once he gets an undeniable proof or once he meets him personally, like after death in this case.

 

[cranster]

Well humanity has made thousands of gods and religions, there is no undeniable proof that any of these gods and religions are true, because if there is a god and it is that much clear you won’t see any atheists, agnostics, skeptics or unbelievers, or even different religious beliefs, even your second hypothetical question is confusing, because not all religious people or theists have same views on what they are serving or loving, if a god is that much clear for all believers, you won’t see anyone arguing at least over this (these) god(s) character(s) and his (their) desire(s).
I don’t think believers founded sufficient evidences for belief, for it won’t be called “faith”.
And Russel did not " choose" to “reject”, he only was not convinced of what you believe in, he said he would acknowledge any god once he gets an undeniable proof or once he meets him personally, like after death in this case.

My hope is that God does exist, and Jesus is that God. You are correct there is no absolute proof until death which will straighten it out for everyone.

Both questions are simple and straight forward. If at the moment of death a person finds themselves face to face with Jesus and hypothetically these questions were asked how would people respond.

 

[Hokomai]

[cranster;9594159]I

've been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

Were I Russell, I would say: no one, but that is the way I have found everything else. If you created everything, why is the empirical evidence not there? Were you deliberately tricking us?

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

Well, actually, people tend to find the God their parents had, and the people who live around them. There are an awful lot of Hindus in India, and Moslems in Arabia, and animists in Malaysia. Your evidence seems to have been spread around in a most geographically strange way, if belief in you serves some purpose. Incidentally, given your omnipotence and almightiness and all, why is it, exactly, that you want people to seek, love and serve you. Whatever for? Oh, and why exactly did you order the genocide at Jericho? and what about all that pain you allowed to be inflicted on all the billions and billions of innocent creatures that existed before the fall. And …

 

[User124]

My hope is that God does exist, and Jesus is that God. You are correct there is no absolute proof until death which will straighten it out for everyone.

Both questions are simple and straight forward. If at the moment of death a person finds themselves face to face with Jesus and hypothetically these questions were asked how would people respond.

Even there could not be an “after death”, since our whole biological body and physical conscience would cease to be attached with each other.

Supposing Heaven is real, and Jesus is the true god, I find it funny that an all knowing god would ask someone a question, when he is able to know our desires, actions and beliefs.
Unless he wants to add some suspense to the Heaven’s trial

 

[cranster]

Even there could not be an “after death”, since our whole biological body and physical conscience would cease to be attached with each other.

There are studies that show there is human consciousness apart from the body. There are studies showing blind people from birth who have had nde’s were able to accurately describe what they were seeing, and who went back to being blind after the nde.

Then there is this, which there is no explanation for, but it happened, and it is evidence that human consciousness can exist apart from the body. youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It is not conclusive that people do not persist after death.

 

[jesus4ever]

does not matter how much evidence their is out there. (By the way their is tonnes of evidence) people don’t take the time to serach or are to lazy and dont want to and they come up with anwsers from what they think they know.

i knew a young lady who she called herself a athiest and she looked at her life, what she thinks she knows and when i asked her do you look and/or try to find things out she simply said no and she wasn’t interested at all. sad but what can anyone do.

It doesn’t matter how much you could tell a person if they are hard hearted and not willing to listen then they have no one to blame but themselfs

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

Russell rejected reductive materialism in favour of “neutral monism”. The difficulties of reconciling mind and matter as aspects of one ultimate reality soon became apparent and still haven’t been overcome. Subjective experience is the formidable obstacle that has never been surmounted. Our thoughts and feelings cannot be adequately explained as nothing more than molecular activity because they are essentially private and personal.

Russell’s main interest was not in metaphysics and he didn’t pursue the subject nor has any other philosopher reached a generally accepted conclusion. The nature of reality remains a mystery to this day. So the obvious reply to his question is:

“There is no **evidence **for any dogmatic interpretation of reality from a strictly logical viewpoint.”

Evidence is based on assumptions about what exists and what doesn’t exist. Our ignorance compels us to restrict our conclusions to what occurs in this world but more importantly to our subjective experience - without which there wouldn’t be any knowledge at all (as far as we are concerned). It is impossible to evade the fundamental importance of thought. Logic dominated Russell’s intellectual life until he became more interested and passionately concerned with the social and political issues which deeply affect people’s lives.

That is where he became illogical! His views on morality were not only unconventional but unsound. He defined good and evil as that which is desirable and undesirable, without taking into account good desires and evil desires - which implies that there are desirable desires and undesirable desires! Why are desirable desires desirable? There must be another criterion apart from desirability - which amounts to hedonism if it is interpreted literally.

In his History of Western Philosophy Russell condemned Nietzsche’s philosophy and concluded that the only basis for peace and happiness in the world is Christian love.
That is the answer to his question…

 

[User124]

There are studies that show there is human consciousness apart from the body. There are studies showing blind people from birth who have had nde’s were able to accurately describe what they were seeing, and who went back to being blind after the nde.

Then there is this, which there is no explanation for, but it happened, and it is evidence that human consciousness can exist apart from the body. youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It is not conclusive that people do not persist after death.

Their brains aren’t dead yet, they aren’t dead yet, our minds are able to imagine a lot of things, that’s where creativity comes from, these blind people could have worked on other senses they have and worked on their imagination as well.
There is blind poets, musicians, inventors, If a blind person described anything accurate, that’s not a new thing, they are still alive so is their conscience, everyone is able to imagine a world that we never saw or never experienced, here comes all the fictional stories.

 

[User124]

does not matter how much evidence their is out there. (By the way their is tonnes of evidence) people don’t take the time to serach or are to lazy and dont want to and they come up with anwsers from what they think they know.

i knew a young lady who she called herself a athiest and she looked at her life, what she thinks she knows and when i asked her do you look and/or try to find things out she simply said no and she wasn’t interested at all. sad but what can anyone do.

It doesn’t matter how much you could tell a person if they are hard hearted and not willing to listen then they have no one to blame but themselfs

Name one evidence of these TONNES.
She possibly said she isn’t interested because she doesn’t want to enter a debate, why you think she said she is not interested?

Blame ourselves for what?
If someone is asking you to be a part of their religion (Hinduism let’s say) and you are not convinced, that does not mean you are a “heard hearted”.

 

[jesus4ever]

youtube.com/watch?v=9VFE8ToVatI&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=QqiqO5BzH74

check these nde of a priest

 

[User124]

youtube.com/watch?v=9VFE8ToVatI&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=QqiqO5BzH74

check these nde of a priest

I checked them, you take what a person claims to be a “personal experience” and his mentioning for what is supernatural as facts or evidences? Other factors could helped in making up these videos, like psychological factors, emotional factors, or it could simply be lies to make believe, some kids experience imaginary friends too, should I take what they experience as an ultimate proof?

 

[inocente]

I didn’t put words in Russels mouth. I included empirical evidence in the follow up question because when it Comes to God, empirical evidence is the only evidence that secular humanists in my experience will accept.

Perhaps you could reflect that most of us are not mind readers.

I said they were hypothetical questions, not a hypothetical God. I did name Jesus as that God.

The only alternatives are either that God really did ask Russell those questions or He didn’t. If He didn’t then the god you imagine asking them must be hypothetical. Hypothetcal means imagined.

*I’m not sure who you have asking the question about Thor and Apollo? God or the person God is speaking to. If it’s Jesus asking the question, why would He be asking anyone why they didn’t follow Thor or Apollo?

They are simple questions. No need to overcomplicate it.*

I was asking a simple question of you. Surely you can see that unless you believe in every god ever, you are doing exactly the same as Russell, he just believed in one fewer gods than you do.

I’m a Christian too, I’m just pointing out that we must respect others’ deeply held beliefs if we want them to respect ours.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been pondering Bertrand Russells response to the question he was asked… “What if you’re wrong and God does exist. What are you going to say to Him?” To which Russell replied… “You didn’t provide enough evidence sir!”. I’ve been pondering several hypothetical follow up questions to that response which God… (Provided of course that He does exist, and is Jesus which we Catholics believe) could potentially ask.

The first hypothetical follow up question is: Who told you that empirical evidence was the only way I could be found?
To which you say?

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

Reminds me of a quote from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:

“How come the Muggles don’t hear the bus?” said Harry.

“Them!” said Stan contemptuously. "Don’ listen properly, do they? Don’ look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don’.

 

[User124]

Reminds me of a quote from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:

“How come the Muggles don’t hear the bus?” said Harry.

“Them!” said Stan contemptuously. "Don’ listen properly, do they? Don’ look properly either. Never notice nuffink, they don’.

Same can be applied to anyone against anyone.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Partinobodycula]

The second hypothetical question is: You had as much evidence as people who found the evidence sufficient to seek me, love me, and serve me… Why did you choose to reject me when others found the available evidence sufficient for belief?
To which you say?

I would tell God, if you are truly a benevolent God, then I made the choice that you would have wanted me to make. I rejected the violent, judgmental, petty God of the Old Testament and instead followed the example of your Son. Who like me, rejected the established religion of His day and instead followed the commands of His heart, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. Indeed I strove to walk humbly with everyone. Do with me as You will. I fear no judgment, for I will finally get the evidence of whether you truly are a benevolent God.

I did what you would have expected a child of yours to do, I did not follow the laws of men, but I followed the laws which thou hast written in my heart. I walked by faith.

:bowdown2:

 

[User124]

I would tell God, if you are truly a benevolent God, then I made the choice that you would have wanted me to make. I rejected the violent, judgmental, petty God of the Old Testament and instead followed the example of your Son. Who like me, rejected the established religion of His day and instead followed the commands of His heart, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. Indeed I strove to walk humbly with everyone. Do with me as You will. I fear no judgment, for I will finally get the evidence of whether you truly are a benevolent God.

I did what you would have expected a child of yours to do, I did not follow the laws of men, but I followed the laws which thou hast written in my heart. I walked by faith.

:bowdown2:

I always felt while reading the NT that Jesus was some kind of a Rebellious Liberal.

 

[DCNBILL]

I always felt while reading the NT that Jesus was some kind of a Rebellious Liberal.

Jesus consistently acted and spoke as if He was God within a culture that could not tolerate this kind of thing. If He was not God then he would have been a bad person or at least a madman, not a rebel or a liberal.