What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[alacoque]

This is extrodinary to you isn’t it? That I would actually give up my own existance…that I would choose to not exist and not benefit, if even ONE human…would suffer eternally. It’s only extraordinary to me in the sense that you seem to believe that, without existing, you would have an existence that would be benefited. It’s not extraordinary to me that you would ‘give up’ your own existence - I know many atheists and am very familiar with your statement - I’m only pointing out the utter illogical nature of what you said. If you are making a point using "literary license’, ok…but if you are actually stating that you would somehow exist to enjoy your non-existence, you are beyond rationality.

Yes, we reject your religion, because we care about strangers…that much. With all due respect, this is horse hockey! You cannot possibly care about human beings (strangers or not) more than God does…another illogical and irrational belief - possible only because you reject God’s existence. Now, I understand that you reject God’s existence…but that’s where it begins and ends. You may not, after rejecting something you cannot possibly know as fact, begin to redefine reality. Well, you can, but it’s nonsense.

*This is a very common statment made by the majority of the religious. I do not agree with you, because I do not understand. * That’s because you don’t understand. It’s a common statement because it’s a fact. You don’t understand the Christian belief system, much less the Catholic one. It’s evident in the way you proceed to respond and define things. It’s not an insult when I say that you you don’t understand the Christian belief system. You’re an atheist…it’s just a fact that you don’t understand it. Maybe better to say you ‘misunderstand’ it. Doesn’t mean there wouldn’t still be a whole lot to discuss even if you DID understand it…but, by your comments, it’s obvious that you don’t. For you to say otherwise (that you understand Christianity - in depth and truth - and maintain your atheism - is to say that you are unequivocally correct, without a doubt, and empirically. This is not the fact. The fact is that you base most of your beliefs on emotion and on how you ‘feel’ about something - how you ‘feel’ something ought to be. That’s one way to go, but it’s nowhere near the way to discover truth. And, truth is something we ‘discover’; not something we ‘create’ for ourselves.

I’ve heard many. I am not christian because I worship the devil apparently. I am not christian because I have an unresolve ophedious complex. I do not agree, because I am wilfully ignorant. I never said any of that, nor do I believe it.

too long - read on - to be continued, next post…

 

[alacoque]

.

part #2:

I do not agree with you. It has nothing to do, with a lack of understanding.
You’re free to disagree, no problem. There’s probably a whole lot you DO understand in this world…but you do not understand the Christian/Catholic belief system. I’m sure you understand what you think it is or what you’ve been told it is or what you’ve deduced it is…but not what it really is. If you’re too proud to admit that, fine…your option.

I know what the church teaches. No, you really don’t know

I disagree with your church about the nature of God, the nature of reality, and it’s heaven and hell doctrine. * ** I get it…feel free to disagree. Preferring your own definitions of things like the nature of God and reality does not make you correct or the Church wrong. Reasonable proof of erroneous teaching or error about God and reality has to be a lot more than the fact that you ‘don’t agree’.*

Quite frankly, your church can teach whatever it wants and it can teach it for whatever reason it wants. I disagree. Yes, that’s the bottom line. There’s always the choice…until there is no longer the choice.

We…never chose to exist. You’re right, you didn’t choose to exist. Does that tick you off for some reason? We never chose free-will. This is true also; but I bet you’re glad, everyday, that you have it- at least I bet you use it!

God, chose it all, including the punishment that he knew would be inflicted upon us, because he knew before we were created what we would do. Nope, sorry, no “punishment”. I don’t think you really understand Love, either…

*But he chose, to create anyway. As I said above. If you created something , knowing that it’s “free will” would cause “eternal seperation” , then a loving God, would not create it in the first place. * This is the crux of your issue…so, how do you know this? According to YOUR definition of God? of ‘good’? of ‘loving’?? There’s too little you (and all of us) understand to be saying things like that…waaayyyy too little! Since you have no personal experience with any existence other than your own and no understanding of what words even mean, other than what you’ve learned in your life, at least have the humility to allow that there may be a whole world of stuff you don’t know about.-

To create something you know will “suffer”, even through choice is an abomination. This is the actions of a monster. Not a loving God. And this is an opinion that is very short sighted and insular. Being an atheist, it might be logical to assume you would also abort a child you carried if you knew it would suffer if born. The world is full of people who would easily kill the object of their love in order to prevent it from suffering. THIS is the monster & abomination!

You make a mistake in believing we do not understand. We do. We get it.
We do not agree with it. Yes, yes, for the 4th time, I get it…you think you understand. ok.

I would, for the first time suggest that there is something that you do not understand.
There is a difference between “understanding” and “agreeing”. You cannot pressume that when some-one differs in their opinion than yours, that they do not actually understand you. They do understand you. They do not AGREE with you. Two people can have access to exactly the same information and draw different conclusions from it. It is all too common for the religious, when confronted with a non-believer, to make the “assumption” that we don’t understand. You think…that this is why we dont’ agree.

**Actually, I DO understand the difference (duhhh)…and, in truth, I rarely use that phrase except when it comes to things of God, the supernatural, the metaphysical and such…because it is my experience that this is precisely where the phrase fits. Truly understanding a world we have no experience in and a being (if He exists) that is so ‘other’ and infinite, would be a singular feat. It is sheer arrogance to insist that you understand all of this.The greatest minds on earth do not fully understand it - by definition! **

This is an assumption you make. We DO understand and we DO NOT agree with you.
and, for the 5th time, I get it…you don’t agree.

The bible is a book, held up to scrutiny is found wanting. by atheists no doubt. What Jesus actually taught and what you church claims, is up for debate. by you, I take it.

If you honestly think that patrionizing people, will “trick” them into agreeing with you, then you…my friend have never honestly debated with an athiest. this is the silliest statement I have heard! What ‘tricks’? patronizing? I have been respectful. I feel like I’m now getting the ‘party line’.

Let’s have some fun shall we? lol!!

and what the heck does that mean? I think you like arguing; not actually seeking truth or learning.

I have no desire to insult you any more than you already feel insulted, but I do wish you well

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dameedna

I can however accept ideas or possibilities of the existance of a “higher” thingy, but it will be unlikely anything would be enough proof for me at least in this materialistic world.

I’m inclined to agree that it’s unlikely anything will be proven to you. So what are you doing in this forum? Wasting your time? Task, tsk. :tsktsk: The “quagmire” you call life is only deepened by wasting our time, don’t you think?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But the common description of hell doesn’t allow and respect the free will of each soul. As far as I am aware, people in Hell are – by definition, since it’s not purgatory – unable to reconcile with God even if they wanted to at some point in the afterlife.

Looks to me like maybe you’re looking for an escape hatch? You know by choosing hell that it’s for all eternity. Why would you want to reconcile when God has given you every opportunity to reconcile before death and you refused them all? God in His infinite wisdom allows us to go where we will, and he knows we will not change our minds once we get there … heaven or hell. The soul in heaven is forever comforted by God. The soul in hell must be forever comforted at least by the fact that there is safety in numbers.
:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

 

[alacoque]

But the common description of hell doesn’t allow and respect the free will of each soul. As far as I am aware, people in Hell are – by definition, since it’s not purgatory – unable to reconcile with God even if they wanted to at some point in the afterlife.

Looks to me like maybe you’re looking for an escape hatch? You know by choosing hell that it’s for all eternity. Why would you want to reconcile when God has given you every opportunity to reconcile before death and you refused them all? God in His infinite wisdom allows us to go where we will, and he knows we will not change our minds once we get there … heaven or hell. The soul in heaven is forever comforted by God. The soul in hell must be forever comforted at least by the fact that there is safety in numbers.

              :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

Good points! I think you have stated very well the basic reality and fact that, in the end, God will give us what we most love. (Him or ourselves)

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can take away one number or an infinite number of numbers from the countable integers and still have an infinite number of integers.
Start: {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,…}
Take away one:
{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,…} still have an infinite number of integers.
Take away all odd numbers (an infinite number of integers)
{2,4,6,8,10,…} still have an infinite number of integers

Its a pitty. I never met an integer in real life.

 

[ready]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

I believe I experienced a miracle, a miracle that gave me conviction that I was on track in believing Jesus existed and died for me and was the self-sacrificial trinitarian God of love I had always solemnly believed Him to be despite the trial of faith I was then undergoing. I was going through a serious dark night of faith at the time and was writing a poem, trying my hardest to believe in God’s existence and trying to put in to words how I was able to perceive Him through this dark night of faith and why I was able to believe He existed. The poem was about my perception of God and how St. Padre Pio’s life for me was some proof that He existed and was Jesus, even though I was experiencing my inability to really believe with the senses. Immediately then through my sense of smell, I detected this strong odor of perfume (a male scent) for an extended amount of time. There was no explanation for it, other than the fact that St. Padre Pio and St. Therese (my two favorite saints) give scents as consolations, etc. to certain individuals. The strange odor gave me comfort, consolation and reason to believe I was right in believing in Jesus.

 

[DavidHume]

But the common description of hell doesn’t allow and respect the free will of each soul. As far as I am aware, people in Hell are – by definition, since it’s not purgatory – unable to reconcile with God even if they wanted to at some point in the afterlife.

I don’t need an escape hatch. Looks to me like you’re looking for a way to compel others to do what you say.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Looks to me like you’re looking for a way to compel others to do what you say.

I hope you’ll agree it’s a pretty far stretch to imagine any atheist compelled to do anything I say.

I have noticed that most atheists have a serious problem dealing with God’s authority and will concoct almost any excuse to self-righteously rebel against it, including speaking of Christ as if He were a cruel tyrant, conveniently forgetting that cruel tyrants don’t usually suffer torture and death for their own children.

Your sympathy for the tortures of the damned somehow eludes me. They asked for it and Christ obliges them. I can only understand your self-righteous condemnation of Christ if you think one day you might be among them … pray it won’t be so.

You will on your deathbed anyway … as we all will.

 

[tonyrey]

Before you try and be too clever, and try and convince the atheist they have “faith”, I have already heard that argument and I will agree with you.

I don’t think that is a clever remark. It makes you sound unduly aggressive and me like a fanatical evangelist. Please attempt to be civil.

It is the “THING” that I am told to believe in and it’s NATURE that I am told to accept, that I do not agree with.

No one is telling you to believe in anything. The whole point of life is to make up your own mind and act as you think fit. The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience…

If my child is in trouble medically, I will choose the medical practitioner that relies on irrefutable evidence that their techniques work and not the faith-based doctor who “believes” their cure will work through a revelation from God.

If your child were incurable by standard medical techniques you would never try an alternative approach?

If I’m not going to base my child’s life on belief of a medical cure, then I am hardly going to base my eternal soul, on a belief that one religion got it right over any other, just because they say so.

In other words you regard all religions as equally false.

 

[DavidHume]

Looks to me like you’re looking for a way to compel others to do what you say.

I hope you’ll agree it’s a pretty far stretch to imagine any atheist compelled to do anything I say.

I have noticed that most atheists have a serious problem dealing with God’s authority and will concoct almost any excuse to self-righteously rebel against it.

I have noticed most Christians have a serious problem dealing with the utter lack of morality of their God’s actions and will concoct almost any excuse to apologize for it.

And is it possible, CLEANTHES, said PHILO, that after all these reflections, and infinitely more, which might be suggested, you can still persevere in your Anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures? His power we allow is infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

 

[tonyrey]

I have noticed most Christians have a serious problem dealing with the utter lack of morality of their God’s actions and will concoct almost any excuse to apologize for it.

You are equating “God’s actions” with human actions and physical events…

Quote:
**Neither man nor any other animal is happy: **therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?

These are probably are the worst generalizations David Hume ever wrote. That **neither man nor any other animal is happy is clearly untrue because the vast majority of human beings and animals enjoy living. The course of Nature tends **to human and animal felicity because life is dominated by pleasure and satisfaction in every activity from eating, drinking and playing to courtship, mating and reproducing. Pain is a defense mechanism which protects the body from injury.

 

[DavidHume]

You are equating “God’s actions” with human actions and physical events…

Now why would I go and do a thing like that?

That **neither man nor any other animal is happy **is clearly untrue because the vast majority of human beings … enjoy living

… in spite of natural evil, hardship, and the threat of eternal hell, yes. That’s an act of individual will which is to be applauded. It doesn’t excuse the author of hell.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Dear David Hume, you will proberly not answer this and that is oK but I have thought alot about Athiests and I have been in some predicaments that almost maed one out of me, I realt think you might have believed at one time and started to loose this faith because of Man not God. Man can make you loose your mind, love, beliefs, and all you hold dear. The only way back up is to stop all beliefs and stay neutral, because the truma has been way over whelming, and you loose sence of direction. Listen I am not trying to annalize you but I find by observing I have found this to be true, and I have experienced it myself. It is Man and his laws and his rejection we hate the most. I just wanted to let you know you are loved. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DavidHume

*I have noticed most Christians have a serious problem dealing with the utter lack of morality of their God’s actions and will concoct almost any excuse to **apologize *for it.

You have a curious way with words. I’ve never apologized for God’s actions. They need no apology. But you seem to need some way to attack God, and the way you have chosen is really not worthy of you. In logic it’s called the *ad hominem *fallacy. And by the way, you’ve never addressed the mercy and compassion of a God who would mount a cross to suffer and die for our sins. Do you want to attack Jesus for that too? Bring it on! :knight1:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DavidHume

I mentioned to Dr. Johnson, that David Hume’s persisting in his infidelity, when he was dying, shocked me much. Johnson: “Why should it shock you, Sir? Hume owned he had never read the New Testament with attention. Here then was a man, who had been at no pains to inquire into the truth of religion, and had continually turned his mind the other way. It was not to be expected that the prospect of death would alter his way of thinking, unless God should send an angel to set him right.” I said, I had no reason to believe that the thought of annihilation gave Hume no pain. Johnson: “It was not so, Sir. He had a vanity in being thought easy. It is more probable that he should assume an appearance of ease, than that so very probable a thing should be, as a man not afraid of going (as, in spite of his delusive theory, he cannot be sure but he may go,) into an unknown state, and not being uneasy at leaving all he knew. And you are to consider, that upon his own principle of annihilation he had no motive to speak the truth.” Boswell: Life of Johnson

 

[alacoque]

DavidHume

*I have noticed most Christians have a serious problem dealing with the utter lack of morality of their God’s actions and will concoct almost any excuse to **apologize ***for it.

You have a curious way with words. I’ve never apologized for God’s actions. They need no apology. But you seem to need some way to attack God, and the way you have chosen is really not worthy of you. In logic it’s called the *ad hominem *fallacy. And by the way, you’ve never addressed the mercy and compassion of a God who would mount a cross to suffer and die for our sins. Do you want to attack Jesus for that too? Bring it on! :knight1:

Good for you, C! I agree with you and neither do I apologize for anything of or about God - or put “God in the Dock” as DH feels the need to do. You’re correct - he has not addressed the mercy and compassion of God (although I suspect that where you and I see mercy and compassion, he would see something totally different) - that’s the way it seems to be; but neither have I read his examples of God’s immorality (with the possible exception of suffering/evil, which is getting really old!). Thanks for your thoughtful posts

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

It must be realy nice to go into a store and try on a pair of gloves, and wala! they fit. just like that, they fit. Some people never cease to amaze me

 

[toastmachines]

I have noticed that most atheists have a serious problem dealing with God’s authority and will concoct almost any excuse to self-righteously rebel against it, including speaking of Christ as if He were a cruel tyrant, conveniently forgetting that cruel tyrants don’t usually suffer torture and death for their own children.

One of my good friends (who is atheist) recently surprised me when he began to describe Jesus as sadistic(?) and cruel(?) He has a B.A. in Religion, so I was pretty shocked with such a distorted view of Christ. Where do people get this stuff?

Its a pitty. I never met an integer in real life.

I got a kick out of that lol.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

toastmachines

One of my good friends (who is atheist) recently surprised me when he began to describe Jesus as sadistic(?) and cruel(?) He has a B.A. in Religion, so I was pretty shocked with such a distorted view of Christ. Where do people get this stuff?

When I was a young man I first encountered it in the writings of Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher with agnostic/atheist leanings. I think the “hell” taunt is a regular staple now in atheist propaganda. Hell is perceived to be a place where only masochists would want to go, and where only a cruel sadist would want to put them. Well, I think God is more than generous and grants everyone’s final choice, even the masochists.

But of course with their topsy-turvy logic atheists can perceive themselves to have siezed the high moral ground, supposing hell must be a place where they might be sent against their will, when in fact it is exactly they place they have chosen for themselves.