"Why do you believe in God?"

[SextusEmpiricus]

The same way one finds convincing evidence that there are no UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the City of Atlantis. We observe, test and see if there is enough evidence to confirm the hypothesis. If there is not yet enough evidence, then we reject the hypothesis. If new evidence becomes available then the hypothesis can be retested.

(Thanks to the movie “Ghostbusters” for that list of claimed but unproven phenomena).

The implication in your post is that there is scant evidence for the existence of God; or perhaps you have rejected such evidence? Either way, the comparison to mythical creatures is rather ludicrous. Are you skeptical of God’s existence, or are you a dogmatic atheist?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The same way one finds convincing evidence that there are no UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the City of Atlantis. We observe, test and see if there is enough evidence to confirm the hypothesis. If there is not yet enough evidence, then we reject the hypothesis. If new evidence becomes available then the hypothesis can be retested.

(Thanks to the movie “Ghostbusters” for that list of claimed but unproven phenomena).

But no one claims that God is of this world and subject to the convincing methods of science.

That is scientism pure and simple. There is no scientific evidence that spirits cannot exist, any more than there is scientific evidence that God cannot exist.

The new evidence that will beccome available to you will be the same as the old evidence that was available to the apostles. It is your prerogative not to believe that evidence just as it is ours to believe it.

But we follow the words of Jesus addressing his doubtful apostle Thomas.

“Blessed rather are those who have not seen and believe.”

That is trusting God. We let others trust the devil who lies to them about God.

 

[Area_Man]

The evidence is we did not create ourselves. We have a soul that will not cease to exist. This life under the power of the flesh will pass. Then, what we believed in accordance with our actions will be relevant to the next life, which will be subject to the spirit.

Do you not recognize your creator in Jesus?
Michael

I recognize my parents as my creator. I reject the concept of an eternal soul, or the concept of a soul altogether. I view the soul as another claim without evidence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, since you are a regular here, you won’t be accused of apatheism.

HA! Too Funny.

I bring up apatheism as an example only. I don’t think the fence sitting metaphor fits my disposition. I’ve describe myself in more detail in other threads.

 

[rcwitness]

I recognize my parents as my creator. I reject the concept of an eternal soul, or the concept of a soul altogether. I view the soul as another claim without evidence.

This is true, to an extent.

Did your parents not teach you faith, the first necessity of belief? You must admit we have a dependence on the knowledge passed on to us from our ancestors. We have fathers of the faith from the beginning! Your parents partook in the creation of your flesh. God breathed His life into you. You are more than dust!

Love is from above. Christ showed us proof of love over death!
Michael

 

[Area_Man]

But no one claims that God is of this world and subject to the convincing methods of science.

You should look up “special pleading” in an encyclopedia of philosophy. You’ll find it in the logical fallacy section.

That is scientism pure and simple. There is no scientific evidence that spirits cannot exist, any more than there is scientific evidence that God cannot exist.

The point is that there is no scientific evidence that spirits (or Gods) do exist. Why do you reject some scientifically unproven or unprovable claims and still accept others? What criteria do you use for knowing which unproven or unprovable claims to accept?

The new evidence that will beccome available to you will be the same as the old evidence that was available to the apostles. It is your prerogative not to believe that evidence just as it is ours to believe it.

The bible says that the apostles observed the resurrected Jesus. The resurrected Jesus physically showed himself to Saul? Why is Saul worthy of that kind of evidence, but we in the 2nd-21st centuries do not get such evidence?

But we follow the words of Jesus addressing his doubtful apostle Thomas.

“Blessed rather are those who have not seen and believe.”

That is trusting God. We let others trust the devil who lies to them about God.

I don’t believe that the devil exists either.

 

[tonyrey]

The point is that there is no scientific evidence that spirits (or Gods) do exist.

Is there any scientific evidence that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or even persons exist? If so where is it? If not what is the basis of your values? Or don’t they exist either?

Why do you reject some scientifically unproven or unprovable claims and still accept others? What criteria do you use for knowing which unproven or unprovable claims to accept?

What criteria do you use for knowing scientific evidence is the only trustworthy and significant evidence? Do you base your life on nothing but scientific evidence?

The bible says that the apostles observed the resurrected Jesus. The resurrected Jesus physically showed himself to Saul? Why is Saul worthy of that kind of evidence, but we in the 2nd-21st centuries do not get such evidence?

For those who are determined to reject everything but scientific evidence the answer is obvious.

The only really blind are those who will not see the truth…" - Helen Keller

I don’t believe that the devil exists either.

Do you believe “you” (as opposed to “your body”) exist?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The bible says that the apostles observed the resurrected Jesus. The resurrected Jesus physically showed himself to Saul? Why is Saul worthy of that kind of evidence, but we in the 2nd-21st centuries do not get such evidence?

I don’t believe that the devil exists either.

Saul was worthy because God saw he was worthy. Many in the modern world are not worthy of a vision, and would repudiate it as an illusion if they had one.

You might not believe in the devil because he has persuaded you that he also does not exist. After all, if you believed in him, you’d need to believe in God as well … not what the devil wants!

 

[rcwitness]

Saul was worthy because God saw he was worthy. Many in the modern world are not worthy of a vision, and would repudiate it as an illusion if they had one.

You might not believe in the devil because he has persuaded you that he also does not exist. After all, if you believed in him, you’d need to believe in God as well … not what the devil wants!

Saul was NOT worthy! It was by the grace of God. We benefited by this grace given to Saul! We have his testimony and his Apostolic ministry.

 

[tonyrey]

Saul was NOT worthy! It was by the grace of God. We benefited by this grace given to Saul! We have his testimony and his Apostolic ministry.

Saul was convinced he was obeying the Will of God. If he hadn’t been worthy of being entrusted with his mission to the Gentiles He wouldn’t have been chosen.

 

[tonyrey]

Is there any scientific evidence that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or even persons exist? If so where is it? If not what is the basis of your values? Or don’t they exist either?
What criteria do you use for knowing scientific evidence is the only trustworthy and significant evidence? Do you base your life on nothing but scientific evidence?

For those who are determined to reject everything but scientific evidence the answer is obvious.

The only really blind are those who will not see the truth…" - Helen Keller

Do you believe “you” (as opposed to “your body”) exist?

 

[tonyrey]

Is there any scientific evidence that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or even persons exist? If so where is it? If not what is the basis of your values? Or don’t they exist either?
What criteria do you use for knowing scientific evidence is the only trustworthy and significant evidence? Do you base your life on nothing but scientific evidence?

For those who are determined to reject everything but scientific evidence the answer is obvious.

The only really blind are those who will not see the truth…" - Helen Keller

Do you believe “you” (as opposed to “your body”) exist?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Saul was NOT worthy! It was by the grace of God. We benefited by this grace given to Saul! We have his testimony and his Apostolic ministry.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

The Lord saw that Saul was worthy because he called out to him and transformed him into Paul. If the Lord saw that Saul was not worthy of his calling out, why would he call out to him? He was free to reject that grace. His worthiness was in the fact that he did not reject it, but rather embraced it.

Do I detect a certain anger in your “Saul was NOT worthy!”

Where does that come from?

Anyway, Happy New Year!!!

 

[rcwitness]

Saul was convinced he was obeying the Will of God. If he hadn’t been worthy of being entrusted with his mission to the Gentiles He wouldn’t have been chosen.

He was persecuting the Church of God. He was blind to the truth. He trusted the traditions of men over God. He was the chief sinner among the Apostles.

By the goodness of Jesus, he was given grace, forgiveness, love, and Apostleship. This was not because he was worthy. He became very gratefull for this grace and walked worthily in grace.

Michael

 

[rcwitness]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

The Lord saw that Saul was worthy because he called out to him and transformed him into Paul. If the Lord saw that Saul was not worthy of his calling out, why would he call out to him? He was free to reject that grace. His worthiness was in the fact that he did not reject it, but rather embraced it.

Do I detect a certain anger in your “Saul was NOT worthy!”

Where does that come from?

Anyway, Happy New Year!!!

Not angry. Really

But, this is important theology, right?

Peace
Michael

 

[Cricket2]

As I have said before, my belief in God came about due to a near death experience. Now, prior to that I had no concept of God or that He even existed. My family was not Christian, did not speak about God and certainly did not go to Church.

So if I and/or others have come to believe in God prior to exposure to that belief in others, such as school or family, how did that happen? Where did the idea come from? And so there is some notion of how well I remember things: My earliest memory is around 10 months of age, when I had a diaper pin stuck in my right hip. I knew that the diaper pin was blue and that the head of it was cracked and that is why it was stuck in my side. I remember crying because it hurt, that my mother was standing to my right side and my father behind me.

I share this, as a way to indicate that I have very good memory and I can say without hesitation that I was not actively taught that there was a God. It was only my near death experience that taught this to me. How do you answer that?

 

[tonyrey]

Saul was convinced he was obeying the Will of God. C

It is not for us to judge others: only God can see into men’s hearts.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Saul was worthy because God saw he was worthy. Many in the modern world are not worthy of a vision, and would repudiate it as an illusion if they had one.

You might not believe in the devil because he has persuaded you that he also does not exist. After all, if you believed in him, you’d need to believe in God as well … not what the devil wants!

“The devil have persuaded us”.

It is written about many other countless mythological beings in old books, why then should we consider the Devil to be anymore different or real than vampires let’s say? Replace the word devil with vampires, “The Vampires have persuaded us” and I’m almost sure that such a claim sounds foolish to you! Perhaps now you could see how does your original claim sound to a disbeliever.

When it comes to a other beings, places and religions you are a disbeliever too and our reasons for not believing could be very much similar.

 

[wcknight]

There is zero evidence of vampires while there is a ton of evidence of Satanic possessions and demons, both in medical and religious documents.

 

[PRmerger]

“The devil have persuaded us”.

It is written about many other countless mythological beings in old books, why then should we consider the Devil to be anymore different or real than vampires let’s say? Replace the word devil with vampires, “The Vampires have persuaded us” and I’m almost sure that such a claim sounds foolish to you! Perhaps now you could see how does your original claim sound to a disbeliever.

How would Christians be able to present this truth, if it actually were true, Libral?