Vibr8gKiwi

Fair enough--I think that's what it boils down to for most theists. However given your "basis" for evaluating truth here, I don't see how you could really expect to enter into any debate with someone with a different viewpoint. As long as they at least have a "feeling" that their position is true (regardless of evidence) you are on no stronger footing than them. What are you going to do, contest their "feelings"? How can you contest their “feelings” without bringing into question the validity of your own? Perhaps "feelings" are a poor way to find truth?

Also consider the much stronger position of someone whose views not only match their "feelings" but also the evidence as well (or lack of evidence anyway)--that's the position of the atheist IMHO.

Gemma Therese

Feelings have no bearing on the existence of God - they are the reason I believe in God, but not the reason He exists.

Gemma Therese

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

MrDarwin

Quite right--but feelings are neither compelling nor persuasive, whether you're trying to bring somebody else around to your beliefs, or just trying to explain your own. A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Hindu may all "feel" (as well as fervently believe) that their own beliefs are true. But for at least some of these, those feelings must be quite wrong.

Ion

The thing is "...the reason He exists." is entirely based on feelings.

Outside these feelings, there is no material proof of God's existence, but material proofs of the Bible's God nonexistence.

Gemma Therese

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ion:
[QB]
The thing is "...the reason He exists." is entirely based on feelings.

No, the He exists totally independent of "feelings".

Typhon

Gemma,

You said:

"...true regardless of emotions, then surely the existence of God is either true or false reagerdless [sic] of how one feels about it. Religion is not entirely or even primarily subjective. It [sic] something is true, it is true whether I feel it to be or not."

from your thread here <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000336&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000336&p=</a>

And...

"All other creatures serve Him out of exigency; by their very being and existence they witness to His power and His love, or reflect His glory and beauty in some way."

And...

"He has given us intellect and free will -- and this is the hallmark of man."

And...

"God is present on Earth, whether you acknowledge Him or not."

And...

"Well, for starters, God exists, so right off the bat you have an issue understanding God. Even the great religious thinkers (St. Teresa of Avila, St. Augustine, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John of the Cross) did and could not have fully understood God. It is a human limitation. I do not understand nuclear physics, but I know it exists."

And...

"Thomas Merton said, "God cannot be understood execpt [sic] by Himself."
Why do you presume to understand God?"

And...

"...He (god) exists totally independent of "feelings"."


Now, these comments of yours would seem to suggest that you think:

A. God exists.
B. The case for god's existence is not based on emotional appeals or mere feelings.
C. That god's existence/presence is detectable and observable in the physical world.
D. That in fact, the physical world is itself in part, evidence for the existence of god.
E. That intelligence and free choice have been specially given to man by god.
F. That this knowledge may be arrived at, even with an imperfect understanding of god.

When asked repeatedly why you believe that these points are valid and true however, these comments are not consistent with what you say here:

"In this instance, I refuse to believe in logic / realism. I have no doubt whatsoever that someday my friend will be reunited with her son. Therefore, there must be a God."

And...

"I don't know -- or pretend to know -- the entire "why" of why I believe in God. I just do -- in my being, I know it must be true."

And...

"Feelings have no bearing on the existence of God - they are the reason I believe in God, but not the reason He exists."

So...

Condensed then, it would seem that the only evidence you have for god's existence and for your own personal belief in him here, is (a) feelings, and (b) an appeal to emotion.

Thus, I would like to know:

A. How do you reconcile these two inconsistent viewpoints?

B. If logic is a product of man's intelligence, which you state is itself, unique to man and given to him by god, and realism by definition, would seem to refer to the natural "physical" world, why is it necessary for you to "refuse to believe in logic /realism" in order to believe that there is a god?

C. If god truly exists exterior to your feelings and emotional appeals for belief, should not then logic and realism, be prime tools for both demonstrating god's existence and/or forming the basis of your belief?

D. Considering that human emotion is often held to be both flawed and even at times sinful (against the will of god) by your own dogma, is not then emotion a suspect and potentially insufficient path for establishing belief?

E. Why do you think this seemingly inconsistent argument makes a plausible or even acceptable case for the belief in god?

F. Can you in honesty claim that the argument "god does not exist because of feelings" is meaningful here, when you openly state that you believe in god's existence, because of your feelings.

I know that you are busy, but please take the time to answer these as soon as you can. I will be happy to keep re-posting them every so often, until you have a chance to address them.

.T.

Ion

Gemma Therese, I assume your first name is Therese.
May I call you Therese?
We have in common an inclination for kindness, aside from intellectually disagreeing on God's existence.
My first name is Ion.
[quote]Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>How does the Bible's God exist independent of feelings, since there are no material proofs of His existence?

There are material proofs of God's nonexistence, like archaeologists disproving Exodus.

Gemma Therese

There are material proofs of God's nonexistence, like archaeologists disproving Exodus.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I have not heard of Exodus being disproven; I am sure the archaeologists had an agenda, but I do not read Exodus as a historical account of history. (Remember -- I am *not* a fundementalist!) So that very well may be true.

However, the lack of veracity of the story of Exodus does not disprove God. It disproves the actual event of the Exodus.

Thank you for your kind post. If you e-mail, I will tell you a little more about myself.

Gemma Therese

Gemma Therese

Typhon,

I am not intelligent enough to follow your questions.

Gemma Therese

The Messiah

Quote: Gemma Theresa

Typhon,
I am not intelligent enough to follow your questions.

Gemma Therese

-------------------------------------------------

I hope this is a humble admission and not a patronising one.

This is exactly the conditions required for religion to propogate. When people are insecure or unsure of themselves, particularly children, thats when they strike. Its horrendously cruel and the biggest obstacle to human happiness in existence.