Samhain

St. Robert:

Heh, you do realize that all of your statements regarding the image of "God" and spiritual knowledge is all based upon the unproven assumption that these things exist

I'd suggest that you might offer some proofs as to the existence of a god (or your "God" in particular) and the existence of a spirit or soul before you move on with this debate. Your arguments thus far have very little substance as they stand now.

However, if you'd like to be taken seriously by any of us, how about you start providing that little thing that we skeptics like to call 'evidence'.

In Reality,

-Samhain

St. Robert

Why ask me to prove God to you? Why not ask God? His name is Jesus. Shout to him and say: Hey Jesus, if you are God prove it to me!

You have not, because you ask not.

Viti

I have done that....many times...never got an answer and it broke my heart for awhile. Then I realized there is nobody there to answer.

Silent Dave

Well obviously you a) didn't mean it, or b) put unfair constraints on God.


Dave

Samhain

It is impossible to answer or speak for that which does not exist. Further, it makes it impossible for it to speak for itself.

Do not assume too much too quickly. Your prior conceptions and prejudices of me and my stance of non-belief in any god (especially the JC "God") is irrelevant. Part of skepticism is asking the questions which so many take for granted as truth (or would it be "Truth" in this case). If "God" does not speak for himself, then the burden of "God"-proof lies on the believer, this is a point that many theists fail to realize. If "God" does speak for himself, however, then it is obvious that I, and many others on this board cannot interpret the "language" that "God" speaks (whether it be action, inspiration, etc.; the word "language" is used for lack of a better term), and thus the burden lies on you to interpret how "God" speaks to us. Note, though, that this interpretation must be irrefutable proof that it is "God" that is speaking to us, thus it must be proof without a more valid scientific explanation. The ball is in your hands, do with it what you will, the burden is yours, not ours, and that is where you seem to be mistaken.

Automaton

Causation is dependent on change, which is dependent on time. Assume a timeless framework. Why would a causal relationship be seperable from the rest of the framework? Why is an "effect" anything if there is no difference between effect and non-effect? Why is a "cause" anything if there is no difference between cause and non-cause? A cause is necessarily an event. An event necessarily occurs within time.

Mageth

St. Robert,

If you want to have an image of God, I would sincerely suggest that you go to a Catholic church and intently look upon a crucifix.

OK..<leaves for a while...comes back.> Hey, guess what everybody! God's a dead guy!

I sense that your desire to picture God is great. The crucifix is a concrete image of God,

or brass, or marble, or wood...

which demonstrates his great love for you. The gospels are also very descriptive and would be helpful in your request to picture God.

I read 'em. God's a picture all right...in people's imaginations.

If you don't care to look with wonderment upon a crucifix or read the gospels, then ask God himself for a vision of who he is. If you ask with a sincere heart, God will be faithful to your desire to see him.

It helps if you do a little peyote or the functional equivalent first...

In terms of acknowledging God and receiving from him, it's kinda like this: Suppose someone came to your home and offered you a billion dollars for nothing in return. You could respond two ways.

1. Not believe the person offering the money, because to you the offer was too good to be true.

2. Believe the person, because you have nothing to lose and a billion dollars to gain.

Because we live in an age of skepticism, many people would chose the first response and not receive the riches.

Because we've all heard Pascal's Wager 1000 times, and seen it refuted 1000 times, it's kinda like useless to try to pull it on us in disguise.

Autonemesis

Why is it useful to divide knowledge into two categories like this? Isn't it more descriptive to call spiritual knowledge something like intuition or even wisdom? Why dilute the meaning of the word knowledge with this bifurcation if it serves no illuminating purpose? The only purpose I see it serving is to conflate feeling and intution with observation and fact, but this does not serve knowledge, this serves to elevate sprituality at the expense of real knowledge.

If you can't explain this division of knowledge you have invented, then it serves no purpose and should be abandoned.

Philosoft

Is this what God actually looks like? Or is it just part of what he looks like? If the latter, what does the Holy Spirit look like?

<strong> Only in the sense that I'd be relieved to know that we're actually talking about a concept when we talk about God.

<strong> Surely he realizes there are much more effective ways?

<strong> Not a chance. I'm not that imaginative.

<strong> I have a problem with this. Several, actually. First, I don't know what is a "sincere heart." I mean, I'm young, I eat fairly well, my cholesterol & blood pressure are quite low; I've had my heart described as several things, but never "sincere." Second, it's kind of hard for me to ask of something for which I can't even conceive.

<strong> Except, instead of a billion dollars, he's offering me a billion flurbs. And I don't even know what a flurb is, much less that it can do all the things he says it can.

<strong> Bully for them.

St. Robert

Kind Bud,

I suppose it's usefulness is similar to dividing humans into the categories of male and female. It helps distinguish the two as being different.