post-it

I fail to see your reasoning here. We can elect to look at a specific God, but that has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not.

[quote]

These are not individual gods that you get to vote on, they are only peoples opinion of what a god is defined as that you can argue. This has nothing to do with an existing God as yet undefined.

You can't

Philosoft

As with all proofs, it depends on definitions; what do we mean by "God" and "exists"?

Quote:

How can we prove or disprove the existence of a Spirit being?

Depends on the definition of "spirit being." Is a "spirit being" something that can't be sensed?

curbyIII

To spurly:
Although I have not posted a lot here, I am a regular visitor and I have read many posts. I have almost never seen anyone back down even when they have been proven wrong. It takes a lot of character to admit that you're wrong (something I also don't like to do).

The Bible is not completely true. If the Bible were true then it would have to be completely consistent. If I can find even one contradiction in it, then the Bible would no longer be completely trustworthy. You may dismiss some contradictions as mistranslations or interpret away others. But can this be done for ALL of them? In the face of all of these contradictions, I think it is reasonable to assume that at least one is valid. I am no biblical scholar so here is a good web page.

HelenM

I agree that it does.

But I expect the most common reason people refuse to back down here is that they don't agree they've been proven wrong.

That's a completely different issue from whether they are willing to admit they are wrong, when they really are.

Helen

capnkirk

If it is proof you demand, you will remain in your quandry forever. Try turning your attention to the preponderance of evidence (PoE).

Let me offer some of the observations that make up that PoE. Since you are a christian, I will focus my examples toward the christian god:

1) I am a combat veteran. I have seen the horror of war up close and personal. And it was not the killing per se, it was the utter randomness of the killing that invalidates the belief that god intervenes in the affairs of man. I fought in Vietnam, but let's use WWII for the prima facie case. More than 50,000,000 people died in that war, more than half of them civilians (most were either christians or jews, praying to Jehovah for their lives). To me, there is NO POSSIBLE defense for an interventionist god (one who answers prayers) to have NOT intervened in some appreciable number of those deaths.

Therefore, it is nonsensical to expect god to answer your prayer to bless someone after he has ignored the prayers of millions for their lives.

2) The christian god is allegedly omnipresent. Then where is Hell! If god is everywhere, then Hell must be within god's presence...but Hell is defined as being separated from god. Paradoxical.

3) To date, EVERY attribution of any act to god has been ambiguous at best. In every instance, the observer has interpreted something he doesn't understand about an event as being the work of god. As man's knowledge has increased down through the ages, more and more things that were once considered the work of god have been explained by our increased understanding of natural law, but there have been NO reverse cases. I sense a significant trend here.

4) Christians believe that at the end of their earthly lives, they will enter either Heaven or Hell...for eternity! Today, we have some appreciation of how long that is. If we consider only the 13-15 billion years the universe has already existed, the length of a human lifetime doesn't amount to a snap of the fingers. What kind of a just god would give his children the time it takes to snap your fingers to determine how they are to spend the rest of eternity? That is NOT the act of a just, loving, and forgiving god. We hold HUMAN parents to an higher standard than that!

5) Astronomers can today "see" and document a universe containing billions and billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. Earth is a middle aged star in a very ordinary galaxy. Throughout the ages, every religion of every tribe has placed themselves at the center of that universe and proclaimed themselves the ultimate creation of their creator. In the face of the breadth of the observable universe, to continue to claim that speaks of monumental egocentricity. To believe that in this vast creation, god created US in his image as his special pets speaks of waste on an unprecendented scale. Either we are the only sentient species in the universe, or we aren't. So, one has to choose between the most wasteful creation imaginable and the existence of sentient aliens (also made in his image?).

6) To be christian, you cannot accept evolution! Why, because evolution isn't finished! If evolution is real, then man cannot be god's crowning achievement. At best, mankind is just the "current year model" in a long assembly line. That is, mankind WILL be replaced with a more evolved species. This eventuality belies the 'special' place in god's creation we have presumed for ourselves as students of scripture.

7) While on the subject of evolution...man has uncovered proof that at least 95% (probably closer to 99%) of the species that have ever lived on this planet are EXTINCT. That doesn't correlate well with the concept of god's perfection. The observable evidence says he has continually replaced earlier, more primative species with ever more complex ones (sorta like he must be learning). The fact of a species failure rate of more than 95% is incompatible with the omnipotnece of the christian god.

If you can ignore, or explain away all these issues, then you really need to examine the possibility that you believe in god because you WANT to, that you have too much emotional investment in his existence to ever let it go. If you can readjust your concept of god to obviate these paradoxes, then you should consider whether perhaps you are in fact creating god in YOUR image.

P.S. In any case, the doubts will NEVER go away; they will only get more troubling now that you have REALLY tasted the forbidden fruit.

rainbow walking

Hello again spurly,
Thank you for the courage you've shown in exposing your personal journey. I'm just going to make some observations and comments along the way in an effort to be helpful.

spurly: I was raised in a Christian home with extensive Christian roots. My great grandfather was a preacher, my great uncle was a missionary, my uncle was a minister, and several members of the extended and immediate family have been elders, deacons, and otherwise involved in church leadership.

rw: It looks as if you've had alot of human influences outside of the bible guiding you towards your current position. I imagine it would be difficult, to say the least, for you to adjust your beliefs in direct contradistinction to theirs and remain in close fellowship with them.

spurly: As i continued my search, I found that the God my family worshipped indeed did exist, though he wasn't exactly what I had always been taught.

rw: Would you be willing to further articulate how you found this out? What events or circumstances transpired to solidify your conviction that your faith was grounded in truth?

spurly: I guess I need to clarify what I meant by that. What I was saying is that often men's interpretations of what the Bible says are faulty. We can not base what we say on men's interpretations (because they are many and varied). We have to go back and search the word of God for the answers. We can read what other people thought, and listen to what other people say, but in the end it comes back to "what does the word of God say", if it really is the word of God, which I believe it to be.

rw: I'm curious as to how you reconcile a difference of interpretation. If someone gives you what they believe a particular text means and you read it but find it doesn't appear to mean that to you, how do you reconcile the fact that you are, in effect, interpreting the text to fulfill your own personal understanding and may actually be mis-leading yourself?

And an extremely cogent philosophical question that follows hard on the heals of this is why a god who sincerely desires a personal relationship with his creatures would attempt to secure such a relationship through the words of a book that have proven to be so easily mis-understood and mis-interpreted? Just look at all the wierd and kooky and dangerous cults and acts men have committed against other men based on faulty or confused interpretations of this book. How do we reconcile that with a loving god desiring a personal relationship?


spurly:This is a tough one, because some people say he has done that, and others are just as adament (sp?) that he has not. I can see your point though, that within the framework of my faith, I ahe had to adopt a certain bias to believe that God exists. And the major part of that bias is believing that the bible is the word of God.

rw: It's hard to say whether people begin with a bias towards believing a god exists and then having that bias re-inforced with the bible or if people start with a bias towards believing the bible is a true account which reinforces their belief that a god exists. I guess it's a complimentary type of procedure. Either way it's a difficult conviction to sustain against the winds of doubt if one begins to look further than just the bible for additional support for their faith. The more critically you examine the foundations the more cracks appear until, if you are committed to intellectual integrity, the entire artifice begins to crumble under the heavy weight of evidence against you. Some compensate by re-defining their god concept and abandoning the traditional views of the church, others retreat into thier private enclave of fellow worshippers never to be heard from again. Only a few ever have the courage to truly follow the evidence to its inevitable conclusion. Maybe you'll be one of those few.



spurly:The Bible does have a human element. Everything we have does. But the question is how does that human element affect the word that we have?



rw: Well, one way the human element affects us is in the way it produces many unwanted effects like straw gods and outlandishly dangerous cults. Surely an omniscient god could have foreseen this and taken pains to ensure his words would produce no such undesirable effects...don't you think so?

spurly: As far as accepting it uncritically, I haven't. I am not sure if certain disputed sections (i.e. Mark 16, John 8:1-11, etc.) were actually part of the orginal manuscript, and I don't give them equal weight when put on a scale with the rest of Scripture.

rw: There are degrees of critical analysis my friend and each one depends on your dedication to truth. You can pick and choose your sources and stay safely within a parameter of comfort or you can go all out in search of the truth. If the bible is, indeed, true you have nothing to fear in the effort and everything to gain as your faith will be strengthened by the challenge. If the bible is not so true as to sustain an intense review with a minimum of bias then, again, you profit as you will finally have all the facts you need to make an informed decision based on your own efforts without any undue outside influences. Either way, I wish you well in your quest. If I can be of any further service feel free to pm me. I have traveled that road and it's been well trodden but it is still a difficult journey nonetheless.

Wiploc

It seems to me that the bible is shot thru with contradictions. It should be impossible to believe what the bible says if the bible says contradictory things.

I would love to start a new thread to discuss this with you, starting with the issue of whether god can or cannot be seen.
crc

Wiploc

There are an infinite number of possible gods. We certainly can't refute them all, or even a significant portion of them. So we can properly ignore all those we don't find appealing, threatening, or entertaining.

Quote:

I guess a new question that I have is this - Can it be proven or disproven that God exists? How can we prove or disprove the existence of a Spirit being? Just curious. Kevin

If a god doesn't have ramifications, he is what technical philosophers call, "boring," and needn't be refuted because there is no difference between whether he exists or not. (Examples: Invisible Pink Unicorns and deist gods.)

If a god is probable and mundane, like the Egyptian pharaohs, then he may exist, but he isn't really what we --- these days --- mean by the word "god." (Examples: I have a friend who thinks hydrogen may be god, and another who thinks god may be the the universe. I am not concerned to refute them. And of course, there were the pharaohs. I believe in the pharaohs, but they just aren't what we're talking about here.)

If a god is weird and implausible enough to warrant the name of "god," then he is presumptively non-existent. (Example: Thor.)

If a god is self-contradictory, then he absolutely doesn't exist. (Example: Jehovah.)

This pretty much covers the field.

There is another way to approach the issue: I like to prove that the Christian god doesn't exist, and let the Christians stipulate that the others don't. This absolutely covers the field.
crc

Biff the unclean

I guess a new question that I have is this - Can it be proven or disproven that God exists?
Gee, it seems to me that this was the very thing that you were complaining about in the OP.
Sure, it can be proven that God exists. Easy, piece of cake. You would do that in exactly the same way that you would prove anything exists, Paris, the Pacific, an ant. You would produce it. Since this God Thing is supposed to be everywhere it shouldn't be too difficult to get your hands on it.
The reason you cannot do that is what Atheists have been demonstrating -- much to you derision.
God is a fictional character.
He "exists" only in the pages of the series of books collectively called the Bible. Not all that different from Harry Potter. Like Harry, everything we know about God we learn from what is written in these novels. It is easy to spot them as novels because they are filled with impossible things. You can't stop the sun. There are no invisibility cloaks. You can't come back from the dead anymore than you can play quidditch. By comparing the attributes their literature give to Harry and God with what exists in reality we see that they are fiction.
Then there are limitations that actual people don't have but fictional people like Harry and God all share. Most notably, you can't produce them. Harry Potter, we smile and don't look. God, unfortunately, has fans who resort to name calling and even violence. Even though your chance of finding Heaven is exactly the same as your finding Hogwarts, as they exist only in the imagination of their authors.

DeLurking

I agree that something can exist in some way.