How can you put faith into God..?

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Theopneustos

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Precisely my point. People don't want to do something like this because it requires them to give something up.

What would I be giving up?

Neophenx de Chrysalya

The "experiment" is based on the God of the Bible, who had made a promise to humanity by doing so. Odin, Zeus, and Ptah don't seem to have left any kind of promises behind like that.

Irrelevant. If I did the experiment, but instead focused my attention on the god of Norse myth, or the god of Greek myth, or the god of Memphite theology, and I got what the God of Israel is asking for, then it would stand to reason that one of these other gods exist. The problem is that, even if such is the case, no one can ever be certain if it was Odin, Zeus, Ptah, Yahweh, or any god. It could just be how Nature works.

Neophenx de Chrysalya

The more you talk, the more it becomes clear that you don't even care about finding truth but arguing over it instead, otherwise you would have no reason to add new, unrelated ingredients to this kettle. I'm done here. Have fun arguing. Come back to me when you're actually searching for answers instead of adding arguments.

You're the one who "add[ed] new, unrelated ingredients to this kettle." So please, I will await for you to prove that God exists, as you said God can be proven to exist. I would think that such a man of your stature would have already done this experiment yourself and could have told the world about your experience with God. Oh, wait, your failure to even prove God exists shows that you failed at doing what you asked me to do. Hypocrite.

In the end, God is non-falsifiable, as there is no evidence to prove or disprove His existence. Thank you, and watch out for the door on your way out.

I started tithing nearly two years ago, and saw results the first week of it. Of course, this being an internet forum, you're going to throw those results to the wind and not care what I say because for all you know, I'm just making it all up. Ask Dave Ramsey and his popular Financial Peace University program about it, though. Ask people around you. Talk to people you know. You don't know me, so my testimony won't mean s**t to you. If you can pull your head out of the ground and get to know the different kinds of Christians that are even in your own neighborhood, your proof that you're asking for will already be evident in their lives. Of course, if you actually cared about proof and truth, you'd be testing it yourself anyways. But if you're not willing to test the waters when it comes to truth, then you really don't care about knowing what the truth it.

[Myrzaex]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. You need proof? There is plenty of archaeological and historical proof. But if it's ultimate proof you're looking for, the best that can be gotten is personal repentance of your sins and praying to Jesus yourself. He will reveal Himself personally to you and you will receive the Holy Spirit and a divine revelation. Then you will know for sure. But you must have a humble and contrite heart as the Bible says.

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Myrzaex

There is plenty of archaeological and historical proof.

Please provide this.

[Theopneustos]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

I started tithing nearly two years ago, and saw results the first week of it. Of course, this being an internet forum, you're going to throw those results to the wind and not care what I say because for all you know, I'm just making it all up.

First, yes, I am going to throw your anecdotal evidence out the window because that's all it is: anecdotal. Second, I don't know the method you used for tithing, and I don't know why it must be assumed "God did it."

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Ask people around you. Talk to people you know. You don't know me, so my testimony won't mean s**t to you.

That's irrelevant. If I did know you, I probably would let my bias get to me and nod in agreement.

Neophenx de Chrysalya

If you can pull your head out of the ground and get to know the different kinds of Christians that are even in your own neighborhood, your proof that you're asking for will already be evident in their lives. Of course, if you actually cared about proof and truth, you'd be testing it yourself anyways. But if you're not willing to test the waters when it comes to truth, then you really don't care about knowing what the truth it.

The problem is that none of this is empirical evidence. It's anecdotal evidence. If I went around my neighborhood and saw changes in peoples' lives, and they were not Christians, you're telling me I would need to believe that the gods they saw actually exist. What you call truth is really your own personal experience.

[Doubtful Dreamer]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

I started tithing nearly two years ago, and saw results the first week of it.

What results?

Quote:

Of course, this being an internet forum, you're going to throw those results to the wind and not care what I say because for all you know, I'm just making it all up. Ask Dave Ramsey and his popular Financial Peace University program about it, though. Ask people around you. Talk to people you know. You don't know me, so my testimony won't mean s**t to you. If you can pull your head out of the ground and get to know the different kinds of Christians that are even in your own neighborhood, your proof that you're asking for will already be evident in their lives.

Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence no matter the source. Validation requires large scale controlled experiments which would allow the identification of what actions are causing the supposed effects. Such control and monitoring is lacking from anecdotal evidence and the stories are heavily biased by the perceptions of those that are involved. As such, alternative, falsifiable, measurable explanations are ignored in favor of confirming the already held belief.

As an example, consider how many cancer patients are claimed to be saved by the power of prayer while undergoing active and successful cancer treatments; often times, the medical explanations are ignored in favor of "prayer saves all." There are the cases where a spontaneous remission occurred, but if this is tied to prayer to the Christian deity, such cases should only be observed in Christian patients when there appears to be no bias towards the rates of spontaneous remissions in Christians at all.

[moka1987]

I can assist you in this matter, but must be an open mind and heart, go to this link and read a little, and you may find your answer there, I do not call you for something, but I found a lot of answers there
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm

[keito-ninja]

Snausauges

I mean like, there's no proof at all. Yeah, people have "seen him in their eyes and their own ways", but people have also "seen" Bigfoot and Aliens, without proof. Aliens, I believe, are out there. Not what we have labeled them to look like, but im sure there's other life out there. So what I'm saying is, Bigfoot and God are the same, just made up stories with the same basic description from what people have "seen" without evidence.

Every person is different, but I'm sure that some people believe in God for the same reason you believe in aliens. I assume that you believe there are aliens because it's absurd to think that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that can sustain life. It's all about probability. I've talked to one guy who looked at the existence of God in probabilities the same way one might do for the existence of aliens. I'm sure he believed in God for other reasons as well, but he supported this faith by looking at how complex we humans are. In short, he said that if there was no God, there's no way that humans would have evolved to be so intelligent and complex. Nature likes to keep things simple, and above all, it likes to survive. There is no survival reason for a species to have developed so intelligent-- in fact our intelligence is what's destroying the Earth. Nature would be better off without us. He figures, humans wouldn't have become so complex if there weren't a God directing our development.

Of course, none of this is proof, and I'm sure you could think of plenty ways to counter it, but it's just an example of how logic can play a role in believing in God, even if proof doesn't.

[The Forbidden Soul]

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

[stealthmongoose]

moka1987

I can assist you in this matter, but must be an open mind and heart, go to this link and read a little, and you may find your answer there, I do not call you for something, but I found a lot of answers there
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm

Moka, your posts come off as petty advertisement and are not attractive to me as a person who has the potential to follow a belief.

If you wish to discuss your beliefs, discuss them and don't use the link as a crutch in your arguments. I have not looked at it since your post provides no reasons for me to do so.

If the link is a substantial part of your post, you can come up with a post to support it.

Otherwise, you're just prosthelitizing/spamming. It wouldn't be different if i randomly linked you to a site that had nothing to do with religion.

[stealthmongoose]

The Forbidden Soul

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

[The Forbidden Soul]

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

I know that. You do realize that I was strictly addressing faith right? Not all religion, just the concept of faith.

[stealthmongoose]

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

I know that. You do realize that I was strictly addressing faith right? Not all religion, just the concept of faith.

My mistake, i read your opponent's post and thought you were combating the deist side of his argument.


On the subject of faith, i don't know how to differentiate it from raw belief, but i'll do my best.


Belief, since it is not exclusive to religion, can run a gammut of ideas ranging from santa claus to the idea that your shoes are exactly where you thought you left them.

I make this distinction because a lie can be based on very true structure (an insurance scam for example) and still be believed.

Faith is in itself the religious aspect of all of this, and while faith requires belief, belief is on a much more rational (not always reasonable) level than faith.

I just wanted to make that distinction because religions uses relatively little real material in it's presentation, while a lie can be based on truths but still believed, and you need faith to believe religion rather than just belief.


This does not in my eyes put religion into any kind of positive light or even the idea of faith or belief into any positive light, i just want to point out that faith is more exclusive to religion while belief can be placed on just about anything, so if you are arguing faith you are by virtue of your argument arguing against religion categorically, and not just the belief of things.

[The Forbidden Soul]

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

I know that. You do realize that I was strictly addressing faith right? Not all religion, just the concept of faith.

My mistake, i read your opponent's post and thought you were combating the deist side of his argument.


On the subject of faith, i don't know how to differentiate it from raw belief, but i'll do my best.


Belief, since it is not exclusive to religion, can run a gammut of ideas ranging from santa claus to the idea that your shoes are exactly where you thought you left them.

I make this distinction because a lie can be based on very true structure (an insurance scam for example) and still be believed.

Faith is in itself the religious aspect of all of this, and while faith requires belief, belief is on a much more rational (not always reasonable) level than faith.

I just wanted to make that distinction because religions uses relatively little real material in it's presentation, while a lie can be based on truths but still believed, and you need faith to believe religion rather than just belief.


This does not in my eyes put religion into any kind of positive light or even the idea of faith or belief into any positive light, i just want to point out that faith is more exclusive to religion while belief can be placed on just about anything, so if you are arguing faith you are by virtue of your argument arguing against religion categorically, and not just the belief of things.

I get what you are saying. However wouldnt you agree that the basic meaning of faith is having some sort of belief without much evidence or realism?
Like say I have faith that a pen on a table will move, even though there is no evidence that will support it other than people twisting logic and making it almost sound completely logical? Once they make it seem believable thats when it turns into belief amirite? Or am i interpreting what you said to me incorrectly?

[stealthmongoose]

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

Verene

This is why it is called "having faith." The evidence I need to believe in God is different from the evidence that you may need to believe in God, is different from the evidence that some one else may need to believe in God. How and why each person believes or disbelieves is relative to the kind of experience that an individual needs in order to affirm God's existence or lack thereof.

Faith does not take empirical, scientific, laboratory repeatable experience. It takes an experience capable of convincing the one experiencing said moment or action.

SO basically faith is believing in something without any proof, and only basing it on provoking incidents? JS

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

I know that. You do realize that I was strictly addressing faith right? Not all religion, just the concept of faith.

My mistake, i read your opponent's post and thought you were combating the deist side of his argument.


On the subject of faith, i don't know how to differentiate it from raw belief, but i'll do my best.


Belief, since it is not exclusive to religion, can run a gammut of ideas ranging from santa claus to the idea that your shoes are exactly where you thought you left them.

I make this distinction because a lie can be based on very true structure (an insurance scam for example) and still be believed.

Faith is in itself the religious aspect of all of this, and while faith requires belief, belief is on a much more rational (not always reasonable) level than faith.

I just wanted to make that distinction because religions uses relatively little real material in it's presentation, while a lie can be based on truths but still believed, and you need faith to believe religion rather than just belief.


This does not in my eyes put religion into any kind of positive light or even the idea of faith or belief into any positive light, i just want to point out that faith is more exclusive to religion while belief can be placed on just about anything, so if you are arguing faith you are by virtue of your argument arguing against religion categorically, and not just the belief of things.

I get what you are saying. However wouldnt you agree that the basic meaning of faith is having some sort of belief without much evidence or realism?
Like say I have faith that a pen on a table will move, even though there is no evidence that will support it other than people twisting logic and making it almost sound completely logical? Once they make it seem believable thats when it turns into belief amirite? Or am i interpreting what you said to me incorrectly?

I agree with you completely. As to your last point, i would say that's spot on, though i hate having to split hairs that way.

The religious community has adopted the word faith so much that there HAS to be a differentiation between the act of believing something and having faith in something.

Say, for example, that a magician created the illusion of the pen moving across the table. Now you have a stance of belief whereas before you had one of faith, but the illusion is still fictional.

That's why i love aesop's fables, disney movies, comic books, but HATE religion. There's an inherent truth to some fiction that religion just doesn't reflect at it's core, and even though fiction is still fictional, it still tries to send a very real message whereas religion seems to rely much more on the idea of changing the logic in your own mind to fit the outcome.

[The Forbidden Soul]

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

The Forbidden Soul

stealthmongoose

I assert that what you're describing is fiction and imagination, though religion may fall into this category it does not exclusively claim drawing power from belief.

I know that. You do realize that I was strictly addressing faith right? Not all religion, just the concept of faith.

My mistake, i read your opponent's post and thought you were combating the deist side of his argument.


On the subject of faith, i don't know how to differentiate it from raw belief, but i'll do my best.


Belief, since it is not exclusive to religion, can run a gammut of ideas ranging from santa claus to the idea that your shoes are exactly where you thought you left them.

I make this distinction because a lie can be based on very true structure (an insurance scam for example) and still be believed.

Faith is in itself the religious aspect of all of this, and while faith requires belief, belief is on a much more rational (not always reasonable) level than faith.

I just wanted to make that distinction because religions uses relatively little real material in it's presentation, while a lie can be based on truths but still believed, and you need faith to believe religion rather than just belief.


This does not in my eyes put religion into any kind of positive light or even the idea of faith or belief into any positive light, i just want to point out that faith is more exclusive to religion while belief can be placed on just about anything, so if you are arguing faith you are by virtue of your argument arguing against religion categorically, and not just the belief of things.

I get what you are saying. However wouldnt you agree that the basic meaning of faith is having some sort of belief without much evidence or realism?
Like say I have faith that a pen on a table will move, even though there is no evidence that will support it other than people twisting logic and making it almost sound completely logical? Once they make it seem believable thats when it turns into belief amirite? Or am i interpreting what you said to me incorrectly?

I agree with you completely. As to your last point, i would say that's spot on, though i hate having to split hairs that way.

The religious community has adopted the word faith so much that there HAS to be a differentiation between the act of believing something and having faith in something.

Say, for example, that a magician created the illusion of the pen moving across the table. Now you have a stance of belief whereas before you had one of faith, but the illusion is still fictional.

That's why i love aesop's fables, disney movies, comic books, but HATE religion. There's an inherent truth to some fiction that religion just doesn't reflect at it's core, and even though fiction is still fictional, it still tries to send a very real message whereas religion seems to rely much more on the idea of changing the logic in your own mind to fit the outcome.

This is why I hate misinformation. A ton of people are very gullible to it. Thank you for the video I actually liked it alot smile