God needs a super-natural visit today

[PostmodernProph]

Ok. Well, you seem fixated on the false dichotomy between 'real' and 'imaginary'. It's common to classify things that way when the concern is the physical existence of something, but clearly lots of things exists that aren't physical - so it's a limited viewpoint.

/shrugs....your error is assuming that something which is not physical is only imaginary.....likely there are things not yet imagined which are real.....it isn't imagining them which makes them real......there was a point in time when there no creatures with imagination....did the sun not exist then?.....

My point is that something doesn't need to have a specific physical existence to have a very real impact on the world. It merely needs to be represented somehow. To the extent that thoughts and ideas are represented (most commonly in the actions of people who possess them), they are quite real and have a tangible impact on the world.

could a deity which came into being because of the imagination of the created, create the universe?.......if not, such a deity is diminished compared to the one worshipped by Christianity.....

Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

 

[Hollie]

/shrugs....your error is assuming that something which is not physical is only imaginary.....likely there are things not yet imagined which are real.....it isn't imagining them which makes them real......there was a point in time when there no creatures with imagination....did the sun not exist then?.....



could a deity which came into being because of the imagination of the created, create the universe?.......if not, such a deity is diminished compared to the one worshipped by Christianity.....

Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

What's odd is that there is no difference between the human based conceptions of Zeus, Thor and your gods.

 

[dblack]

/shrugs....your error is assuming that something which is not physical is only imaginary.....likely there are things not yet imagined which are real.....it isn't imagining them which makes them real......there was a point in time when there no creatures with imagination....did the sun not exist then?.....



could a deity which came into being because of the imagination of the created, create the universe?.......if not, such a deity is diminished compared to the one worshipped by Christianity.....

Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

Your call I spose. It seems pretty amazing to me that a being can exist as pure information. The really mind blowing thing is that, when you think about it - that's all we (human minds) are.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

What's odd is that there is no difference between the human based conceptions of Zeus, Thor and your gods.

your proof will be thoroughly examined upon submission.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

Your call I spose. It seems pretty amazing to me that a being can exist as pure information. The really mind blowing thing is that, when you think about it - that's all we (human minds) are.

???...oh....sorry....I assumed you were real......

 

[Hollie]

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

What's odd is that there is no difference between the human based conceptions of Zeus, Thor and your gods.

your proof will be thoroughly examined upon submission.....

I have no proof of any gods. Neither do you, obviously.

 

[PostmodernProph]

"I have no proof" could be your motto.....

 

[Hollie]

"I have no proof" could be your motto.....

I rely on knowledge and enlightenment that science provides. Therefore, slogans derived from religious myth aren't required.

Ancient religious myths present An impossible dilemma. The religionist /supernaturalist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the partisan gods you were given by virtue of parentage and geography.

 

[dblack]

no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....

Your call I spose. It seems pretty amazing to me that a being can exist as pure information. The really mind blowing thing is that, when you think about it - that's all we (human minds) are.

???...oh....sorry....I assumed you were real......

If you're positing that only physical matter is 'real', then no, I'm not. Though I'm surprised to see you taking a materialist turn. The human soul might depend on a physical body to interact with the world, but it isn't, itself, material based. "I" am software that runs on the hardware of a brain.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Your call I spose. It seems pretty amazing to me that a being can exist as pure information. The really mind blowing thing is that, when you think about it - that's all we (human minds) are.

???...oh....sorry....I assumed you were real......

If you're positing that only physical matter is 'real', then no, I'm not.

what do you use instead of a keyboard?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted.

"in spite of proof", while not being an accurate definition of faith, seems to imply you have some......you don't.....

since you provide no evidence or proof for multiple claims you've made in this forum, do you acknowledge then that your claims are constructs of faith?......

 

[Hollie]

Ancient religious myths present An impossible dilemma. The religionist /supernaturalist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the partisan gods you were given by virtue of parentage and geography.

"in spite of proof", while not being an accurate definition of faith, seems to imply you have some......you don't.....

since you provide no evidence or proof for multiple claims you've made in this forum, do you acknowledge then that your claims are constructs of faith?......

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

It's very easy for supernaturalists/religionists to pursue demonstration of supernaturalism in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the IDists and creationists and supernaturalists will have something worth reviewing.

But, as we know, science can't investigate supernaturalism.

Lastly, retreating to your usual conspiracy theories to vilify science is pointless. You tend to hurl the nonsensical "you didn't support your comment", nonsense when you need to defend religious claims which are unsupportable.

 

[dblack]

???...oh....sorry....I assumed you were real......

If you're positing that only physical matter is 'real', then no, I'm not.

what do you use instead of a keyboard?......

It's curious to me that, though you seem like a person of faith, you're making the popular conception of materialist's argument - that the non-physical isn't "real". Do you believe in the soul? Is it "real"?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith.

no...."in spite of" doesn't appear in any of them....
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you're positing that only physical matter is 'real', then no, I'm not.

what do you use instead of a keyboard?......

It's curious to me that, though you seem like a person of faith, you're making the popular conception of materialist's argument - that the non-physical isn't "real". Do you believe in the soul? Is it "real"?

that would in fact be curious......the problem is, I am arguing the exact opposite......I believe that God is non-physical....I believe that God is real.....

I am arguing with your statement above that you are not physical matter....that in no way implies that I believe the non-physical is not real....

incidentally, you may find this discussion curious....I find it outright weird....why do you believe you aren't physical matter....

 

[dblack]

what do you use instead of a keyboard?......

It's curious to me that, though you seem like a person of faith, you're making the popular conception of materialist's argument - that the non-physical isn't "real". Do you believe in the soul? Is it "real"?

that would in fact be curious......the problem is, I am arguing the exact opposite......I believe that God is non-physical....I believe that God is real.....

On this we agree. I'm making the same argument.

I am arguing with your statement above that you are not physical matter....that in no way implies that I believe the non-physical is not real....

Well, you were implying that if I'm not physical matter then I'm not real. It seemed you were equating the two. Can you clarify your position? Do you acknowledge that something can be real that isn't physical matter?

...why do you believe you aren't physical matter....

Because "I" am my consciousness, my soul, not my body. That's the essential quality of sentience. Do you believe that human souls and bodies are the same thing?

 

[Hollie]

I rely on knowledge and enlightenment that science provides. Therefore, slogans derived from religious myth aren't required.

Ancient religious myths present An impossible dilemma. The religionist /supernaturalist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the partisan gods you were given by virtue of parentage and geography.

no...."in spite of" doesn't appear in any of them....
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Biblical matters of faith "in spite of evidence", are derived from one or more of the bibles.

Hebrews 11:1 defines Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Regarding faith as a requirement:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


And finally, a directive from Big Cheese Junior:

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'd say that makes it pretty clear, according to your "source material."

While I understand you would like to believe that the above is what “the hey-zeus” said, there is nothing to corroborate that any of the above was spoken by "the hey-zeus".

I know you will attempt to cite a reference in a “holy text” to substantiate your claim but using an unsubstantiated “holy text” to prove the validity of a “holy text” is not valid. In addition, The various bibles laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason is irrational.

 

[Snouter]

Except the Children of Israel saw the Pillar of Cloud by day and the Fire of God by night. They saw the miracles. They heard the voice of God and they still disobeyed and fell away. Many of them died in the wilderness. They had everything including the most perfect lawgiver and still failed so when people want to find God on their own merit, these are the footsteps you are following in and the children of Israel who died in the wilderness will be many people's examples.

The "pillar of cloud" you are referred to was supposedly Yahweh's penis. They were phallus worshippers. That occult time thing was common back then. There is quite a bit of Egytptian stuff the authors of the Bible copied. But it carries over to the US with the Washington Monument

 

[Chuckt]

Regarding faith as a requirement:

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

 

[Chuckt]

Ancient religious myths present An impossible dilemma. The religionist /supernaturalist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the partisan gods you were given by virtue of parentage and geography.

"in spite of proof", while not being an accurate definition of faith, seems to imply you have some......you don't.....

since you provide no evidence or proof for multiple claims you've made in this forum, do you acknowledge then that your claims are constructs of faith?......

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

That is a shallow definition of faith.. The word faith means "to be persuaded".

Evangelical views[edit]

In contrast to faith meaning blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence, Alister McGrath quotes Oxford Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith-Thomas, (1861-1924), who states faith is "not blind, but intelligent" and "commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence...", which McGrath sees as "a good and reliable definition, synthesizing the core elements of the characteristic Christian understanding of faith."[17]

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."[18] Likewise Tom Price (Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) affirms that when the New Testament talks about faith positively it only uses words derived from the Greek root [pistis] which means "to be persuaded."[19]

British Christian apologist John Lennox argues that "faith conceived as belief that lacks warrant is very different from faith conceived as belief that has warrant." And that, "the use of the adjective 'blind' to describe 'faith' indicates that faith is not necessarily, or always, or indeed normally, blind." "The validity, or warrant, of faith or belief depends on the strength of the evidence on which the belief is based." "We all know how to distinguish between blind faith and evidence-based faith. We are well aware that faith is only justified if there is evidence to back it up." "Evidence-based faith is the normal concept on which we base our everyday lives."[20]

Peter S Williams[21] holds that "the classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality, and does not hold that faith involves the complete abandonment of reason will believing in the teeth of evidence." Quoting Moreland, faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true."

Regarding "doubting Thomas" in John 20:24-31, Williams points out that "Thomas wasn't asked to believe without evidence." He was asked to believe on the basis of the other disciples' testimony. Thomas initially lacked the first-hand experience of the evidence that had convinced them... Moreover, the reason John gives for recounting these events is that what she saw is evidence... Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples...But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. John 20:30,31.[22]

Kenneth Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr. describe a classic understanding of faith that is referred to as evidentialism. And which is part of a larger epistemological tradition called classical foundationalism, which is accompanied by deontologism, which holds that humans have an obligation to regulate their beliefs in accordance with evidentialist structures.

They show how this can go too far,[23] and Alvin Plantinga as dealing with it. While Plantinga upholds that faith may be the result of evidence testifying to the reliability of the source (of the truth claims), yet he sees having faith as being the result of hearing the truth of the gospel with the internal persuasion by the Holy Spirit moving and enabling him to believe. "Christian belief is produced in the believer by the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, endorsing the teachings of Scripture, which is itself divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. The result of the work of the Holy Spirit is faith."[24]

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia