When discussing religion, the believer has difficulty convincing the unbeliever that the extreme that God exists is true, and the unbeliever has difficulty convincing the believer that the extreme that God does not exist is true. Yet, individuals arrive at certain beliefs, whether believers or unbelievers, as factually true to them. So here is a broad and vague question for you to try to nail down and answer. When discussing religion, how does one self-satisfyingly make a generalization that something is always true, although not all instances of the truth (?) have been tested or can be tested? Anyway, how do you self-satisfyingly make your generalizations of a religion theme . . . if you know? ************************************************************** 09-22-06, 05:28 AM MommyTimesTwo As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." ( Stephen's Guide )
To say "You cannot prove there is a God, so He must not exist" or conversely, "You cannot prove there is not a God, so He must exist" are equally false. When it comes to things that are taken on faith, one must rely on faith and faith alone. That is why it is called faith. You cannot prove it, that is the point.
Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and has made the Lord his hope and confidence. - Jeremiah 17:7
09-22-06, 07:17 AM aminator2002
quote: factually true to them
It isn't actually factually true to them, even if they believe it to be. If there were some facts to discuss then it wouldn't be an issue at all.
09-22-06, 09:26 AM juanruiz The dichotomy believer/atheist is too simplistic, because the debate isn't so much whether God exists, but rather whether my God exists, be he El, Ra, Krishna, or Huitzilipochtli. The atheist rejects them all, and lets the believers fight it out amongst themselves.
09-23-06, 03:29 AM tsaeb You all so far have contributed well on what seems to be a philosophy of religion question. My head is still reeling over aminator2002's claim that the point is that certainty has not been arrived at so that there are viewpoints which are at issue. I think that I got that correct.
Anyway, we still have not gotten any closer than we usually do on how to surmount the standoff other than opting out, as offered by juanruiz, although Mx2 seems to have eliminated one false way of tackling issues on religion topics. Is there a true way to turn what is at issue into what is fact? Additionally, can we ever eliminate doubt? At a trial, witnesses and evidence are allowed and helpful, although there may still remain reasonable doubt.
What we feel for religions is called faith because we have no proof that we can offer as evidence to other people. The proof of God (or another religion's term) is not tangible. I can't hold up a ______ and prove without a doubt that there is a God as I perceive Him.
That I believe, that I have feelings and experiences that prove God to me, cannot be shared other than in my telling someone about it. So my ability to share God with someone else is limited by their belief in what I say. If they are resistant to the idea, if they don't like me or had bad experiences in church or with another "religious person", then they will not accept my proof.
This is why the Bible tells believers that the best way to win people's hearts is to live the life. Being an example is much better than arguing and trying to offer proof. (Not that I am particularly good at this, but... Razz)
09-23-06, 10:11 AM juanruiz The central reason Christianity lavishes so much praise on faith is that that is all it has to legitimize its theology. It's the fallback response to such basic questions as:
Did Jesus actually exist? There is no outside corroboration.
The NT is full of contradictions. How can it be divinely inspired?
How can you prove there's life after death?
09-23-06, 10:28 AM MommyTimesTwo As I said, it is a matter of faith. I do not have to and will not attempt to offer "proof" outside my own experiences and understanding. That is the essence of religion and I will not attempt to distill it down.
I'm sorry that you do not believe but I am not here to prove my beliefs to you.
09-23-06, 10:40 AM juanruiz I don't recall personally asking anyone to prove their beliefs. A person's individual theological stance is fine with me unless, as I said elsewhere, he attempts to get it codified in secular society.
09-23-06, 11:13 AM MommyTimesTwo Juan, you asked questions about Christianity, and I simply stated that I personally will not attempt to answer them for you due to the reasons stated above. This is as opposed to simply not responding or otherwise ignoring you. I was attempting to politely exit from the conversation.
09-24-06, 03:52 AM tsaeb I have faith that I will go to bed, fall asleep, and after a few hours awaken and go forth from my bed. I cannot prove this, but this is faith which is fact. I have no doubt at all.
While we seem to have no confirmations of the existence of God right now, what will be the reactions of multitudes of people when we do have them? Will they say that we do not have them, as some still say that The Holocaust never happened?
Perhaps the nitty-gritty of arriving at truth is to first be honest, and we are having one helluva time knowing just how dishonest we are as we know that we do not know as much as there exists to be known.
While I call myself an honest woman, I admit that I neither know all things nor always get accurate what I claim. When I prophesy, I have to get accurate what I claim comes from God, and this is somewhat easy inasmuch that I try be a Spirit-led vessel for any prophecy.
09-24-06, 08:32 AM MommyTimesTwo T, you can so prove that you sleep and awaken. A simple video camera or a witness would suffice. Unfortunately, we cannot videotape God.
09-24-06, 09:51 AM juanruiz
quote: I have faith that I will go to bed, fall asleep, and after a few hours awaken and go forth from my bed.
As stated above, this is not faith. Nor is believing your car will start, the morning paper will be at your door, or that the F train will arrive on time. These are all previous experiences (well, maybe not always the F train) which lead one to rationally believe will happen again. Faith is belief in something for which one has no experience.
09-24-06, 05:59 PM MommyTimesTwo We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H. L. Mencken
09-29-06, 06:15 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: Faith is belief in something for which one has no experience.
Ah, but I do not have natural experience of a future event. Nor do I believe future events due to some reasonable certainty concerning prior experience; I believe future events due to a spritual experience--some certain knowledge which only the Holy Spirit can give me. I do not believe in blind faith. Yes, too, a good many future events are those for which I either just wait it out or deliberately hope and pray.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
