I will get back to you in more detail on whether God is or isn't after I finish Schroeder and Stenger. At present, I have the poor design of the human body that stands against God existing (if he did exist, he wouldn't want to claim that design with pride).

it doesnt' matter how many times I say I have questioned it.  It seems that because your reality doesn't have a God, there's still no way I have.  Interesting how one has to manipulate the truth to fit their ideals.  And atheists blame religious people for doing that...

Any Christian follower who has read the book of Job should understand that questioning God is a valid suggestion.  Doesn't mean you'll always get an answer, but I always like to challenge my own understanding.  Came here to do just that... been quite disappointed.

I agree with you there.  It was breaking away from the majoirty vote that ultimately led me by my own understanding to God. 

I hope you're not talking about me.  If so, you need to read a few pages back.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  The problem is, Brian is good at coming up with examples for dispensationalist religion, but fails miserably when it comes to telling me what evidence he will accept... brhem... i mean LOGICAL EVIDENCE!!!  about God.   Regardless of how many times I ask him, he keeps asking me for physical evidence of a metaphysical being. e.g. God DNA and Godsperm.  Believer or not, is that really logical thinking? 

The ones who have actually taken a moment to think logically about what evidence they would accept have a hard time coming up with something.  Our minds are so set in the physical that to even consider anything outside the physical is incomprehensible.  Yet, that is what is required of you to do in order to even begin accepting evidences of a God such as the Christian God. 

Many have tried to talk sciences with me.  Regardless of how much science they present that they think disproves God, none of it really does.  Many finally resort to it being my responsibility to prove to them my belief, yet that comes back to what they'll accept for evidence. 

If you actually want to get into a logical thinking discussion, please enlighten me to what you would accept... and... make it a logical request.

quite possible, but the generalization of his statement seems to ignore the points I have already made.  In other words, he can no longer use that for an excuse to say that God doesn't exist and yet he still seems to be doing so.  It's the only reason I commented.

You haven't questioned it. You have looked for ways to justify what you believe. No different than any other deity believer of any other religion, past or present.

Questioning it would mean setting up a system of controlled tests that are repeatable, testable and verifiable and INDEPENDENT of your own bias or wishes.

I am not the one claiming that invisible super brains with no brain, no body, no material float out in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time meddling in the affairs of humans. Only a person with a vivid imagination can fool themselves into believing such an absurdity. BECAUSE THEY REALLY REALLY REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IT.

The only one manipulating anything is YOU .It is your own wild imagination that some magical super hero will save you. Super heros are the product of human imagination, and your god is nothing but your own wishful thinking.

understood.  I haven't actually read that one from him yet.  I more recently came across his name, so GATG is the first book of his I've read.  Intreguing approaches.  I'm curious on his approaches with that book too however. 

well, I can point to scientists who have replicated studies that point to God.  I've already recommended a book by one.

I know of many sound arguements for God... but then again as I've seen that's a matter of opinion.  If sound arguement was what people were basing their beliefs on, i'd be guessing that many people just reading through some of the forums on this site would automatically become believers. 

Something they can point to.  Are you suggesting something physical?  Of course I could try to point to God, but pointing to something metaphysical... me being a physical creature myself would be seemingly difficult at best.  What would you suggest I'd need to "point to" in order for you to consider the possibility of a metaphysical being?  Consider the words used in the question and come up with a logical answer.

I'd also suggest reading God according to God.  Jcadfly found that it's only in hardcover, so if you don't want to buy it.  Take 15 minutes and skim some of it in the book store.  It's if anything an interesting take.  I would assume that some libraries should have access to it somewhere if not yet then soon. 

many have admitted it's quite impossible to discount the possibility of God.  Few still try.  Most will say you can't prove a negative assuming again that God isn't real, but then again if that's the case of course you can't disprove it either.  Unfortunately that kind of discredits the "difficult to discount" aspect of your requirement. 

There are many bigger names out there that are very credible that point to intelligence behind the design.  Yet you still seem to not accept it.  Are you sure that's an acceptable means for you? 

Criticism is one thing, ignorance because you don't want to accept it is another.  Yes, I'm going on an assumption here, but you seem to be one that doesn't care to make the effort.  You just think you know already and therefore there is no reason to try.  Don't get me wrong, you bring up some good points for your point of view, but when it comes to considering something that goes against it, you seem to close the doors. 

Of course.  Believers will admit to doubting all the time.  There's a reason why they still believe however.  Not just because someone told them to believe or from a group experience either though unfortunately that is a truth for some.

tangeable.  Think about what you said.  We study human behaviour. (studying the physical responses of a human in certain situations)  We study human thought (either by using physical means to view their brain activity or by checking their responses by physical stimulation such as questions or pictures)  All reliant on the physical.

Sure you feel the effects of gravity on an object when you pick it up.  But you are dependent on that object to study gravity.  It cannot be studied alone. 

Tangible by definition is "having physical existence"  not necesarily just being able to be reached to touch or touchable for that matter.  e.g. the sun is physical.  It is made up of gasses.  Therefore it is tangible. 

Right.  Some of them would refuse to believe it because they don't want it to be true.  Just because they don't see reason to believe in it doesn't mean it's not there, right?

Of course the evidences given to them would probably be of physical means again... e.g.  A map of the locale, pictures of key points in the area.  A place to point at on a globe. 

Faith is simply confidence or trust in a person or thing.  Unless you're claiming to do all the studies yourself... after you are satisfied with the amount of information brought your way, you are putting faith in that understanding because in your mind, you have seen enough to accept it.   Therefore, it's quite applicable. 

Though i see, faith in the religious sense.  In other words, the "belief that's not baised on proof".  There has to be some evidences that lead people to believe or I guarantee you that most true Jesus followers would not be. 

If I may ask, what do you base that statement on?

No, there is a difference between when scientists use scientific method to justify a claim, and WHAT YOU DO in justifying what you claim. You look for ways to justify what you claim. WHAT YOU DONT DO, is look for ways to replicate and falsify what you claim and get what you claim independently verified outside your own bias.

I did tell you, as have several other people have told you what they would accept. It is not up to us to do your homework for you.

We don't have to justify miosis or DNA. Those are repeatable, testable and falsifiable FACT!

What you have is a naked assertion. "my god exists"

So what?

There are some that are believers already.  However, there are a few that became believers through their practice.  One (can't remember his name right off) was an avid atheist before concluding through his research that there is a creator. 

Any scientist to even be considered such would need to stand up to serious investigation, otherwise, they're no better than you or I.  That's the reason for pointing out scientists as believers.  They have to endure serious critiques from some very intelligent people. 

Start with Schroeder.  His book God according to God will have many you can choose from.   There are many I could choose from.  To sufficiently explain one would take quite a few posts I think. 

BTW, I've seen many assumptions by people on this site that they don't realize are very questionable.  Yet it's assumed that my evidence is most questionable... which is questionable in and of itself.

hmmm. you make it tough be it that I've heard many assumptions that a belief in God in general is a "common aspect of human psychology."  Therefore any "god" experience could logically be concluded to be a derivitive of that common aspect. 

At the moment I'm confused.  What would an example be of an experience not a part of common culture and not something that could be connected to the "common aspect of human psychology as the belief in god"? 

well then that goes back to the "opinion" of the matter and whether subject A thinks that a certain side is more difficult to discount than the other.  Of course one has to realize due to lack of historical documentation in general and due to the lack of an understanding of the metaphysical, both sides will always have their gaps.  There's a reason why the "god" debate has been going on for centuries.  Simply put, neither side apparently is conclusively "more difficult to discount" than the other at this point because opinion and personal experience still plays a roll in each side. 

example:  I have presented historical, geological, statistical, scientific information that I feel is quite conclusive for what I believe. 

1.  History back in Biblical times (writings or happenings) wasn't as precise as we have it today, therefore, history isn't exactly accurate to the date and therefore is questionable due to dating discrepencies for credibility.

counter:  Precise dating isn't necessary and wasn't as much of a concern for the writers as what happened.

2. geology has its place and has been concluded to be congruent with the Bible... but then again many other "myths" are geologically accurate as well according to some and therefore doesn't bring further support.  Also questions go back to dating.

counter: goes back to the history and understanding whether what was claimed actually happend whether it did when dates say so or not.

3.  statistics aren't even a concern.  It doesn't matter how slim the odds are for causing this or that or creating this or that, the fact is it still happened and therefore is possible from a non-theological and scientific perspective.

counter:  conclusion: anything's possible

4.  It is concluded by many on this site that because the Bible writers were so ignorant of the science we have today and that they described things in a way that we know isn't congruent with the science we know today that God can't be real.   It also goes back into the historical information and the lack thereof during those times.  Sure, that makes sense in science for God to have done that, but that doesn't mean that it was God that did it. 

counter:  of course people of historical times aren't going to have our capacity of scientific understanding.  The Bible was written by people inspired by God.  They will write only what they know and how they understand it. 

Thus perspective, opinion and personal experience play a roll and will make the "more difficult to discount" aspect vertually impossible. 

Why would God be needed to explain anything... Just because it's explainable doesn't give anyone sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no God.  God in my mind would use means that might be "explainable" to make something happen... why wouldn't He? 

One big mistake people make in the theological debate is to assume that God is there to explain what we don't know therefore bringing closure to our finite understanding.  Becoming a Christ follower you actually learn that there's more you don't understand than you orignally thought.  You also learn that God isn't concerned with you understanding generally speaking.

Of course God isnt' necessary to conclude on anything.  It's not Christ followers believe. 

happens all the time.  There's a reason why there millions of sects of belief in the world.  The trick is to humble yourself and realize that you don't have all the answers.  Problem.  People always have to have an answer and thus will make one whether right or wrong.

I'm actually looking for more well-qualified people pointing to the opposite direction.  Do you have any names I can research?

I've been looking into all information that has been brought my way.  I see how well supported the alternatives are and have brought well-supported counters to the table.  Is there something I've missed? 

Trust me.  I admitted to making an assumption about you.  You're right. i don't know how much effort you have put towards it, but I was hoping to find out.  So far I haven't seen much as far as well-supported evidence from you.  I'm willing to discuss anything you have.  Likewise you have made an assumption about me just like others who want to think I won't or haven't listened to them.  I have not ignored the fact that any doors are open.  I just want to bring out more concretes and less opinions. 

The issue with going forward with your position is that you've concluded the only reason to implement God into your view is to explain something that isn't explainable.  I am content with not knowing, yet I believe.  In believing I found that there's even more I don't know.  To satisfy your conclusion that God is there to further explain an unexplainable I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.  Belief in God will only bring to light how much more you don't understand and not the other way around. 

Not to be confused with ignorance or lack of understanding.  to accept the belief in God is to accept the fact that there is so much more beyond what we understand right now. 

I need to establish what makes it necessary.... well let me ask you this.  If there is a God who created all that we know including yourself and he has a certain plan for you and a plan for his creation, would it be necessary to learn of this God?

You also study.... in congruency with their physical actions.  intentions mean nothing if nothing happened.  A state of mind is a personality.  However, what you do with that state of mind conforms the personality and supports your judgement of that person.  

e.g. I may have a state of mind that I want to kill someone.  Granted that's a pretty extreme state of mind and you could conclude a number of things from that statement, but I'm willing to be your judgement of me would be different depending on what I do with that state of mind. 

See definition #1.  capable of being touched.  Whether we are able to touch it or not is a different story. 

your perception of the force is dependent on the object.

I wasn't speaking metaphorically though was I?

But not solely.  A Christ follower will do their homework to better understand what they know to be supported in scripture. 

it's just that walking away from the church or group is how I found God, not the other way around.  It took disbeleiving in my religious body that I grew up in in order to find the truth about God... or what i understand to be true.  (i of course understand your disagreement at this point)  There was no other group experience or body of believers that led me to what i follow now. 

Are you assuming I fall into that category?  I admit I'm not perfect, but if you assume that I'm a part of those religions that ignore what the gospels teach, you are mistaken

Are you listening to yourself right now?  I've asked you to tell me how I can mail you some meta-physical DNA.  Do you not have a means for me to do so? 

You are quite encouragable!  You're asking me to replicate a physical peice of something meta-physical... You're asking me to replicate a physcial... wait... that doesn't even make sense.  Are you serious right now? 

What exactly should this tell me other than the idea that you are incapable of rational thought.  Not because you can't understand the possibility of God, but because you're aking me to present you something physical from something that's meta-phsyical.  It's like you asking me to send you a clothes iron so you can study a kangaroo.  It just doesn't make any sense.

 Oh wait.. I get it.  You asking me to present you with something that everyone knows is illogical whether there's a god or not should help me conclude that belief in God itself is illogical.  It's all so clear now

...a scene from Billy Madison comes to mind at the moment....

My point is that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is not a non-judgmental peace-and-love hippie Jesus.  The Jesus character in those stories did speak of people being condemned to everlasting torment for such trivial matters as not acknowledging him and he was quite willing to use force to make a point (eg. the temple clearing incident).

You seem to be mixing and matching.  Yes, the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was non-judgemental.  If you've ever met a true Christ follower, you'd notice they will be the same way, though of course no one's perfect, you will notice a difference.  Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. 

The hippie Jesus part is the Eurpoeanized Christ.  Historians believe he actually had short hair.  The next Christiandom book has a good example on its cover of different cultures and their portrayal of what Jesus looked like. 

As far as Jesus and the "temple clearing incident".   Yes, he was making a point, that the church wasn't to be used for marketing.  Though he reacted out of anger just as any human would.  It was basically like defiling his father's house. 

The point of the everlasting torment for trivial matters like not acknowleging him.  The point of his coming is that it was no longer about trivial matters, but a compilation of many sins piled upon themselves for each person.  Jesus was the redemption.  Taking our place for what would ultimately be a just sentence for breaking the laws.  I've given many examples of what his purpose was on this forum.  It was anything but over trivial stuff.  He came as the perfect example and the way of life. 

Cap,

You believe in a being with no body, no brain, no cerebellum, no neurons with super powers. What more can be said about that than BULL SHIT!

Mask your skunk of a claim up in whatever window dressing you want, twist your logic to suit your own desires all you want and bullshit will always be bullshit.

When you realize that it is all in your head, like many of us here have been lucky enough to escape the mind trap you have fallen for, you will be free. We hope you do free yourself from your mind shackles. I have hope for you because there must be something bugging you so much for you to stick around this long. We have, and are getting to you, otherwise you wouldn't be protesting this much.

Most confident theists try to play chess, knock over the chess pieces after a couple of moves, and crap on the chess board and fly home to their coop and declare victory.

If nothing is getting to you, why have you stuck around so long?

Because it bothers you that you do believe in a being with no body, no brain, no neurons or cerebellum, and it bothers you that you have no way to demonstrate such a claim.

YOU BELIEVE IN A BEING WITH NO BODY, NO BRAIN, NO NEURONS, NO CEREBELLUM WHO HAS SUPER POWERS.

I am going to keep repeating that until you get it.

who exactly believes that?  he might have had a dylan fro, like most of the jewish people i've known with "classical" semitic features.

why do you use the word "church"?  that's an extremely poor choice, from both the christian and the jewish side.  and by the way, i don't think that's "normal," "understandable" human behavior.  if i threw tantrums liked that everytime i've been disgusted by a church's consumerism, i'd have left broken offering plates and busted pews all up and the united states and europe.  the fact is, it was an act of vandalism at best and could be construed as a militant act.

Wow, so every private business WHICH HAS THE RIGHT, to display the nativity scene to attract customers shouldn't do that?

Let me give you a clue. EVERY symbol, from a business symbol, to flag, to political symbol, to national symbol IS AN ADVERTISMENT!

So if humans aren't to sell anything to each other, then how do we survive?

You said it in your last sentence. Your "father" doesn't want to sell anything that doesn't benefit him. So you are advocating a monopoly of power and not competition.

If you want to appeal to human empathy, YOU CAN, without the father figure, say the same thing.

Marketing, is what all species do. To deny that is STUPID.

What you want to say is that in that marketing, we should not put greed above human empathy for our own benefit at the cost of all others.

I have a co-worker who is as sweet as can be. But she often says to me "I am concerned for your soul".

She doesn't want me to go to hell.

While I understand the sentiment, she like Cap don't understand that IT IS A THREAT! It is not an appeal to reason, but a threat of being tortured forever for merely not wanting to belong to his club(gang).

This is psychological blackmail and in reality in most westernized industrial countries, if one were to use threats of violence against their spouse, sane people would find this abhorrent.

The only think the believer can do is to gloss this horrible story over and ignore it by pretending it doesn't mean what it says.

The Bible is a textbook for gang violence. It's leader "God" tells his followers, under threat of eternal damnation, to do his bidding, and if anyone crosses him, they will be tortured for eternity. That is not what I say, that IS in the Bible.

Civil society in the west has no choice but to gloss this over. But IT IS there, and the Fundies of the Dark Ages were much more adherent to the Bible than Christians today.

See what I mean about being stuck in the physical.  considering for a moment that there was a meta-physical existance, this here proves you wouldn't even begin to consider it because to you physical is the only reality.  therefore, we can never make progress.  Real or not it doesn't matter if you're not willing to consider the possibilities. 

What possibilities you might be asking?  Well first ask yourself if such an existance were real, what evidences would you "LOGICALLY" need to see?

yes in your mind.  If you're happy there, that's fine with me.  If you want to have a serious discussion that might push you out of your happy place, let me know.

I have been open to anything you would like to present to me, so why am I still a believer.  Be it that I'm open to all of it, it can't be on my side here. 

BTW, what am I protesting other than you not being able to think rationally?  I don't make that claim about many on here.  Most do seem to think rationally on here.  You decided that because you're so right, logic doesn't need a place in your defense. 

Meanwhile, I'm still playing the game and you keep trying to claim checkmate when you haven't even moved a peice yet. 

...or you just brighten my day with the lack of even an attempt at logical thinking and others on here actually challenge my understanding and have helped me learn more about what I'm following.  Much to your dismay, they've helped me strengthen my walk.

and I'll keep playing along until you want to start the game.

speaking of logical thinking... would your. 'ever-so-logical' approach work on you? 

To answer an earlier question, you are more religious than I.  Were you a Jehovah's Witness before this?

Looking into the culture of the time and how people normally looked in that time period along with the expectations of genders and the beliefs of the time, Jesus would not logically have long hair.   It's an emperical historical conclusion.

I won't disagree with you there.  It was anger, people have torn places apart out of anger.  Maybe you wouldn't do that, but I'm willing to bet that if Jesus had come in today's world, there would be such mayhem from him if he wasn't arrested yet. 

Also, Jesus from what I understand wasn't a "normal human being".

Why is "church" such a poor choice?  The definition of what a church is and what you see a church being in our world today are vastly different.  Look it up.

From what I understand, every business would have the right to display the nativity scene.  If they're using it to attract customers, then I believe Jesus' point is that they shouldn't because that's not what he's about.  It'd be like any business using any religious image to attract customers. 

Thank you Shirlock for figuring that out for me.  The question is, is the symbol appropriate for the advertisement?  Would it be appropriate for me to use the American Flag in a foreign country to promote raceism or genocide assuming it's not frowned upon in that culture?

Are we starting to bring this beyond what's there?

yea, we are.  Did Jesus say to never sell those items or did he say not to sell them in his father's house?

Sure, but is empathy what I"m looking for?

Where do you get denying marketing from Jesus getting upset with people selling stuff in a church/temple/holy building, whatever you want to call it? 

Are you saying that if I tried to sell cotton candy at a funeral service and people were offended, that they're saying marketing in general is bad and that I should never sell cotton candy anywhere at any time?

I do believe greed is not appropriate in marketing.  Now a goal for success and greed are 2 majorly different things

If that's how you want to see it.  By the way, the whole "tortured forever" thing is beyond scripture.  People take the lake of fire as God throwing people into hell on judgement day.  A careful reading of English scripture says that Hell will even be thrown into this lake of fire.  Are we saying that Hell will be thrown into Hell?  Sure, why not while we're avoiding logic for the moment. 

How about that lake of fire?  Hell by our understanding is nowhere to be seen in the Greek or Hebrew which is our only sources for legitimate translation of the Bible, therefore where does it comes from?  According to you it must be true to our belief because Brian37 says so. 

The best explanation from the original languages we can come up with at this point in time is that "hell" as is defined is literally separation from God.  Whether that's torturous or just plain absense of existance or whether you are suffering at all is completely unknown.  but it is understood as separation.  If you choose to be separate from God, then God will be separate from you. 

Many have concluded that separation from God could be torturous if you're existing that way because God is love and good and absense of God is living without love or good.  This of course is only assumption.  People trying to make sense out of an unknown existance.  I'm sure it's that conclusion that eventually spawned the "burn in Hell" doctern. 

sure

riiiiiight.....

quote it please and please give me the Bible version as well.

ok, We'll talk about this.  Just quote for me where you're referencing with the version you're using.  thank you for that input.

you didn't answer my question.  which "historians" come to this "empirical" conclusion?  if it's just "you," then say so.  don't say "historians."  and just how do you know how semitic peoples looked back then?  they weren't typically depicted in any artwork, especially since the jews of that time traditionally abhorred making images of anything.  even the earliest portraits of christ are thoroughly hellenized or latinized.  i mean, if this is such an "empirical" conclusion, then it should be demonstrable in some way.  other than producing portraits of first century jews, i don't see how you can demonstrate it.  at least cite a source.

i don't have to look it up, hoss, i studied it for four years and i've kept up with the literature in the subsequent 5 years.  please enlighten me as to what your definition of "church" is.  i've encountered many, but i've never encountered one that describes it as a place whose inner premises are forbidden to all but a class of priests, where animal sacrifices take place, and where public treasures are stored.  that's a temple, not just in the jewish sense but in the general sense of temples at that time, of which the herodian temple was a typical example.  there's also the fact that the herodian temple has never been referred to as a "church" in any scripture, christian or jewish, nor in any extrabiblical literature i have ever encountered, devotional or scholarly.  so just for the sake of clarity, it's a poor choice.

At least you have a sense of humor.

The only FACT about Jesus is that people claim he existed. Debatable at best and even IF, it would still not constitute the magic tricks claimed in the bible being possible or immaterial beings with no brain or body or neurons.

You merely bought a claim that appealed to you and now you are doing everything within your imagination to justify it. You are not doing anything differently than fans of Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu. You merely fell for the emotional appeal of having a hero.