by Christ Alone 295 Replies latest jw friends
I know you don't accept the Bible, but according to the gospels that was not enough to convince the Jews watching Jesus do it on command.
That's the point - it never really happened.
google Guru Sri Baba and see how much incredible eye-witness testimony there is to amaing miracles. Eye witness testimony is worth very little.
But your OWN eyewitness testimony would be enough?
Let's not let this get into the same old same old debate of atheism vs belief.
Nobody has to abide by your rules, but you abandon them yourself to preach your belief:
I know you don't accept the Bible, but according to the gospels that was not enough to convince the Jews watching Jesus do it on command.
Only because you answer with your own preaching, will I do the same. "According to the gospels." Which gospels? The 4 that the church picked from many? You mean the ones written by unknown authors at least decades after the events they supposedly record?
You see how this sidetracks everything? You scoff at people who want proof, stating that such proof wasn't enough back in the day, when you have no proof that your proof was ever real.
I might as well say "I know you don't accept the Harry Potter books, but according to them, magic exists."
Christ Alone: Good questions. Fair enough. Let's get a little more specific. When I look around the world, from my limited vantage point, I see no evidence of an all-powerful god who has a personal interest in me. (The flipside of this is that I also see no persuasive evidence of there being a negative consequence for getting this wrong. If, for even a brief moment I could fathom an eternal punishment, I would begin attending church services immediately. I'm a pragmatist.) The way everything has unfolded -- so far -- leads me to conclude that I'm lucky to have been born in the first place. Further, if god is out there, she (1) delights in my suffering, (2) is deliberately hiding herself from me, and (3) the worst communicator the universe has ever known.
So, when I say, "not much", it's because when I weigh my evidence, the god basket is completely empty and the Naturalism basket is running over.
Admittedly, none of that explains why the Universe is here. I have no idea why the Universe is here.
Oh, let me answer for my own eyewitness testimony.
I would have to know what that testimony is, and whether the eyewitnessing was shared by others or just me. If just me, I would have to subject myself to psychological testing. If a group, I still might contact THE AMAZING RANDI or others that can use trickery and have them try to reproduce the event in some flashy way.
But if all the world was suddenly cured of cancer and a huge note in skywriting could be seen in all parts of the world and read in the language of the reader, and the the note said "You are welcome for the cure for cancer, signed God," well then.... I might have to concede that this fellow exists.
OTWO, you've got me wrong here. I'm not scoffing at anyone. I'm wishing to understand all ya'lls position.
You know that I was referring to the 4 gospels. But it would be no different in any of the gnostic gospels. People rejected Jesus. That's a fact. Even if you only go by what you know from outside secular history, people rejected Jesus. Christians were killed as heretics and followers of a cult.
I'm not demanding proof. I'm wishing to understand when the atheist says, "I would believe in God if I had proof." Well what does that "proof" look like. Cofty didn't misunderstand my point. And gave me a direct answer.
I'm saying that in MY MIND, I could very easily see any "proof" as being rejected by the majority of atheists. Yes, this is only an assumption. But according to my worldview and what I personally view as authoritative (the Bible) this has happened.
And IF these "miracles" of Guru Sri Baba are real, then they are being rejected too. I know nothing about this fella, so I'd probably reject them too. But they are rejected non the less as proof of nothing. It makes sense that the miracles of Jesus would be the same.
An agnostic reserves judgement because they think the answer can't be known.....Cofty
Good Afternoon Cofty!..
As an Agnostic..
I don`t think the answer can`t be known..
I simply admit I don`t know and evidence may or may not present itself..
Your right I do reserve Judgement..
An Atheist doesn`t..
Thats 1 thing I learned in my conversations with you,about your beliefs.
I have a better understanding now,about the differences in our beliefs..
They are not the same at all..
Although they may look like it on the surface..
.....................
...OUTLAW
agnostic/weak atheist
You know that I was referring to the 4 gospels.
Yes, I assumed you were sticking with the narrowminded view that there are only 4 gospels, but to give you the benefit of the doubt that you might not be, I asked.
People rejected Jesus. That's a fact.
People rejected a legend called Jesus. That's the only fact that history can corroberate. What's written about anyone rejecting a real Jesus cannot be stated as fact since even his existence is not corroberated. The people who rejected him, despite others dying for their belief, did not necessary see any more proof than people today see.
I'm not demanding proof. I'm wishing to understand when the atheist says, "I would believe in God if I had proof." Well what does that "proof" look like.
Are crop circles in England proof that aliens traveled light years with incredible technology and played some kind of joke on people? Is it proof that the universe is more interested in Britain than in the rest of earth, kind of like a Doctor Who show? I think answers vary because we don't know what kind of actual proof would suffice. I did a good job of answering. Further on that, a voice or a vision or some huge coincidence limited to a single person or group of people, something that really doesn't benefit mankind, would not do for me. I would hope that "God" could offer something to all mankind as proof of his existence.
I'm saying that in MY MIND, I could very easily see any "proof" as being rejected by the majority of atheists. Yes, this is only an assumption. But according to my worldview and what I personally view as authoritative (the Bible) this has happened.
So many people will be forced to deal with whether our writings or movies were based on facts thousands of years from now, if a continous history is lost to mankind and only remnants remain. Especially tricky will be "mockumentaries," (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary ) which might actually be close to what Bible writings were. Maybe a better analogy would be that they were fables, folklore, morality lessons not to be taken literally. It seems that the eastern world has this- the story of the Buddha.
And IF these "miracles" of Guru Sri Baba are real, then they are being rejected too. I know nothing about this fella, so I'd probably reject them too. But they are rejected non the less as proof of nothing. It makes sense that the miracles of Jesus would be the same.
Okay then.
OTWO, that was my very point. There is very little that will convince an atheist. It would be an appearing in the sky of a note that says God cured cancer. Even then I could imagine skeptics.
Even after witnessing these things you would undergo psych testing to see if you were delusional.
So, my main point is: There is almost NOTHING that will convince an atheist of God's existance. So simply saying "I would believe in God if there was proof" is a bit of an understatment.
