|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Apr 7, 2011 14:44:04 GMT -5
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That's the one thing in all the hundreds of pages of these type threads that gets avoided is the proof or examples. I know Bob P. stated a few personal things that he believed to prove the existence of God. Let's hear it from all the believers (in your own words  ). If you say you have a personal relationship with God, how do you KNOW you're not talking to yourself? We've stated that we don't know/believe because it can't be proven, so how can you believe in something that can't be proven? I'm honestly curious, and please try and avoid side-stepping the question with the whole faith this and faith that stuff. With something as important as one's soul, you'd think you'd bank it's judgement on more than just hearsay. ;D That is a fair question about who is speaking. When God speaks He speaks His Word. I was not always preacher John. I used to be drug dealer John, giving myself plenty of advice. You can probably imagine how that worked out. When I do as God says, it always works. It might not work out how I would like it to  but always what is best for me in the end. The other way is usually always worked to my immediate liking, but was a train wreck in the end. The thing is we have to do it completely His way or we just make a worse mess than before. There is where many have trouble. we want following God to be a democracy and that just doesn't work  WE are either going to believe that He loves us and trust that He probably knows better or not I appreciate your answer. Let me try and make sense of this. So in a nutshell, because you were in a bad way at one time without God and now are better with God, that is your base for your belief? Couldn't it be that you wised up on your own? You should give yourself more credit. |
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Apr 7, 2011 14:53:02 GMT -5
Can those of us that are willing to discuss the subject openly get back to a non religious discussion about the creation of mankind.... if one's faith is in GOD through a religion then does it mean that he-she can not use the guidance of his-her faith to express his-her thoughts? creation of mankind? since the word is "creation" then there needs to be a maker,correct? and if there is a GOD then we are supposed to create HIM by thinking and discussing or GOD should have informed us about HIMSELF? if there is a GOD then there needs to be a message from HIM and this is why majority of the believers have religion to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Laton on Apr 7, 2011 14:54:53 GMT -5
To answer your question Rick about the change in Scientific evidence of dating. If it was shown that the most probable solution/cause of the Grand Canyon based on the "new evidence of dating" might have been cause by a flood considering the timeline, then of course it would change people's beliefs. That's the thing about Science is it's ALWAYS changing and evolving with more and more data and innovations. Nothing (aside from Laws) is written in stone. Everything is up for questioning, that's the beauty of it. That is what I believe is the major difference with the believers and non-believers. The believers "somehow" chose not to question their religion, while the non-believers choose to always question. This is one of the answers that I have been looking for. I was hoping that someone would admit that it would in fact change their thinking. You made a great point. Science is constantly changing as we learn more and more. But to be totally honest, it very rarely backs up it's earlier findings. It more often than not, changes to a NEW way of thinking. To me personally, this just proves that they really DON'T KNOW. I can't make myself believe that everything in science is true because of this. I can't personally make myself believe that this world and all the things in it were random acts of ANYTHING. I think that is why I cannot sink myself into science because they are also dogmatic in the fact that they have the answer and I just can't go for the random acts putting us here. Throw out everything else that we know. Taking the two options that I have at this point: Creation versus Big Bang (Evolution) I have to go with Creation. From as far back as we can trace, people have been saying that their was a God who created us. From the form of GOD that I personally believe in (Holy Bible), of all of the far fetched thing that it has in it, NONE of them have been DISPROVED, but many of these crazy things have actually been proven. Again, NONE of them have actually been PHYSICALLY PROVEN NOT TO HAPPEN. Just the same as I CAN'T PHYSICALLY PROVE the existence of God. I'll say it again. I know that "GOD" doesn't make sense to you. Forget everything that you know or have heard for this one question. Does it really make more sense to you that we came out of chaos or that we came out of a purpose. Does it really seem more likely to you that it is all just a coincidence? A yes or no answer on this last one will work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Laton on Apr 7, 2011 14:55:59 GMT -5
Obviously we aren't going to get a DNA sample.... So what is your criteria for evidence within reason. Is not logic enough? I honestly came to know Christ as a logical analysis. Which lead to a great revelation. I'm talking you personally. So what is/was your great revelation? Was this your own personal proof that made you a big time believer? Sounds good to me. Let me get my thoughts together on this one before I start. I need to make a living sometime this week! |
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Apr 7, 2011 14:56:15 GMT -5
there is a god but he never contacted us to inform why he created us? then you are talking about chaos.it is same as telling your children to go to school and let them do whatever they want and expect them to become educated adults.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Apr 7, 2011 15:04:30 GMT -5
John Parton and millions like him.
That is my logical revelation and physical proof.
It is not part of his make up to change from one
Person to another.
Like a caterpillar to a butterfly.
Johns transformation is not a natural occurrence in any species whatsoever.
A bear never has a revelation that he's a mean bear and changes his ways.
And humans would never "change" without that divine intervention.
Sure humans can change certain habits. But not the whole make up of their person.
It is simple proof and evidence that he went to the source of his creation and asked to be created as new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Apr 7, 2011 15:10:56 GMT -5
I'll say it again. I know that "GOD" doesn't make sense to you. Forget everything that you know or have heard for this one question. Does it really make more sense to you that we came out of chaos or that we came out of a purpose. Does it really seem more likely to you that it is all just a coincidence? A yes or no answer on this last one will work for me. For me personally, I choose to say I don't know as opposed to saying definitely yes or no. To me, both THEORIES have holes and need be questioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon Berriochoa on Apr 7, 2011 15:13:11 GMT -5
There cannot be any question that man has evolved, the question is to what extent has man evolved, let's not confuse evolution with the often maligned comment that man came from monkeys.
Let's simplify this Rick, if we were to say that the old science never existed, and for always and forever people believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Where does that put us?
The debate still rages correct? the creationist side could say that despite the genetic evidence to the contrary fully evolved humans were placed here to populate the earth, at some point they were virtually all wiped out and the few remaining repopulated the earth.
The evolutionist could still claim that a creature was spawned at the start and evolved into our current form, the remains of early hominids and bipeds certainly point to a process of evolution, as does the known history of the earth which shows a wide array of creatures that have lived and become extinct giving way to more adaptive animals along the original lines.
It is really not a matter of not considering your point per say I am forced to do so as I live in mine. Certainly given the much shorter period of time it speaks more strongly to divinity. If we take the above scenario, let's consider two possible options realizing that not having billions of years to get to where we are now seems to call for a bit of magic.
One, god created Adam and Eve they populated the entire earth, then Noah and his son's repopulated the earth after collecting a boat full of paired animals on a 512 by 437 ft boat of about 1.5 million cubic feet. Noah started building the ark at the age of 480 and completed it by the time of the flood at the age of 600 sourced as taking place in 967 BC. Somehow since then we have been able to completely repopulate the earth as well as run the entire life cycle of some species of animals. Has anyone ever calculated how many generations of offspring it would take to repopulate the earth to todays levels from Noah and his sons?
Two, god created a fairly widespread world and creatures that were able to quickly evolve into modern humans and animals at an accelerated rate, we have subsequently evolved in concert with the earth and its animals, (sure the yellow river flooded and killed a great many people near it) sure maybe as the earth has evolved giant Tsunamis have at times flooded and even submerged areas of land mass that were once above water, however the entire populous grew from a mass of variant evolving creatures, (explains how humans look so very different in various regions because they evolved differently) but they were never wiped out, they simply made strides and suffered chaos in their growth to get where we are now.
Given the two choices down the divine path, is it more logical to believe in the biblical or in the concept of evolution by intelligent design?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Apr 7, 2011 15:13:40 GMT -5
John Parton and millions like him. That is my logical revelation and physical proof. It is not part of his make up to change from one Person to another. Like a caterpillar to a butterfly. Johns transformation is not a natural occurrence in any species whatsoever. A bear never has a revelation that he's a mean bear and changes his ways. And humans would never "change" without that divine intervention. Sure humans can change certain habits. But not the whole make up of their person. It is simple proof and evidence that he went to the source of his creation and asked to be created as new. So your evidence is that humans are self aware and have a conscience? |
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Apr 7, 2011 16:16:37 GMT -5
what i believe is that the flood was regional,not global.so given only two choices and limiting the options, is coming from someone who is talking about having open minded discussion;
"But they denied him so We rescued him, and all those with him, in the Ark and We made them the successors and We drowned the people who denied Our Signs. See the final fate of those who were warned!" (Surah Yunus: 73)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Apr 7, 2011 17:44:33 GMT -5
So your evidence is that humans are self aware and have a conscience? Eh... It was a quick response... Lol But I was leaning more towards the fact of the evidence of divine intervention. |
|
|
|
Post by Karen Bean on Apr 7, 2011 19:09:24 GMT -5
So your evidence is that humans are self aware and have a conscience? Eh... It was a quick response... Lol But I was leaning more towards the fact of the evidence of divine intervention. You lost me. Where is the "fact of the evidence of divine intervention"? |
|
|
|
Post by Karen Bean on Apr 7, 2011 19:23:33 GMT -5
To answer your question Rick about the change in Scientific evidence of dating. If it was shown that the most probable solution/cause of the Grand Canyon based on the "new evidence of dating" might have been cause by a flood considering the timeline, then of course it would change people's beliefs. That's the thing about Science is it's ALWAYS changing and evolving with more and more data and innovations. Nothing (aside from Laws) is written in stone. Everything is up for questioning, that's the beauty of it. That is what I believe is the major difference with the believers and non-believers. The believers "somehow" chose not to question their religion, while the non-believers choose to always question. This is one of the answers that I have been looking for. I was hoping that someone would admit that it would in fact change their thinking. You made a great point. Science is constantly changing as we learn more and more. But to be totally honest, it very rarely backs up it's earlier findings. It more often than not, changes to a NEW way of thinking. To me personally, this just proves that they really DON'T KNOW. I can't make myself believe that everything in science is true because of this. I can't personally make myself believe that this world and all the things in it were random acts of ANYTHING. I think that is why I cannot sink myself into science because they are also dogmatic in the fact that they have the answer and I just can't go for the random acts putting us here. Throw out everything else that we know. Taking the two options that I have at this point: Creation versus Big Bang (Evolution) I have to go with Creation. From as far back as we can trace, people have been saying that their was a God who created us. From the form of GOD that I personally believe in (Holy Bible), of all of the far fetched thing that it has in it, NONE of them have been DISPROVED, but many of these crazy things have actually been proven. Again, NONE of them have actually been PHYSICALLY PROVEN NOT TO HAPPEN. Just the same as I CAN'T PHYSICALLY PROVE the existence of God. I'll say it again. I know that "GOD" doesn't make sense to you. Forget everything that you know or have heard for this one question. Does it really make more sense to you that we came out of chaos or that we came out of a purpose. Does it really seem more likely to you that it is all just a coincidence? A yes or no answer on this last one will work for me. Rick, let me ask you this. Can it possibly just be easier for some to believe in God due to the fact that they're simply sheep that are thoroughly content to blindly follow? Asking questions, seeking answers, delving into subjects where one is totally lost intellectually would, I believe, create a huge dilemma and, as a result, one would simply give up and take the easy road, per se. Let me use an example. As you well know, we moved from Texas to Tennessee 18 years ago. There are many things that are completely different than what we were used to and what we knew. Best example - in Texas, the word "y'all" is used. Now y'all is easy - it's a contraction made up of two words - you and all. Here in the beautiful Smoky Mountains they don't say y'all they say "yuns" (and that's the best spelling I can give it). Yuns is a combination of -------- no one seems to have a clue! 18 years we have asked the good folks of east Tennessee what yuns means and there has not been a single solitary one that can give us an answer. Now, if we were simply followers, we would of course pick up on the dialect of east TN and join right in. We however questioned because we did not understand. We have yet to receive a definitive answer, therefore - we do not believe in "yuns". That may be a stretch of an example, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Apr 7, 2011 19:40:40 GMT -5
Eh... It was a quick response... Lol But I was leaning more towards the fact of the evidence of divine intervention. You lost me. Where is the "fact of the evidence of divine intervention"? The evidence is John and millions like him were completely changed people. Credited solely to Divine intervention. An individual personal eye witness testimony is admissible in court. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Apr 7, 2011 19:41:43 GMT -5
The question beyond that is, is that enough evidence for you?
Maybe, maybe not. But it is admissible evidence.
|
|
). If you say you have a personal relationship with God, how do you KNOW you're not talking to yourself? We've stated that we don't know/believe because it can't be proven, so how can you believe in something that can't be proven?
but always what is best for me in the end. The other way is usually always worked to my immediate liking, but was a train wreck in the end. The thing is we have to do it completely His way or we just make a worse mess than before. There is where many have trouble. we want following God to be a democracy and that just doesn't work 
WE are either going to believe that He loves us and trust that He probably knows better or not 
