Question for Christians #2

clax · Jan 9, 2012

David said:
I'm with Patrick on the blind faith bit. I had my poof (and if it was tangible I'd share it) but I find myself agreeing with atheists more often then not because faith for the sake of faith is just stupid. A test without questions, hints and/or a few pre-answered questions to give you an idea of what kind of test it is isn't a test. It's a guessing game. A meaningful life can't be based on what amounts to a game of 'What number am I thinking of?'.

sadly, I cannot share my proof, it is not tangable, and any attempt I make to duplicate it is futile. If I could share it with everyone on this world I would pay any price to do so. My proof was an experiance, a rather dark one I still don't know how I survived it.

If you would like to hear of this experiance, let me know by posting and asking to hear it. It is really personal and I will share only if you are interested.

However it will not offer any proof for you, but perhaps the theists and non-theists can find that we are not so different

Patrick · Jan 9, 2012

clax said:
first my proof of course it is esoterric and personal, God spoke to me. I can not prove that to you, because he spoke to me. Like I said it was personal proof.

There's no such thing as personal proof. Proof is something whereby someone can demonstrate to another person or persons that something is true.

The reason faith is nessacary is because through struggle comes wisdom. Ever heard the statement "if it was easy everybody would do it." Its hard to explain to someone outside of faith. Whatever the reason, that is the way it is, very similar to all things in life if you want this career you have to study at that school. Why? If that is the impass you face, it would be best to let that go and struggle through or become atheist.

Sorry, I know its hard but that is just the way it is.

Someone could say the same things who believed in islam, yet both christianity and islam can't be true, since they contradict each other.

clax · Jan 9, 2012

Patrick said:
There's no such thing as personal proof. Proof is something whereby someone can demonstrate to another person or persons that something is true.

Someone could say the same things who believed in islam, yet both christianity and islam can't be true, since they contradict each other.

christianity and islam are religions created by man, there for flawed, that is why in very few places they contadict eachother. God speaks to people in different ways. Christianity only differs from islam in minor aspects. Unless it tells people to hate everybody, kill all people, steal everything, sleep with everybodys wife, covet things, take false gods, and so on. To my understanding it dose not therefor it is not in direct opposition to christianity. The only people who are in direct oppisition of christianity that I know of is satanism.

You can have personal proof. if something has been proven to you and no one else and you lack the tools nessacary to prove it to others then you are the only one who knows. That is the concept behind secrecy. If proof was universal all people would know all things.

clax · Jan 9, 2012

Without a leap of faith on your part I can't explain it. And what a leap of faith means is changing your mind. I was once atheist, and life forced me to change my mind. Just like to become atheist I would have to change my mind, but to go from the mindset that I do not know everything about the uninivers to the idea that nothing exists that all people are not privy to, is not hard at all.

It reqires faith because it dose, that is all there is to it. And if you think it is faith for faiths sake or fairy tales and so on, you will never understand. Until you accept that things can exist with no earthly proof you will be stuck in the darkness you are currently in.

I don't blame people for not having faith, its difficult, it took me loosing everything I had worked for and falling into despair. Without hope I would have never gotten out of it. Hope flies in the face of the world and the notion that you are alone.

What would have knowing that God didn't exist and hope is futile have done for me.

I have faith in spite of "so called fact" but not really because there is no proof eitherway on Gods existance, I choose the more difficult path. No things worth having come easy.

If that perplexes you, you have never been in a place where all you have is hope, so I don't expect you to understand.

clax · Jan 9, 2012

Something I find true with people is that they are capable of so much. Wisdom is knowledge applied to experiance. The only way you recive wisdom is by having knowledge and experiancing life. You are asking me to give you wisdom is a good move. But you have to experiance life to gain wisdom. And if all of what you know is what other people have struggled to prove in spite of naysayerd. You are missing a great part of human experiance.

No matter what you have against my faith, you will never pry it from me, nothing worldly or otherworldly will have any impact on my faith. Dose this mean I am uncomprimising, yes, hardheaded, yes. But people who are are stronger than those who don't.

If I found proof that evolution didn't occur, would you accept it, if so your beliefs are weak and you are easily manipulated.

All proof is is data that people agree with, based on science created by man, and language invented spacificly to prove such a point where other likeminded people will agree. I submit all that you know is based on what you are told by people who you view as more intellegnt than you. And if someone disagrees with the entire primis and offers another the entire apperatus in which was used is deemed null and void.

Proove anything without using human perception, and if you use human perseption I question your proof

Patrick · Jan 9, 2012

clax said:
christianity and islam are religions created by man, there for flawed, that is why in very few places they contadict eachother. God speaks to people in different ways. Christianity only differs from islam in minor aspects. Unless it tells people to hate everybody, kill all people, steal everything, sleep with everybodys wife, covet things, take false gods, and so on. To my understanding it dose not therefor it is not in direct opposition to christianity. The only people who are in direct oppisition of christianity that I know of is satanism.

OK - I'll play your game. Hinduism posits a whole array of gods, including Ganesh the Elephant God. Does an Elephant God contradict christianity? Come onnnnnnnnnn - quit it.

You can have personal proof. if something has been proven to you and no one else and you lack the tools nessacary to prove it to others then you are the only one who knows. That is the concept behind secrecy. If proof was universal all people would know all things.

This is the problem I have trying to discuss religion with religious people - they come up with novel meaningless phrases like "personal proof". Would "personal proof" be accepted by your math teacher? Nooooooooo. Would "personal proof" be accepted in a courtroom criminal trial? Nooooooo. Because there's no such thing.

myp · Jan 9, 2012

Patrick said:
OK - I'll play your game. Hinduism posits a whole array of gods, including Ganesh the Elephant God. Does an Elephant God contradict christianity? Come onnnnnnnnnn - quit it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but Hinduism is not the best religion to do it with. There is an accepted agnostic component to it- it is also a monotheistic religion with the different gods being mere forms or symbols on the one true god.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

Patrick said:
OK - I'll play your game. Hinduism posits a whole array of gods, including Ganesh the Elephant God. Does an Elephant God contradict christianity? Come onnnnnnnnnn - quit it.

You are playing the game, I am trying to explain a concept. I am saying christianity and hinduisms differences are incadental and unimportant. Even the christian God has three manifestations, could Ganesh, and sheva be two manifestatons of the same concept of god, and if not why? And how could you know.

Patrick said:
This is the problem I have trying to discuss religion with religious people - they come up with novel meaningless phrases like "personal proof". Would "personal proof" be accepted by your math teacher? Nooooooooo. Would "personal proof" be accepted in a courtroom criminal trial? Nooooooo. Because there's no such thing.

I really don't care what a math teacher or a judge in a cloak says, are these people your god, why do their rigors of proof matter in the least to you.

You are saying you can't know something without a judges approval, and you condesend to me?

Let me put it to you this way, I know God, he spoke to me. No judge, teacher, or any other secular profit will take that from me, nor will they be able to prove otherwise.

Here is an example everybody can understand.

Do you know for a fact that you get hungry?, if so can you prove that to a jury that you were hungry?, how so?. And if you can prove that, prove that I was or was not hungry two years ago when I said I was.

If you don't accept you know things that have no proof to someone else, you are a complete imbecile, that means you need a court to tell you if you are in love, or tired, or hungry. And if you know things then they are facts. It is a fact that my scalp itches, but I can't prove that to you.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

myp said:
I understand the point you are trying to make, but Hinduism is not the best religion to do it with. There is an accepted agnostic component to it- it is also a monotheistic religion with the different gods being mere forms or symbols on the one true god.

if you know what point he is trying to make, please explain it to me, not trying to be a jerk, but I don't think he articulated it well.

What I get from this statement is that he truly has not the slightest grasp of faith.

Again I am not trying to be a jerk, but this statement is one I can not decipher.

Patrick · Jan 10, 2012

clax said:
You are playing the game, I am trying to explain a concept. I am saying christianity and hinduisms differences are incadental and unimportant. Even the christian God has three manifestations, could Ganesh, and sheva be two manifestatons of the same concept of god, and if not why? And how could you know.

I really don't care what a math teacher or a judge in a cloak says, are these people your god, why do their rigors of proof matter in the least to you.

You are saying you can't know something without a judges approval, and you condesend to me?

Let me put it to you this way, I know God, he spoke to me. No judge, teacher, or any other secular profit will take that from me, nor will they be able to prove otherwise.

Here is an example everybody can understand.

Do you know for a fact that you get hungry?, if so can you prove that to a jury that you were hungry?, how so?. And if you can prove that, prove that I was or was not hungry two years ago when I said I was.

If you don't accept you know things that have no proof to someone else, you are a complete imbecile, that means you need a court to tell you if you are in love, or tired, or hungry. And if you know things then they are facts. It is a fact that my scalp itches, but I can't prove that to you.

You're offering a lot of subjective experiences that nobody would offer as proveable facts in any context, for the very reason that they can't be proven. If they said "I was hungry", and someone asked for proof they were hungry, it would be meaningless for them to say "I have personal proof". In fact, they DON'T have proof. Once again, proof means that which convinces other people of the truth of a proposition by providing sufficient manifest objective fact-based evidence.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

Patrick said:
You're offering a lot of subjective experiences that nobody would offer as proveable facts in any context, for the very reason that they can't be proven. If they said "I was hungry", and someone asked for proof they were hungry, it would be meaningless for them to say "I have personal proof". In fact, they DON'T have proof. Once again, proof means that which convinces other people of the truth of a proposition by providing sufficient manifest objective fact-based evidence.

that was my point from the beginning,proof exists only when you can convence others. It is not based in fact its about howmany people you can get to buy what you say.

My faith is meaningless to you, how on earth would it ever mean something to you unless you take intrest.

In this thread you don't take interest, you have argued against every point I made. But you asked a question of christians, already with a conclusion. Why, if you have a conclusion why bother? Unless you just sought disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Or you thought you could lead me into your religion.

I now question your motives and princaples.

myp · Jan 10, 2012

clax said:
proof exists only when you can convence others.

That is simply not true. Convincing others is not inherent to proof. When Galileo or Copernicus wrote that they believed the Earth was not the center of the universe due to some experimental proof or data, they were still right despite the fact that the Catholic Church and most common people did not believe them.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

Patrick said:
You're offering a lot of subjective experiences that nobody would offer as proveable facts in any context, for the very reason that they can't be proven. If they said "I was hungry", and someone asked for proof they were hungry, it would be meaningless for them to say "I have personal proof". In fact, they DON'T have proof. Once again, proof means that which convinces other people of the truth of a proposition by providing sufficient manifest objective fact-based evidence.

All that we know is through experiance, and all experiance is subjective, if you don't read or learn or observe or experiance anything you know nothing. If you convence others of something dosent really mean youev proved anything. Lots of people see evidence of a deity, hindu, buddists, islamic, and christian-jewish people outnumber atheists I imagine over 100 to 1. So because they are convencied of a deity there has to be proof right.

Or dose proof exist in a different way, is proof not what people agree on it to be, but is so nomatter who agrees.

other wise truth is subjective and meaningless.

Patrick · Jan 10, 2012

myp said:
That is simply not true. Convincing others is not inherent to proof. When Galileo or Copernicus wrote that they believed the Earth was not the center of the universe due to some experimental proof or data, they were still right despite the fact that the Catholic Church and most common people did not believe them.

Is THAT your "REAL BIG POINT"???

OBVIOUSLY my statement presupposes rational persons as the evaluators of the proof.

Patrick · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
All that we know is through experiance, and all experiance is subjective, if you don't read or learn or observe or experiance anything you know nothing. If you convence others of something dosent really mean youev proved anything. Lots of people see evidence of a deity, hindu, buddists, islamic, and christian-jewish people outnumber atheists I imagine over 100 to 1. So because they are convencied of a deity there has to be proof right.

Or dose proof exist in a different way, is proof not what people agree on it to be, but is so nomatter who agrees.

other wise truth is subjective and meaningless.

I said convinced people ON THE BASIC OF OBJECTIVE FACT.
Your problem is that you keep trying to pound the square peg of subjective experience into the round hole of proof - it just won't work.

clax · Jan 11, 2012

I am suggesting there is no objective fact, all things are perception of expireiance. You couldn't have fact unless you had another person to prove it to.

Perception is reality, you can't order someone to precive reality yhe same way you do. Otherwise there would never be disagreement on anything whatsoever.

Some day you will learn to accept the notion that perception is reality. Until that day we are at an impass.

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
That is simply not true. Convincing others is not inherent to proof. When Galileo or Copernicus wrote that they believed the Earth was not the center of the universe due to some experimental proof or data, they were still right despite the fact that the Catholic Church and most common people did not believe them.

how do you know earth is not the center of the universe? What proof exists

myp · Jan 11, 2012

Patrick said:
Is THAT your "REAL BIG POINT"???

OBVIOUSLY my statement presupposes rational persons as the evaluators of the proof.

I was clearly responding to clax's post (hence why I quoted it) and not yours...

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
how do you know earth is not the center of the universe? What proof exists

Wow you are ridiculous. I suppose you think evolution does not occur either? Have fun living in your ignorant alternative and fake reality. Even the church accepts we are not the center of the universe.

clax · Jan 11, 2012

myp said:
Wow you are ridiculous. I suppose you think evolution does not occur either? Have fun living in your ignorant alternative and fake reality. Even the church accepts we are not the center of the universe.

You are the one who is arrogant and ignorant, of course evolution happens, but you assume you know the entirity of the universe, where are the eadges have you seen all that is.

I am humble because I submit that I know very little based on the entirity of human expirance.

You know earth is not the center of the universe, what is?

Proove it

Question for Christians #2

Similar threads