Can you prove the existence of God?

By AERYCK on March 29, 2012 8:06:40 PM from

AERYCK

Join Date 01/2005

Today is a very special day for me.

Why? Well, I've come to the end of a seven year journey of trolling internet forums engaging in countless discussions about God and in particular the topic of Christian Apologetics.

This post will be a gradual assembly post, to which I shall add bits and pieces of discussions that I've had with many very clever and some not so clever folks.

Not all the bits and pieces will be from the actual discussions. Some of them will be from books I've read, lectures I've listened to as well as music, poetry and Oriental writings. As a matter of fact, it's going to be a regular smorgasbord of delights. You are most welcome to leave your berries, pearls, one-liners and wisecracks, plus any insightful comments in the appropriate space provided at the end of this page.

For starters, I'm considering a question that my son asked a panel of smarties on the 15.09.2005.

The post title was: "Can you prove the existence of God?"

The post read: 'I was approached recently by a friend who asked me how to prove the existence of God without using the Bible. Can you help?'

Have fun.

Peace,

Eric

+)(+

1. Here's something to nibble on. The following site has certainly grown, in fact it has changed. It used to be called "apollos", I suspect it was named after 'Saint Apollos (Ἀπολλώς; contracted from Apollonius) an apostle who was also a 1st century Alexandrian Jewish Christian mentioned several times in the New Testament' It's now called "Last Seminary" Though there is certainly a wholesome collection to read, I was immediately attracted to the Philosophy of Religion Articles.

2. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Moral Argument' at "Last Seminary" and another by C.S Lewis might suffice.

a. The Argument From Conscience by Peter Kreeft

Excerpt:

"The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Like all arguments for the existence of God, this one proves only a small part of what we know God to be by divine revelation. But this part is significantly more than the arguments from nature reveal about God because this argument has richer data, a richer starting point."

'And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.'

From: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

3. Awareness of God by Illtyd Trethowan is one of several papers (in pdf. format) under the heading 'Religious Experience' at "Last Seminary"

Excerpt:

"The belief that God is present to the human mind (or soul) and can be found there is part of the Christian tradition. Many Christian philosophers seem to regard this as the concern only of specially devout persons and of no interest for philosophical purposes. The evidence for it, they think, it too slender to be taken seriously by academic philosophers without particular interest in religion, who tend to regard anything in the nature of religious experience as suspect. So philosophical discussions about religion are usually concerned with rational arguments for and against theism, usually of a technical kind. In this article, I want to suggest that there is another attitude of mind which has become more widely shared as the century has advanced..."

4. Has Religion Evolved ? , Evolution of Morality and Is Human Behavior in the Genes? by Dr. David Lahti ( a series of lectures presented at 'The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion' between July and November 2011.) Also, refer Multi-Media for audio/video recordings of a wide selection of lectures, debates and discussions.)

5. Here are a couple of replies which were presented to my son, in response to his question. (ref: ' my' opening post - above ) The first reply was by a Mormon bishop and the second was an anonymous reply:

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of ill tidings, but it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God from the Bible, or any other book for that matter. Nor is it possible to "prove" the existence of God using reason alone.

I know that there have been some great thinkers who have come up with arguments for the existence of God, but there are brilliant men who have heard those arguments and have been unconvinced.

If you are looking for "evidence" of God, well that's a bit easier. But again, any evidence will not be absolute or unabiguous nor will it be uncontended.

So your friend can't prove the existence of God, but then again, the nonexistence of God can't be proven either.

It boils down to a matter of faith. Do you choose to believe? What are you willing to stake on that belief? How much will be give up for that faith?

Those are the fundamental issues that each person must wrestle with and come to grips with.

You really can't prove that God exists. It's just the most plausable explenation given the universe we live in and the impressions of God on the human mind: an all powerful, all knowing God made everything and can do anything.

I really believe that the question "Can you prove God exists?" is disingenuous most of the time people ask it. There are some people who are trapped in a logical impasse about the existence of God, but I think most are mad at God for the way the world is. I'd ask the person you're talking to, "Suppose you could know for certain that God is real. What would you think of that?" And start the conversation from there.

6. ( Dr. William Lane Craig - Existence of God (ref: Podcasts @ Reasonable Faith) , Prof. Jeff Scholoss = website etc. )

Evolution and Religion - Prof. Jeff Schloss

7. ( Prof. Alvin Plantinga = website , Dr. Michael Sudduth = website etc. )

God, Design and ID - Prof. Kenneth Miller

Science and Religion : Where The Real Conflict Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

God & Evolution: Where the Conflict Really Lies - Professor Alvin Plantinga

What is a properly basic belief? interview with Prof. Alvin Plantinga

Discussing property warrant (in the video) Professor Alvin Plantinga states that , 'A belief has warrant for you if it's produced by cognitive faculties, memory, perception, mathematical, logical, intuition that are functioning properly, not subject to some sort of dysfunctional and the kind of environment they're designed for either by a god or evolution, according to a design plan (so if they're designed they've got a way of working right and a way of working wrong) that's successfully aimed at truth.' ( at 15:40 )

'Belief in God is warranted, only if belief in God is true' Professor Alvin Plantinga.

Science and Religion : Video Discussion at the Veritas Forum : . Alvin Plantinga , Dr. Richard Gale , Dr. Quentin Smith and Dr. William Lane Craig. Wow! Now that's a room full of hothouse flowers.

8. The Extended Mind (pdf) by David Chalmers (Published in Analysis 58:10-23, 1998.) - The Extended Mind Revisited (video: 2009) , David Chalmers on Consciousness , TEDxSydney - David Chalmers - The Extended Mind (video: 2011)

9. Does Evil Disprove God - Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga.

10. The Transcendental and the Transcendent and Pragmatic and Transcendental Arguments for Theism (A Critical Examination ) by Professor Sami Pihlström ( Professor of Practical Philosophy (University of Jyväskylä), Docent of Theoretical Philosophy (University of Helsinki) )

Excerpt 1:

"As an obvious source of relevant examples of transcendental reasoning about the transcendent, I shall consider a particular language-game, or a group of language-games, namely, the religious one(s), and briefly examine two specific problems pertaining to religious language-use, namely, the problem of the existence of God (section 2.1) and the problem of evil (section 2.2). I have chosen to focus (in section 2.1) on a transcendental argument for theism drawn from Charles Taylor’s work, instead of, say, the more explicitly transcendental 'Martin – Frame Debate' on TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God) vs. TANG (the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God)."

Excerpt 2:

"Commenting upon some recent literature on the topic, this paper examines two strategies by means of which one might try to defend theism: (1) a pragmatic(Jamesian) strategy, which focuses on the idea that religious belief has beneficial consequences in the believer’s life, and (2) a transcendental (Kantian) strategy, according to which theism is required as a condition of our self-understanding as ethically oriented creatures. Both strategies are found unsatisfactory, unless synthesized and thus supported by each other. While no argument, either pragmatic or transcendental, can demonstrate the existence of God, a pragmatic transcendental argument might have a legitimate role to play in the philosophy of religion. The problem of relativism arises, however. It is concluded that it remains unclear whether a religious believer could justify her or his beliefs to anyone who does not already share those beliefs."

+)(+

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party (stuff that I thought about but forgot to add)

1. Cornelius Van Till - Biography - Resources by Subject.

2. Dr. William Lane Craig's - Existence of God (audio lectures) at Reasonable Faith.

3. Selflessness and Altruism:

Altruism is a concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of ‘others’ toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a god, a king), or collective (for example, a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is the opposite of egoism.

From: Alruism @ W.O.E

a. Prof. Viktor Frankl

“Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don’t aim at success – the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one’s personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run – in the long-run, I say! – success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it.”

b. Prof. Jeff Schloss

Altruism and Selfless Love : Theistic and Naturalistic Perspectives

Washington University, St. Louis
29 March 2010

‘Evolution might be able to explain biological diversity, but can it explain self-giving love? How do we make sense of altruism in a world of competition? In this Veritas Forum, two perspectives are brought to the table—theistic and naturalistic—both from practicing scientists. Jeffrey Schloss is a Professor of Biology at Westmont and a Christian; Robert Sussman is a Professor of Anthropology at Washington University and a non-theist. The event is moderated by Professor in the Laboratory and Genomic Medicine Division at Washington University in St. Louis, S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD.’

To watch the video > http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/912
Join the Veritas Forum, to download.

The "End" of Love: Evolutionary Psychology, Altruism, and Human Purpose

Evolutionary evil and a good creation?

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[i] Matthew 5:43 : Lev. 19:18

http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Matt.5

For ‘thespian and artistic type’ lovers : Selflessness by John Coltrane (in two parts)

4. Prayer - Meditation - Contemplation and the pursuit of God:

Part I

Why would anyone choose a deity who ‘….is untouched by pleasure and pain, good and evil’ yet who it is said, ‘….dances in supreme joy and creates, sustains and destroys with the rhythm of His dancing movements’ who it is also said, ‘….is the most awe-inspiring and terrifying deity, Rudra, with Trisul or trident in His hand’ and who it is said, ‘…. is the source of all knowledge and wisdom’ who it is said, also ‘….conducts the work of creation according to His will and pleasure’ who it is said, ‘….is distinct from Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ and who it is said commands, ‘…. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra’ who ‘are the trinities of the world’ who it is said that whoever ‘…. regards the three deities as distinct and different, Siva Purana says, is undoubtedly a devil or evil spirit’ and yet of whom it is said, ‘The most auspicious and useful work beneficial to mankind ever carried out by Lord Siva, is to impart the knowledge of Yoga, Bhakti, Jnana, etc., to the world. He blesses those deserve His grace and who cannot get out of Samsara without His grace. He is not only the World-Teacher but also an ideal example to the Jivanmukta or sage. He teaches by His very actions in His daily life’ ? Is it perhaps because, ‘Lord Siva through His third eye of wisdom burnt passion to ashes’ ? Is it your hope to ‘overcomes waking and sleeping state and through meditation’ and thereby merge yourself ‘…. in the object meditated upon in’ your ‘waking state itself’ ?

Quotes from SIVA TATTVA Chapter 2 from LORD SIVA AND HIS WORSHIP by SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of Epicurus?

Those things which without ceasing I have declared to you, those do, and exercise yourself in those, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and happy, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of humankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that does not agree with his blessedness, but you shall believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and immortality. For truly there are gods, and knowledge of them is evident; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that people do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the person who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in people like to themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.

( Lives, 10.123 )

Or, is this life closer to the ideas of writers of the book of Acts?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17 ( Listen )

The Laws of Manu by George Bühler.

‘ Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said “Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living” ( Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, vol. 1. ) Contra Nietzsche, Nipissing University philosophy professor W.A. Borody has coined the phrase “sublimation-transmogrification logic” to describe the underlying ‘state of mind’ lying behind the ethical teaching of the Manu Smrti—a ‘state of mind’ that would have found Nietzsche’s concept of the Dionysian Übermensch abhorrent, and a ‘state of mind’ or ‘voice’ that has always been radically contested within India’s various philosophical and religious traditions. ( W.A.Borody,“The Manu Smrti and Neo-Secularism”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol I, No. 9 (Special Issue, July, 2011 )

From: W.O.E – Manusmṛti

TRIMURTI

The personalities of the Trimurti (Hindu trinity) are also sometimes referred to as Guna avatars, because of their roles of controlling the three modes (gunas) of nature,( 55 ) even though they have not descended upon an earthly planet in the general sense of the term ‘avatar’.

Vishnu – As controller of the mode of goodness ( sattva )
Brahma – Controller of the mode of passion and desire ( rajas ) (Not to be confused with BRAHMAN )
Shiva – Controller of the mode of ignorance ( tamas )

BRAHMAN

‘….one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.’ ( The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions , ed. John Bowker, OUP, 1997 )

‘….is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead’ ( Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975) / Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan )

‘…. which is the Divine Ground’ ( The phrase ‘Divine Ground’ was in modern times coined by Aldous Huxley in his widely read comparative study of mysticism The Perennial Philosophy. Divine Ground (Paul Tillich popularized the expression ‘Ground of Being’ to refer to God) is a neutral term to express the common experience of mystics in diverse religious traditions of an Absolute Ground in which phenomena appear to have their root and origin. Theistic religions refer to this ground as God or Godhead whereas Eastern transtheistic religions use terms such as Tao, Dharmakaya or Clear Light. Among modern authors who use the expression ‘Ground’ is Tibetan Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche (see his book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) ) ‘of all being’

‘…. is conceived as personal (“with qualities”), impersonal (“without qualities”) and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school. Hindus worship Brahman through statues called murtis, almost as a portal to Brahman. Different aspects of Brahman are represented in these murtis.
The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).’

According to Advaita , a liberated human being ( jivanmukta ) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman ).

The Mundaka Upanishad ( pdf – SWAMI KRISHNANANDA / pdf – Swami Nikhilananda ) ( ….it is not, like other Mantras , to be used for sacrificial purposes. Its only object is to teach the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Brahman, which cannot be obtained either by sacrifices or by worship (Upasana), but by such teaching only as is imparted in the Upanishad. With its beautiful style, lucid metres, serious wording, and lofty feelings each mantra of this Upanishad gives joyous reading.) says:

AUM – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

‘ The Satapatha contains the oldest speculation on Brahman, or the Absolute Principle. Jung painted an image of the relation of the individual person to Satapatha Brahman or the Self ….’ Dr. JG Friesen from Jung and Western Mysticism

‘Brahma’s job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.’

From: BBC Religions – Brahma

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?

Though there doesn’t seem to be too much written about this, though there are two Hindu myths that indicate that Brahma created the earth and made a very beautiful woman to aid with his job of creation. ‘She was so beautiful that Brahma became infatuated with her, and gazed at her wherever she went. This caused her extreme embarrassment and Shatarupa tried to turn from his gaze.’ ( read more, for the two possible accounts of how things got out of control – Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia – I notice that there are no sources, yet. )

“Lord Brahma’s day, consisting of his 12 hours, lasts 4 billion 320 million years, and his night is of the same duration.”

From: Bhaktivedanta VedaBase

‘Brahma’s prayers are recorded in the Brahma-samhita. From this scripture we know that Brahma is a devotee of Om the empty space everlasting peace and abode, and what is home for both material, non-material and spiritual universes. According to Brahma’s authority we can know that Om is the Supreme God. Brahma says: Om is the Supreme God. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. Brahma lets us know that all Brahma is one of many Brahmas who is one of many material universes which appear from Om’s breathing out.’

Link: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia

THE INCARNATIONS OF LORD VISHNU

There are ten avatars (dashavatara) of Vishnu commonly considered as the most prominent: (refer: The Garuda Purana Texts )

Matsya, the fish that kills Damanaka to save the vedas and saves mankind.

Kurma, the turtle that helps the Devas and Asuras churn the ocean for the nectar of immortality.

Varaha, the boar that rescues the Earth and kills Hiranyaksha.

Narasimha, the one (half-Lion half- human) who defeats the demon Hiranyakashapu (Nara = man, simha = lion).

Vamana. the dwarf that grows into a giant to save the world from King Bali.

Parashurama, A Sage, Rama with the axe, who appeared in the Treta Yuga.

Rama, Sri Ramachandra, the prince and king of Ayodhya and killed Demon King Raavana.

Krishna (meaning ‘dark coloured’ or ‘all attractive’ or the Existence of Bliss, ( Vishnu sahasranama, Sankara’s interpretation of the 57th name, Swami Tapasyananda’s translation, pg. 51. ), appeared in the Dwapara Yuga along with his brother

Refer this narrative which is based upon the commentary of Shankaracharya:

(57) Krishnah -The word Krishna means in Sanskrit ‘the dark’. The Truth that is intellectually appreciated, but spiritually not apprehended, is considered as ‘veiled behind some darkness’. Vishnu Sahasranama means the “Thousand Names of Vishnu.”

Balarama, the avatar of Aadi Sesha, the serpent on which Supreme Lord Vishnu sleeps, Svayam Bhagavan’.’ This viewpoint is specific to Bhagavata, Gaudiya, Vallabhacarya and Nimbarka sampradayas. (refer: Sri Dasavatara-stotra and Upaaya )

Kalki (“Eternity”, or “timeless”, destroyer of time or “The Destroyer of foulness”), who is expected to appear at the end of Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist.

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : VISHNU

Part II

A Talk With Ramana Maharshi

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘Apart from its historical usage, the term meditation was introduced as a translation for Eastern spiritual practices, referred to as dhyana in Buddhism and in Hinduism, which comes from the Sanskrit root dhyai, meaning to contemplate or meditate. The term “meditation” in English may also refer to practices from Islamic Sufism, ….’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘….in Buddhism:

As a meditative state, dhyana is characterized by profound stillness and concentration. It is discussed in the Pali canon (and the parallel agamas) and post-canonical Theravada Buddhist literature , and in other literature. There has been little scientific study of the states so far.’

An Anthology from the Pali Canon by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Live Science: <strong>Study: Zen Meditation Really Does Clear the Mind by Charles Q. ChoiDate: 02 September 2008

Web Extra: Mindfulness for the Masses by Katie Unger

Scientists are taking advantage of new technologies to see exactly what goes on inside the brains of Buddhist monks and other so-called “Olympian” meditators — individuals who meditate intensively and regularly. The neuroscientists hypothesize that regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.

From: Science Explores Meditation’s Effect on the Brain by ALLISON AUBREY

‘in Hinduism:

According to the Hindu Yoga Sutra , ( Yoga Sutras of Patanjali – Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati / The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali The Threads of Union Translation by BonGiovanni ) written by Patanjali, dhyana is one of the eight limbs of Yoga, (the other seven being Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, and Samadhi).
The entire Eight Limbs of the Patanjali system are also sometimes referred to as Dhyana, or the meditative path, although strictly speaking, only the last four limbs constitute meditation Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, and Samadhi. The preceding steps are only to prepare the body and mind for meditation.

‘….practices from Islamic Sufism’
‘Classical Sufi scholars have defined Sufism as “a science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God”. Alternatively, in the words of the Darqawi Sufi teacher Ahmad ibn Ajiba, “a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits”.

The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation by as-Sayyid, Nurjan Mirahmadi (Author), Hedieh Mirahmadi

‘…. Many people Muslim or others were directing themselves to Yoga, Meditation, Reiki and many New Age philosophies. Believing that Sufism does not have these options, much to their surprise Sufism is the custodian for these ancient realities’ a result of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani and the Baraka of our Sultan al-Awliya and all Mashaykh Naqshbandi pushed the renewed concept of Sufi Meditation and went after those teachings to bring the Light of Mawlana Shaykh to these people and direct many of them to the realities of Sayedena Muhammad [s] and Tariqat Naqshbandiyyat-il-`aliyyah.’

From: The Healing Power of Sufi Meditation ( Sufi Meditation – Step by Step )

‘…. or other traditions such as …. and Christian Hesychasm

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

An ancient mystical tradition was lost to the Western world nearly a thousand years ago. Now, at the dawn of the new millennium, this profound yet practical path of transcendence is being rediscovered. Its name is hesychasm, from a Greek root meaning “to be still.”

‘Hesychasm’s roots extend back almost two thousand years to the beginnings of the Christian church. Today much of what we know about this spiritual path has been gleaned from the writings of mystics who populated the Middle Eastern deserts in the fourth century. These early ascetics are known as the Desert Fathers.

In the eleventh century, the Christian church split into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Catholicism rejected hesychasm, which encouraged individual experiences of the divine. As a result, hesychasm disappeared from Western culture but survived because the Orthodox church embraced and preserved this tradition of quiet meditation.

For the last millennium, hesychasm has remained shrouded in obscurity in the West. Why? One reason is that hesychastic texts preserved by the Orthodox Church were written in Greek or the languages of various eastern European countries. This made them inaccessible to most Westerners. Only recently have classics such as The Philokalia and The Ladder of Divine Ascent been translated into English. Another factor has been the cultural and political differences that separated Eastern Europe from the West. The fall of these barriers is permitting greater access to, and understanding of, this spiritual path. ‘ ( read more )

From: Hesychasm: A Christian Path of Transcendence by Mitchell B. Liester

‘…. or other traditions such as Jewish Kabbalah and Christian Hesychasm. ( Daniel Goleman (1988). The meditative mind: The varieties of meditative experience. New York: Tarcher. ) ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

‘So what is meditation really ? ….’

Daniel Goleman discusses Meditation in a two part video playlist: Click Here

Kaballah (lit. “receiving”) is a discipline and school of thought concerned with the esoteric aspect of Rabbinic Judaism. It was systematized in 11th-13th century Hachmei Provence (Southern France) and Spain, and again after the Expulsion from Spain, in 16th century Ottoman Palestine. It was popularized in the form of Hassidic Judaism in the 18th century.

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator and the mortal and finite universe (His creation). While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a denomination in and of itself; it is a set of scriptures that exist outside the traditional Jewish scriptures.

Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe and the human being, the nature and purpose of existence, and various other ontological questions.

It also presents methods to aid understanding of these concepts and to thereby attain spiritual realization.

Kabbalah originally developed entirely within the realm of Jewish thought and constantly uses classical Jewish sources to explain and demonstrate its esoteric teachings. These teachings are thus held by kabbalists to define the inner meaning of both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and traditional rabbinic literature, their formerly concealed transmitted dimension, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances. (Primary Source:Kabbalah Online: Imbued with Holiness ‘The relationship of the esoteric to the exoteric in the fourfold Pardes interpretation of Torah and existence.’ )

What is Kabbalah? : What is Kabbalah …And Why? : Beginners Start Here :Introductory

Primary Website: The Kabbalah Centre : Video – Where to begin?

The sacred texts of Judaism : Kabbalah Unveiled

‘…. An edited book about “meditation” published in 2003, for example, included chapter contributions by authors describing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, and Taoist traditions. ‘

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions by Jonathan Shear

Jonathan Shear is Affiliated Associate Professor of Philosophy at VCU, where he has taught since 1987. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow there, and a Fulbright Scholar in philosophy of science at the London School of Economics. Since the early 1960’s his work has focused on the use of meditation practices and related scientific research to expand our knowledge of human consciousness. He has published and lectured widely in North America, Europe and Asia, and was the founding Managing Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

Ruth A. Baer , Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY. She conducts research on mindfulness and related processes and teaches and supervises mindfulness and acceptancebased interventions. She is a renowned expert in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and mindfulnessbased stress reduction (MBSR).

ASSESSING MINDFULNESS AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESSES IN CLIENTS – Illuminating the Theory and Practice of Change

‘…. Scholars have noted that “the term ‘meditation’ as it has entered contemporary usage” is parallel to the term “contemplation” in Christianity.’

From: Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia : Meditation : Etymology

Prayer, meditation and contemplation in Christianity

From meditation to contemplative prayer

In the Western Church, during the 15th century, reforms of the clergy and monastic settings were undertaken by the two Venetians, Lorenzo Giustiniani and Louis Barbo. Both men considered methodical prayer and meditation as essential tools for the reforms they were undertaking.( 28 ) Barbo, who died in 1443, wrote a treatise on prayer titled Forma orationis et meditionis otherwise known as Modus meditandi. He described three types of prayer; vocal prayer, best suited for beginners; meditation, oriented towards those who are more advanced; and contemplation as the highest form of prayer, only obtainable after the meditation stage. Based on the request of Pope Eugene IV, Barbo introduced these methods to Valladolid, Spain and by the end of the 15th century they were being used at the abbey of Montserrat. These methods then influenced Garcias de Cisneros, who in turn influenced Ignatius of Loyola. ( 29 ) ( 30 )
The Eastern Othodox Church has a similar three level hierarchy of prayer.(31 )( 32 ) The first level prayer is again vocal prayer, the second level is meditation (also called “inward prayer” or “discursive prayer”) and the third level is contemplative prayer in which a much closer relationship with God is cultivated. ( 31 )

Abhishiktananda

Jim: Won’t some people say that you have returned to a Christian apologetic that wants to again set up Christianity as the truth over other religions?

Glenn: Well of course some people will say that. Other people say that I am still interpreting Christianity in terms of Hinduism. I am not responsible for how other people think or react. I can only say that, in large part through my studies of Abhishiktananda, I have learned to see Christianity differently, and I know that it is true. This knowing is more than an intellectual acceptance of what Abhishiktananda called "petrified" and "idolatrous" dogma. And this is not to say that God cannot also reveal Himself in other religions. But it seems to me that Christianity does have a distinct emphasis on love as self-giving, following the model of Christ’s kenosis. And this has practical consequences. We must ask why it was that it was a Western friend who came to the aid of Abhishiktananda as he was lying in the street of Rishikesh after his heart attack.

From: An Interview with Dr. J Glenn Friesen - Abhishiktananda

Thomas Merton

'Hence contemplation is more than a consideration of abstract truths about God, more even than effective meditation on the things we believe. It is awakening, enlightenment and the amazing intuitive grasp by which love gains certitude of God's creative and dynamic intervention in our daily life. Hence contemplation does not simply "find" a clear idea of God and confine Him within the limits of that idea, and hold Him there as a prisoner to whom it can always return. On the contrary, contemplation is carried away by Him into His own realm, His own mystery and His own freedom. It is a pure and a virginal knowledge, poor in concepts, poorer still in reasoning, but able, by its poverty and purity, to follow the Word "wherever He may go."

From: New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

5. The Influence of Classical Ideas in the Humanities:

‘….the influence of classical ideas in many humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, remains strong; for example, the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Vedas and Upanishads in India and various writings attributed to Confucius, Lao-tse and Chuang-tzu in China.‘
From: W.O.E. – Humanities – Classics

For those who may be unfamiliar with any of the above mentioned books or authors, here are a few links that might be helpful to those who are not yet acquainted with them.

1. Ancient Near East : The Epic of Gilgamesh (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
2. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
3. The Vedas (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
4. Upanishads (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
5. Confusion and Traditional Chinese Beliefs (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
6. Lao-tse (604BC) – Taoist Texts (courtesy of Sacred Texts)
7. Chuang-tzu(4th century BCE) – Musings of a Chinese Mystic by Lionel Giles (courtesy of Sacred Texts)

‘Chuang-Tze had made himself well acquainted with all the literature of his time, but preferred the views of Lao-Tze; and ranked himself among his followers, so that of the more than ten myriads of characters contained in his published writings the greater part are occupied with metaphorical illustrations of Lao’s doctrines.’ (read more: here or here )

‘Of what is great one must either be silent or speak with greatness. With greatness–that means cynically and with innocence.’ FN

Did Jesus Exist?

Peace.

From this pilgrim who enjoys reading and studying Evolution, Philosophy and more recently Atheism and Nihilism in Art.

Finis.

Aeryck

Fossil Finds by rogue66

ps. A while ago I met an Australian bloke who was totally into something he called 'Lay Gnosis' which he explained to me in some detail as well as informing me that my skepticism would be solved by visiting the website AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE (authored by a lawyer Victor Zammit), but one peculiarity stuck out and that was his use of the phrase "GOOGLE-IT"

Well, as I was thinking of a way to end this thread (now that the comments have fizzled out), I decided to do just that and type 'can you prove the existence of god' into my Google browser and post up the results.

Who knows maybe Google will shutdown one day just like Geocities did and there'll be a record of it here.

Here are the links: (from my "GI" / Google It!)

1. CAN YOU PROVE GOD EXISTS? PETER KREEFT

2. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? EVERY STUDENT

3. IS THERE A GOD EVERY STUDENT

4. EXISTENCE OF GOD WIKIPEDIA

5. HUNDREDS OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD GODLESSGEEKS

6. CAN SCIENCE BE USED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THE GUARDIAN

7. IF YOU CAN READ THIS, I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS COSMIC FINGERPRINTS

8. HOW DO YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ICHTHYS

9. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD PLIM REPORT

10. CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? JOEUSER FORUMS < LIKE A MAP (HERE WE ARE)

1st SA Bluesman and Smeagologist in Cyberspace

Thanks for your comments and may you stay forever young kids.

Peace,

Aeryck.

North Walsham Guide

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Trolling--the first and last refuge of the truly witless."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting 137,

reply 150

Let us pause an instant to reflect. If we are the biggest trolls in this or every universe, and we are on these forums, you can't be the biggest troll in these forums, because we are bigger than you are (given that these forums are in the universe, thus by your definition this makes us bigger trolls than you are as you are in this universe as well). On the other hand, if you are the biggest troll in these forums, we cannot be bigger trolls than you are, so we can't be the biggest trolls in the universe.

Well, he/she only committed him/herself to the position that he/she is the most annoying troll in the forum, not necessarily the biggest troll. Alternately, this forum might exist outside the universe, which would explain a lot of the comments in the clans subforum.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, we are left with the question if the most annoying troll can be the littlest, and if trolls do have an ability to perform quantum teleportation in parallel universes. Yet, he stated we are the biggest trolls in all universes, so the conundrum remains confined to the relationship between the dimensions of the troll, and its annoyance factor.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sinperium,

reply 152

"Trolling--the first and last refuge of the truly witless."

But, can you blame him? Look where this thread has gone....

Successfully updated karma reason!

What intrigues me about the troll-factor is that very often they arrive in the same way that they did in Mark 1 What actually blew me away was that the arrival was directly after a video by Tim Keller's video 'Reasons for God' which addressed this very argument that we cannot know because such things are unknowable.

137,

I haven't had time to sit down and read your reply but don't bother with the troll-factor as this is really a very interesting discussion and I'll be back tomorrow with some thoughts on your reply to my post. Having had a quick look I can see you've given me much to consider and I really enjoyed seeing the Hebrew having done a year at Tanachi Hebrew School back in 2007.

I believe I have much to learn from so many of you here and we should focus on that an ignore the troll-factor as it only really flourishes when it gets attention. Sort of like a fly that keeps on buzzing around. Eventually the moderators'll swat it and well the rest will be history.

Peace,
Eric

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Seleuceia,

reply 155

Quoting Sinperium, reply 152"Trolling--the first and last refuge of the truly witless."

But, can you blame him? Look where this thread has gone....

I, for my part, remain open to objections.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rodopi/gps/2008/00000076/00000001/art00007

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199203147.do

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman06/kauffman06_index.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Christian fight should be with the people who claim that the Christians themselves are WRONG. I just don’t believe in any known god because none have been proven to have overtly manipulated reality”. All our known gods that have been documented in from the real world archives we call history. We know of these gods because the historical evidence we have tells us of them. But of course, all these documented gods (except one) are considered fakes or imitations but in reality, does the counterfeit ever come first, chronologically? Simply stated, their god’s interactions with humanity were local and only experienced in the minds of their most ‘faithful’ followers … and that it was simply their actions in the real world that bespoke of their gods and nothing more. This ‘modern’ monotheistic god also comes to us with no historical proof of his existence and like all the gods before him, contradicts every bit of historical proof we do have. This god’s message however somehow developed in three ‘languages’ imparting three different messages and set in stone in three different cultures, a miracle indeed considering they all consider themselves to be ‘the chosen one’. Well in an effort to leave all the ‘gods’ blameless, it must then be as it has always been in religious matters. Simply stated, this god’s interactions with humanity has only been experienced in the minds of his most ‘faithful’ followers too … and that it is simply their actions in the real world that bespeaks of this god at all, nothing more. If there is a god up there that cares about humanity, he will make the fact known to EVERYONE and needs no middlemen (to speak for him) who heard it from a friend who heard it from another…

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 158

The Christian fight should be with the people who claim that the Christians themselves are WRONG. I just don’t believe in any known god because none have been proven to have overtly manipulated reality”. All our gods have been documented in the real world archives we call history. We know of these gods because the historical evidence we have tells us of them. But of course, all these documented gods (except one) are considered fakes or imitations but in reality, does the counterfeit ever come first, chronologically? Simply stated, their god’s interactions with humanity were local and only experienced in the minds of their most ‘faithful’ followers … and that it was simply their actions in the real world that bespoke of their gods and nothing more. This ‘modern’ monotheistic god also comes to us with no historical proof of his existence and like all the gods before him, contradicts every bit of historical proof we do have. This god’s message however somehow developed in three ‘languages’ imparting three different messages and set in stone in three different cultures, a miracle indeed considering they all consider themselves to be ‘the chosen one’. Well in an effort to leave all the ‘gods’ blameless, it must then be as it has always been in religious matters. Simply stated, this god’s interactions with humanity has only been experienced in the minds of his most ‘faithful’ followers too … and that it is simply their actions in the real world that bespeaks of this god at all, nothing more. If there is a god up there that cares about humanity, he will make the fact known to EVERYONE and needs no middlemen (to speak for him) who heard it from a friend who heard it from another…

To say that all our "gods" are documented is to say something which has no meaning. Many of our and others past beliefs have been, more or less, documented.

When we "know" something, it is infact certain that it is not by any means metaphysical or trascendent. A belief if a psychological entity, an informational state, a cognitive pattern, reasonably related to physical items. A God (and that is what the Bible tries to express, like other different texts to a different degree) is not something that can be expressed so easily.

Counterfeits in this sense, come first because they can be apprehended. Notwithstanding this, an appropriate study of past cultures, will reveal forms of similarity pertaining the representations of the divine, which infact suggest, at least, a convergent form of cultural evolution. In the specific outlook I tried to portray in a sketchy form in previous posts, convergent evolution presupposes an underlying, more or less hidden, structural order. If this is merely relative to human biology and culture, or it pertains more metahphysical aspects, remains to be seen.

The comparison between different religions, which claim to come from the same God, is no evidence about the God, but about the veracity or not, of the claim. Besides, a profound study of these three religions, is in itself something which is bound to show which have compatible assertions, and which don't.

Faith, just as belief and knowledge, is a subjective state, in the most fortunate circumstances one whose objective consequences can be measured. God is no such thing.

Infact, God is reality, the only unthinkable, infinite, objective reality. One of the purposes of the prohibitions of idolatry in the Bible is exactly that of distinguishing the unrepresentable, trascendent unknown, with its local, temporary hypostases.

To presuppose that God would do this, or that, is to think that we know what is best for ourselves. Our history shows us, that infact we don't, and we have never come near to that. We know what pleases us, but not what is good for us. An omniscient, omnipotent God would, we could contend, do what is good, not what pleases us.

Yet the problem is possibly a false one. Socrates, not certainly a Christian, went around promoting the usefulness of knowing that we don't know. I would be content with that for now, instead of the presupposition to dictate the proper behaviour of God (assumed as existent, or not, according to points of view).

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Alrighty Then!" said Jim Carey.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting 137,

reply 159

Reply #159 137

Before I get too carried away here, it sounds like you are not promoting a biblical god, so we may not be as at odds as it appears. I do not have a problem with a god view; I am most perturbed though when people pretend to be his sole spokesman, to know his mind. Anyway, knowing that we don't know may prove useful, but it doesn't mean we have to believe what we don't know. I understand the religious sagas … I just don’t believe them to be true or factual.

Counterfeits in this case mean exactly that. Name it … the virgin birth, the specific miracles; walking on water, the death, the three days, the resurrection, Xmas Day, Easter and even the commandments, etc. etc. … counterfeit is the only word. Convergence just doesn’t work backwards and neither does the historical ‘ordering’ of the gods and their attributes’. If faith = belief = a mental state and nothing besides someone else’s word is all that is required to form this unwavering and unquestioning faith, then religion is nothing more than a state of mind because it is not based on reality as we understand it today. Veracity like religion is quite relative … when was the last time a devout Christian told a devout Muslim to his face that ALL his beliefs are wrong AND that they have to become a born again Christian to get to Heaven … without bloodshed? None of us were privy to our birthplace and our religion of choice is “almost certainly” (hahaha) determined by this one fact. Whatever god may or may not be, if ones accidental birthplace is the major determining factor for ones beliefs, then this biblical god is not acceptable until such time as He tells me otherwise.

PS - Sorry about the poor wording, I changed it as little as I could.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Post 159 - 137

Post 161 - GirlFriendTess

Here's a little something I composed during the snowy months called 'The Unknown Landscape' It's an attempt at saying what falls on the ground in a pile of unconnected phrases whenever I try to find the words the way both of you have in your posts. Lovely stuff, lovely stuff!

Peace,

Aeryck

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm quoting GirlFriendTess here and just wanted to say I appreciate the non-hostile discussion here and don't want to push it the other way. I did want to point out and comment from my own perspective (and that is all it is) on a couple of things she said--not so much to "correct" here but to more fully define what seems to me to be implicit in her statements.

I'm actually not stirred up or on the warpath towards what she said--just wanted to refine and address a couple of points--no offense or attack intended

when people pretend to be his sole spokesman, to know his mind

I don't think anyone fully knows the mind of "God". Even from a strictly Christian biblical viewpoint that is stated as being impossible. It's absolutely (to my mind anyway) true that most religious people do assume to "fully know"--even if it means reading into and going beyond what's actually written down in their teachings.

Muslim extremists "know" that God wants them to blow up children for the sins of the less righteous. Jehovah's Witnesses "know" that anyone not obeying the leaders of their faith are going to hell. Buddhists "know" that nothing really matters in the end--as do atheists and the like. Spiritists and pagans "know" that accessing the spiritual plain and exercising control of powers is "the way". Every Tom, Dick and Jane with any spiritual belief "knows" that whatever they think must be "the truth". Biblical fundamentalist "know" that all the other non-fundamentalist so-called Believers are going to Hell and charismatics "know" all the tricks to get what you want from God.

There are a lot of assumptions in all these (and the other beliefs) but that doesn't make everyone professing to know a spiritual truth a "pretender". Some may be misinformed or mistaken and some are outright liars but some have had real experiences (even if they derive wrong conclusions from them sometimes).

If a person has had an experience and testifies to believing it is the truth, that isn't pretending.

nothing besides someone else’s word is all that is required to form this unwavering and unquestioning faith

Despite religious (and that's a whole different ball of wax than "spiritual") practices, Christianity outlined in the bible doesn't require simply "believing what someone (a person) tells you without question". It lays out it's claims of what the truth is and instructs you how to test them for yourself and lays out the conditions required to find the result. In fact, Christianity without direct personal experience is nothing more than religion if that's as far as an individual goes.

There are a billion interpretations of a million things found in "the bible" by billions of different people. If the bible is just a history, philosophy or wisdom book--then it has no real provable spiritual claims. It's just a religious text.

If the God it points to is real--and the bible itself describes those who believe and follow it's teachings as "seeing through a glass darkly"--then it is possible to have a true experience with God and even from it to come forth "knowing" something of it's truth. That's not pretending either.

What it really comes down to is, "Do you believe people can have a cognizant and genuine encounter with God?".

As a believer myself (Christian) and having had genuine experience as one years prior to attending church (I didn't begin attending until 27), I can say I have jad such encounters. The current trend in the world is to say, "Not possible!", "Superstition!", "Religion!". My experiences have been none of those things. I do believe people can and do have encounters with God and I do think God intends to be "knowable" to us within the limitations of our ability to understand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 161

Quoting 137, reply 159Reply #159 137Before I get too carried away here, it sounds like you are not promoting a biblical god, so we may not be as at odds as it appears.

Well, maybe it doesn't sound so. But infact, it may be the general perception of the Biblical God which is a misunderstanding. Infact, the idea that He is reality (as well, that's the important part, as potential), arises from a strictly scriptural interpretation of Exodus and the names God gives to Moses: all forms (present, future, durative) of the hebrew verb "to be". This though, is not something that can be discussed here.

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 161

I do not have a problem with a god view; I am most perturbed though when people pretend to be his sole spokesman, to know his mind. Anyway, knowing that we don't know may prove useful, but it doesn't mean we have to believe what we don't know. I understand the religious sagas … I just don’t believe them to be true or factual.

What we don't know can be used as a clue and as a tool of demonstration. The nature of the observable, the properties of mathematical landscapes, our knowledge of psychological functioning, our tools to learn from experience, and transcultural comparison of religious traditions, can yeld pretty conclusive (at least subjectively) results in favour of an articulated worldview, which includes moral prescriptions, very near if not identical to those in the Bible. Including the most apparently absurd.

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 161

There is a paradox ( http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/paradox_raven/index.asp ) which infact, tells us that investigating lies is a way to reach truth.

By all means, for certain, God never forbade thinking well and much, if thinking is not for the sake of one's self-aggrandizement, but for the search of God's truth. As such I always advise to remember that there is an intellectual way to God, which, although extremely risky, if practiced correctly, yelds orthodox results and cannot scare any proponent of a lay vision of the world, as it is meant to light the path to a correct faith with perfectly consequential reason.

Quoting Sinperium,

reply 163

I do believe people can and do have encounters with God and I do think God intends to be "knowable" to us within the limitations of our ability to understand.

I would merely add a slight difference: He intends even to extend those limits, for the proper purposes. Certainly not egoistic ones.

Quoting AERYCK,

reply 162

Post 159 - 137

Post 161 - GirlFriendTess

Here's a little something I composed during the snowy months called 'The Unknown Landscape' It's an attempt at saying what falls on the ground in a pile of unconnected phrases whenever I try to find the words the way both of you have in your posts. Lovely stuff, lovely stuff!

Peace,

Aeryck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZ10uog2Mc&feature=relmfu

I would suggest this. Nice job btw.

This too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F0bDnsq5xw&feature=relmfu

Successfully updated karma reason!

@137...I do indeed think the God I know does want to extend the ability to understand that we have but it isn't something we can self actuate--we have to participate and follow his lead.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sinperium,

reply 163

Reply #163 Sinperium

David, the title of the OP is ‘Can you prove the existence of God with the caveat of not using the bible”. Most believers just function on all fronts as if god does exist provable or not (and he very well may) … we just don’t know beyond a ‘personal conviction’ and that is problematic for me. If it is as you have said only a personal experience, then how in the world can I be faulted for my disbelief when I have not been personally smitten by god? How can I even be considered wrong for committing myself to the real world based on our scientific understanding of reality … as if there was something else available for me to believe in? I cannot speak against personal convictions because we all are entitled to have them for whatever reasons we choose. I see nothing wrong with spirituality either as long as it is based on personal ‘experience’. People can have cognizant encounters with the God(s) real or not, just look at India alone there are millions, or just about anything else one wishes to imagine and that is problematical too.What I meant by “…who heard it from a friend who heard it from another…” reflects on the anonymousness of the biblical writers and the re-writers etc. Two thousand years ago, Latin, Greek and Hebrew were highly developed written languages and yet remarkable not one word was written about Jesus during his lifetime … not one word. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus some fifty years after Jesus’s death mentioned that a wise man named Jesus had started a movement and had been executed for it by Pontius Pilate but there are no parallel texts to verify even that story. However it is the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John which were anonymously written and anonymously named in the first and second centuries that dramatized the Jesus story giving impetus to the merging faith called Christianity. So ‘genuine’ is not a good word for me in this context. I find ‘counterfeit’ more applicable to the bibles and their stories most of which historically preceded Christianity often by thousands of years … some before the earth was born. We know enough today about mental health to know how easily the mind can be manipulated (even by self) and led to believe outlandish and often unreal things … the world of children … the world of fantasy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There's nothing wrong with following what you know honestly and faithfully. Samuel Clemons was asked due to his agnostic beliefs that didn't the things in the bible that he didn't understand worry him and he replied it was the things he did understand that worried him and I pretty much agree with him. You are only responsible for what you can know.

The OP isn't possible. No one is going to "prove" God to anyone else. You can take it as a rhetorical statement but it isn't practical to take it literally.

But the redress to people who can't sift their own thinking honestly (and we all have areas where we struggle with that) or who are conformed to socially taught beliefs isn't to decide, "Therefore no "real" can exist."

If the sort of God I believe in exists, the onus is on him to show himself to you. It's not possible and would be unfair to require you to know him before you encountered him. So me saying to you, "You need to believe in Jesus" and then faulting you if you are unable isn't fair or useful. What I could do is present reasons to suggest why and how you might consider "looking" for my God but I can't conjure him for you or demand you see him. That's only going to happen if he decides to show up for you.

In the biblical account of Paul being taken before King Agrippa and Festus, he fails to persuade them that his God is real. The reply he gets is essentially, "You think you're going to make me believe like you!?". Paul simply responds that he wishes he could but makes it clear all he can do is present what he knows--the rest isn't his to do.

I don't press people to have a "religious" conversation with me about Christianity or attempt to push them to "make a decision". My proselytizing is confined to presenting my experience--what the bible calls a "testimony"--then give my reasons for why I conclude that it points to a biblical God and then it's out of my hands what the person does or doesn't do.

All of my posts in these threads have simply been to say one thing: there are people who have had experiences that are spiritual in nature--and these experiences are not confined only to Christians. People who haven't had them can spend all their day explaining why they aren't relevant or why they can't be real but that's a stance built on ignorance--I don't mean stupidity, I mean lack of any experience or knowledge. I can personally relate experiences I have had that can't be chalked up to self-fulfillment, self-delusion, or internal psychology that has no relevance to anyone else. So I am talking shared and tangible experiences.

Spiritual experience is the only validation of the bible. If one investigates it and puts it to the test and no experience results then that person can't be criticized for not accepting it without further question. The only issue is how it was considered and studied.

If I were in the position of a skeptic and was asked about the existence of a God, my response would simply be, "I know not of one." If I was challenged as to whether I'd accept one if I met it I'd respond, "I won't know unless I do." If I was asked that in spite of those things, if a God existed would I want to know of it, my answer would be, "Of course.".

Considering God and the spiritual as actualities is no different than considering the possibility of alien life or trying to understand the properties of reality outside our own dimension-universe. There's no threat or risk in thinking on it and you lose nothing doing so. I don't worry that I'll fail to critically think or trick myself into delusion thinking on things I don't know or understand currently- I'd go crazy if I was that insecure. When someone says, I have had an experince" and it goes outside my own, I'm willing to hear it.

I do understand the offense at religious presumption or at people who toss out that they "know" exactly what you need to know and that you must hear it from them in order to get it. All I'd say face to face is, "I've had some experience in this area" and if afterwards was asked, I'd share it. Everybody is free to decide for themselves.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting AERYCK,

reply 136

Creationism and Intelligent Design proponents have been shown to be weak in their delivery as they fail to take into consideration all that we are learning from the Sciences, Anthropology and Biology and have been found to be nothing more than posers lacking the force of argument of those they are opposing. It's bee shown to be nothing more than a power struggle.

Another good read in this regard is Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God : A Scientist's Search For Common Ground Between God and Evolution, though I've found more joy in the lectures of Prof. Jeffrey Schols.

It's not my place to begin to explain these matters but I'd say that the fossil record plus what we are learning in the field of genetics leaves little doubt that Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory we have in support of Evolution and until we can categorically replace such a theory with a better one I'm settled with agreeing instead of repeatedly pounding my head against it.

Hmmmmmm.....................lots there to discuss!

Aeryck,

You asked:

Can you prove the existence of God? And some, like me, have answered yes and offered evidence. Others have said, there is no proof; there is no God. If there is no God, then tell us....where did the universe, the orderly planetary system, the lands, the oceans, the plants, minerals, and animal creation and finally mankind come from?

Yes, the mighty important question before all of us is...WHERE DID WE COME FROM? What explains the reality of life on Earth?

We know there have been many theories developed to answer these questions, but in general, they can be reduced to 3 basic belief systems...Special Creation, Atheistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution. Only one of these can be the truth for the three beliefs are mutually incompatible.

The concept of Special Creation (SC)is based on the Holy Bible and ancient Judaic/Catholic Tradition. SC can be outlined as the belief there is only one God--the Divine Trinity--the Infinite First Cause who created all that exists, including space, time and matter.

A central feature of SC is that of separate distinct "kinds". Genesis refers to each being made according to its "kind". A "kind" includes creatures or plants that are derived from each of the original created life forms. A "kind" is a unique life form. We have seen that problems arise and confusion abounds in classifying various kinds of life forms and so SC scientists use the word "baramin" to facilitate a definition.

"From the Hebrew roots-"bara" (created) and "min" (kind)....The word "baramin" has been suggested as a modern name for the basic created types of living things. Creationists believe that a definite boundary was established between the various baramins and that this boundary has made possible the classification of living things into distinct groups, ...."baramin" is not exactly equivalent to any single category in modern (evolutionistic) taxonomy, such as the terms "species", "genus", "family", or "order". New species can arise, but new baramin cannot." Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" pg. 28.

Earlier I posted the division into kinds and pointed out that there may be various species within a particular "kind", and variety definitely does occur, but not beyond kinds. That's because a definite boundary was established by Creator God and that boundary or barrier we now know through the science of Genetics is DNA. Empirical science can, by deduction, shed light on the existence of an intelligent Force at work in the universe. The existence of DNA coded information impressed upon matter, its fantastic complexity and orderliness condensed into an incredibly tiny size suggests the work of a brilliant Intelligence, God, rather than random chance processes.

Evolutionists point out the fact that similiar traits appear in unrelated species and claim that convergence therefore occurs in the process of evolutionary descent. BUT WHAT CREATURES HAVE EVER TRULY CONVERGED?

Atheistic Evolution or Darwinism embraces the idea that we are a product of random chance and time. Are we? By reading the Evolution chapters of the Biology textbook written by Drs. Kenneth R. Miller (name sound familiar?) and Joseph Levine, the 10th grade students are taught that we are. Chapter 34 claims that we are descendants of “ape-like ancestors” who, as part of nature developed step by step from more primitive animals and lower forms of life. Yes, Darwinism is presented as an established fact of science which claims over millions of years plants, animals, and man evolved from a common ancestor and diversified into new species. If left only to Darwinian Evolution, our students should believe they come from brute animals. How can they when natural systems degenerate from order toward disorder called entropy? Darwinian Evolution requires faith in the opposite and this has been pumped into man’s conscience since the mid 1800’s. One idea after another has been presented as proof, yet they have all failed to provide substance and certainly no proofs. And truth is the science community has known this long before the Biology textbook was even printed and presented to students to read, study, absorb and regurgitate in a test or conversation.

These students need to be told about the scientific evidence and very reliable findings that have long overturned most Darwinian claims. They need to be told there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. That life does not come from non-life. That man may be similar to chimpanzees, but so what? The genetic barrier prevents change beyond kind. Man is totally distinctive and exceedingly intricate. No way are we the workings of blind, random chance. The human body fills us with awe and Psalm 139:13-14 paints a much different picture of our beginning than does Dr. Kenneth Miller’s Biology textbook’s sketches of embryos, limbs and skulls of various creatures and depictions of tree-like ancestry.

Aeryck, you say that the fossil record plus what we are learning in the field of genetics leaves little doubt that Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory we have in support of Evolution ..

I must disagree.

Evolution is supposed progressive changes beyond kind…say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. It's never happened because there is no mechanism that allows it to happen. Genetics frustrates rather than offers proofs for Evolution. If Evolution occurred, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny, but this has not been done. In stark contrast to evolutionary depictions of tree like ancestry, the actual fossil evidence is one of parallel vertical ancestry.

Both sides of the debate use the term Natural Selection.

Creationists understand natural selection only in terms of small changes within a kind which is not evolution per se at all. Race formation which is very well documented comes in here, as does immunological adaptation to an invader. All it requires is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations due to natural selection, and genetic drift, the isolated population will irreversely lose some genes, and as long as the isolation continues, in some features it will be different from the population it arose from. This happens in breeding. This is a natural or artificial reduction in the gene pool and Evolution doesn’t happen this way. Evolution means construction of new, higher genes, an increase in the amount of genetic information, not reduction of it.

On the other hand, Evolutionists believe and modern science text books teach that Natural selection by survival of the fittest was Darwin's original mechanism to show how evolution occurs...random activity naturally selects itself into improvements and in the struggle for life one species supposedly evolved into a new and different one. Darwin claimed that natural selection was the primary way that lower life forms changed into new and higher ones. Meanwhile, none of this has been proven with empirical evidence. And again, with the development of the electron microscope and the science of Genetics, Darwin’s views of Natural Selection combined with Herbert Spencer’s idea of survival of the fittest has been superceded.

Evolution Theory is plagued with problems and volumes have been written by Behe, Demski, Gish, and Berthault describing them.

Evolution crumbles when challenged by true scientific evidence. Creationist scientists wanted to test that T-Rex bone and the nucleated blood cells which would have shown how old the specimen was, but they wouldn’t allow that. Why not? What were they afraid of? The truth. The data may have overturned the atheistic foundation of modern science, but instead the entrenched warfare against any thought of the Creator God described in Genesis 1 was maintained.

I first read about the T-Rex in the Jan. 2012 Culture Wars article entitled Darwin, Newton, and Einstein: At the end of their rope by Dr. Robert Sungenis. On page 8, “So, in one sense, we can certainly marvel over the advances of science. But there is a darker side to consider, the side in which interpretations of the scientific data is heavily influenced by one’s world view or general philosophy. Although somehow the latest polls show that scientists retain an image of impeccable honesty, (as opposed to used car salesmen), the reality is, most scientists are inordinately influenced by atheism, and their interpretations of the data they see in their microscopes and telescopes follows accordingly. Scientific American did a study a few years ago and found about 90 percent of published scientists are atheists. Those who believe in God are forced to keep silent or capitulate to the reigning paradigm. Take Darwin’s theory of evolution for example. ..If his theory were true, we should find intermediate fossils….to date, modern science hasn’t found one such specimen. So bad is the dearth that the leading evolutionist of the 20^th century, Stephen Gould of Harvard, proposed evolution must now be modified to “punctuated equilibrium”, that is the intermediate stages happened so fast there wasn’t enough time for them to be fossilized!”

Dr. Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist Search for common ground Between God and Evolution” just doesn’t get it.

He labels those who take an opposite view than his as"enemies of Science" but this is a common ploy of evolutionists and wrong taboot. Creationists use science and it is scientifically impossible of an upward progression of species by blind chance. But Dr. Miller seems to have ignored all this scientific evidence. Miller knows the fact that Gould admitted no transitional fossils were ever found, because why? Because they never existed in the first place. But hey, we can’t have that because since there is no evidence of one kind of species to a different kind of species transformation, then there is no Evolution process and the blind chance of Evolution theory should be entirely scrapped.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 161

when was the last time a devout Christian told a devout Muslim to his face that ALL his beliefs are wrong AND that they have to become a born again Christian to get to Heaven … without bloodshed?

Islam is a mixture of truth and error, so telling a devout Muslim that all of his beliefs are wrong would not be true. The last time your scenario happened was when Muslims hear the Good News and convert to Christianity and are baptized. But they do so at a grave danger because Islam forbids it and that's where the bloodshed could come in.

......................

Here's the story:

A Muslim’s Remarkable Conversion to Catholicism

Created on February 14, 2012

Written by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The fascinating autobiography of Muhammad Moussaoui, who narrates his conversion from Islam to Catholicism, shows miracles of grace and of human correspondence, on the one hand, and on the other hand the terrible harshness of Islamic mentality and persecution of Christians. The book’s title, The Price to Pay, summarizes well what this privileged soul had to go through in order to be faithful to the call of grace. After his conversion, he took the name Joseph Fadelle.[1]

A Muslim from an Important Family
Fadelle belonged to one of Iraq’s most important Shiite Muslim families, the Moussaoui clan. As head of the clan, his father was a kind of judge and solved disputes between clan members. He also had great wealth and prestige.

In 1987 Fadelle was drafted into the Iraqi army, then under the rule of Saddam Hussein, right in the middle of the war with neighboring Iran. By this time he was 23 years old and single.

Sent to a garrison on the border with Iran, he was housed in a room with a Christian. He became indignant on learning he was going to be lodging with a Christian, an insult to a born Muslim whose family also descended from the Islam’s founder Muhammad.

The Challenge: Do You Understand the Koran?
However, the Christian, called Massoud, was older than him and welcomed him with kindness, so that little by little his prejudices began to fade. Fadelle conceived a plan to convert him to Islam. One day, when Massoud was absent, seeing among his books one titled The Miracles of Jesus, he became curious and began reading it. He had no idea who it was, because in the Koran Jesus is called Isa; but he was delighted to read about miracles such as the one during the Wedding at Cana, and was attracted by the figure of Jesus.

Still intending to convert Massoud to Islam, he asked him if Christians also had a sacred book like the Koran. After being told that Christians had the Bible, he asked to see it, thinking it would be easy to refute.

To his surprise, Massoud refused to show him the Christian book and asked an even more surprising question: if he had read the Koran. This question was offensive to one who had been brought up in Islam, but he simply replied he had. Then came a new and rather embarrassing question: “Did you understand the meaning of each word, each verse?”

The future Christian recounts that this question pierced his mind like a fiery dart, since according to Islam what matters is not to understand the Koran, but just to read it. Seeing his embarrassment, his room mate proposed that he read the Koran again, but this time trying to understand each sentence; and then Massoud would lend him the book of Christians.

Disenchantment with the Koran And a Mystical Dream
Muhammad accepted the proposal that completely changed his life. Indeed, as he tried to understand the meaning of what was written in the Koran, he realized that much of it was absurd and meaningless. A consultation with an iman failed to solve his doubts and he became increasingly disenchanted with the book of Islam.

It was as if scales fell from his eyes and he began to see for the first time what the Koran really said. Having finished this keen, meditative reading, he came to the conclusion that this book could not be of divine origin.

It was then a mystical episode took place, which prepared his conversion. He dreamed he was in a meadow on the edge of a creek and saw on the other side a very imposing, extremely attractive man. He tried to jump to the other side, but remained still in the air until the mysterious person took him by the hand and said to him: “In order to cross the creek, you need to eat the bread of life.” Then he woke up.

Conversion Shock: Jesus is the Bread of Life
No longer thinking about the dream, he got Massoud to loan him the Holy Gospels. He happened to open the book on the Gospel of Saint John. He was totally absorbed reading it and felt a great well-being. At one point, he was deeply moved to find the mysterious words of his dream: “the bread of life.” The words of Jesus in the Gospel were clear: “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger” (John 6:35).

Fadelle recounts: “Then something extraordinary happened in me, like a violent explosion that blows everything in its path, accompanied by a feeling of well being and warmth ... As if a bright light suddenly illuminated my life in a whole new way and gave it all its meaning. I had the impression of being drunk, even as I felt in my heart an indescribable feeling of strength, an almost violent, passionate love for this Jesus Christ of whom the Gospels speak!”

The Price of Conversion: Death
His conversion was complete, total and lasting. He wanted Massoud to help him become a Christian, but met with resistance. According to Islamic law, a Muslim who leaves Islam and becomes Christian should be killed along with those who led to his conversion.

At any rate, Massoud taught him to pray and the two spent their free time reading the Gospels and praying.

Massoud was released from the army while Muhammad was on leave and he did not find him on his return. Shortly after he too was discharged and returned to his parents’ house.

Years of Trial
For Fadelle, that was the beginning of a great ordeal that would last for years, requiring unparalleled loyalty.

As Massoud had recommended, he sought to conceal his conversion from his family, while avoiding, under various pretexts, to participate in their common Muslim prayers. At the same time he tried to approach the Christians, but they were afraid to accept him in their churches since they did not know him and were fearful due of the climate of persecution in which they lived.

Fadelle’s consolation was to read, covertly, the Bible he had received from Massoud, meditating especially on the Gospels. Finally he succeeded, through a Christian with whom he had made friends, to attend a church; but the eagerly awaited baptism had still not happened.

Time went by and in 1992 his father told him he had arranged a bride for him and that he should get married. It was a girl from the same social environment, and naturally a Muslim, called Anwar.

After his marriage and the birth of a son, Fadelle, who continued to attend church secretly, met a foreign missionary in Iraq who agreed to prepare him for baptism. But then something unexpected happened. One day, when he returned from Mass, his wife, who did not understand where he went every Sunday, asked if he had been going to see another woman. Caught by surprise and without thinking about what to say, Fadelle replied that he was a Christian and went to Mass every Sunday.

Wife Converts
His wife was totally shocked by the news that she was married to a Christian. Discombobulated, she locked herself in her room. Later, in the absence of her husband, she took their son and went to her mother’s house.

Fadelle then realized he was in danger. She would tell her family that he was a Christian and he would be sentenced to death. However, miraculously, his wife said nothing to her folks and agreed to go back to her own home. Even more, she asked Fadelle to explain what Christianity was. He employed the same method that Massoud had used with him. He asked her to reread the Koran trying to pay attention to the meaning of its words and the doctrine it expressed. As had happened with him, she was shocked, especially with the way the Koran deals with Muslim women.

After reading the Gospels, Anwar secretly began attending Church with her husband and taking religion classes with the missionary.

Threats of Death and Imprisonment
In 1997 an episode of capital importance took place in Fedelle’s life. His family finally realized he had taken a distance from Islam and became suspicious that something was afoot. When the couple went to church, his brothers searched his home and found the copy of the Bible. And when they questioned his young son, he crossed himself as he had learned from his parents.

The next day, at dawn, Muhammad was taken to his parent’s house on an urgent pretext. As he entered the main room, he was immediately beaten by his brothers and uncles in the presence of his father. The latter, furious with indignation, accused him of being a Christian. His own mother shouted, “Kill him and cast his body in the sewer!”

Although he was not killed on that occasion, Fadelle was taken by a cousin to one of Saddam Hussein’s political prisons to be tortured in order to reveal the name of the Christians who had “corrupted” him. For three months he was severely tortured, lost almost half his weight, and then was released. The family pretended it had all been a mistake, but put one of his sisters in his house to watch him.

Flight from Iraq, Baptism
Finally, in April 2000, after many vicissitudes, the couple and their two children managed to escape to Jordan, where he realized his longed-for dream of being baptized, along with his wife. He took the name John (but became known as Joseph) and she, Maryam.

Assassination Attempt
However, they were still unable to practice Catholicism in peace. When his family realized he had fled, they started looking for him and eventually found him in Jordan. In December of that year, four siblings and an uncle managed to lure him to a deserted place where, after a brief argument, they demanded that he apostatize from Christianity and attempted to execute the fatwa that condemns a person to death for leaving Islam.

Miraculously, despite being shot at point-blank range, the bullets narrowly missed him and he heard an inner voice telling him to run. Already some distance away, a bullet hit his ankle and he fell in the mud, fainting. His attackers thought he was dead and fled. Fadelle was taken by a stranger to a hospital and later treated by Christian doctors in his home, but Church authorities ordered him to leave Jordan in order not to endanger the Christian community. He took refuge in France, where he lives to this day.

The Beauty of a Righteous Soul
The way Fadelle was attracted by Catholicism shows how his soul had a profound righteousness and how his adherence to Islam was merely the result of circumstances of birth and family. He was actually prepared, once in contact with the truth, to accept it even at the cost of losing all the comforts and privileges of a high social position and suffering terrible persecution.

His and his wife’s conversions show how Muslims can convert and how many of them actually yearn, though unknowingly, for this “bread of life,” which is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray for these souls and for Christians so harshly persecuted in Islamic countries.

1. Joseph Fadelle, Le Prix à Payer, L’oeuvre Editions, Paris, 2010. Unfortunately the book has not been translated into English.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 166

the title of the OP is ‘Can you prove the existence of God with the caveat of not using the bible”.

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 166

for committing myself to the real world based on our scientific understanding of reality … as if there was something else available for me to believe in?

When you said this it reminded me of something I read from Creation Rediscovered by Gerard J. Keane. I hope it is helpful.

Although he originally was a Christian, Charles Darwin came to embrace positivism (the belief that only knowledge gained through empirical science is valid and that other forms of knowledge which admit the existence of the supernatural are not legitimate).

(The terms positivism, naturalism, and scientism are so similiar in meaning as to be virtually interchangeable within the Origins debate.).

He thus sought to define causation only in terms of naturalistic philosophy. But the range of aspects in Origins unavoidably involves philosophy and theology---and so the debate is all about beliefs in general, and not simply about empirical science.

Science can be defined as knowledge, the study of reality. It is the study of what "is", including things which can be perceived beyond this world. Despite those who would impose their view that nothing exists other than the material Universe, science per se cannot be defined only as empirical science; questions of philosophy and theology are also proper subjects for investigation.

Msgr. John F. MCCarthy, O.S. (editor of Living tradition, Rome) explains the crucial importance of reality in comprehending the nature of "science":

"Science is the knowledge of the meaning of reality, and it may be divided into the knowledge of the various kinds oand meaning of reality. Intelligence can distinguish between the identity of a sensible object and its form. It can, for instance, distinguish between the cow and its whitenewss and blackness. Again, it can distinguish the sensible form of the cow and whiat it has narrowed down to be the "essense" of cows as such...

Reality is first and foremost a concept in the mind identified with that protionof mental objects shich cannot be recognized to be illusory, deceptive or fantastic, and referring to their sources as known by intellectual inference to exist extramentally. Being is the general term which includes both the conscious and the extra-conscious modes of existence, including illusions, deceptions, and fantasies. Thus, Gibraltar has real existence, while Oz has only fantastic existence....The number five does not have extramental substantial existence, but it has a real place within the human intellect. .....[It] fits within the concept of reality as a real conscious feature of the concretely existing intellect, standing outside of consciousness and constitutiong a part fo teh substance, man. Reality, then, is not identified with physical reality; it is rather a genus whose meaning becomes clear as it is divided into the two species of physical reality and intellectual reality....

Reality does not, then, mean merely verification in sense experience; it means also verification in intellectual experience....Reality is the experienceof the intelligibility of things. It imposes itself upon the mind, not only as the existence of sensory objects, but also as the meaning which lies behind them. "The Science of Historical Theology:Elements of a Definition." pgs. 37-39.

Arguing that the power and success of modern empirical science has been itslef "phenomenal" to the point of establishing well-entrenced disbelief in the validity and usefullness of anyu other type of science, Mrgr. McCarthy shows to the contrary that

"The fact that reality is an intellectual object allows the intelligence to study it as an object, and not as identified with one's own subjectivity....Science is composed of insight on the part of the knowing subject, meaning on the part of the real objects that he knows, and understanding on the part of the intellect which provides his medium of thought. It is not a mere collection of unrelated facts verified by experience. It is structured knowleege, and the structure arises from the natural development of the mind itself. Material science is the collection of facts; formal science is the understanding of the facts in the intellect of the knower....

The recognition of the difference between what the intellect knows and how it knows what it knows divides the field of science into material and formal knowldege of reality. It also divides the field into the lower level of knowledge of the facts (scientia) and the higher level of understanding of the facts (intellectus). It is understanding that advances science towards ever greater intelligibility and protects its conclusions from those forms of unscientific understandig called pseudo-science. pgs. 48-49.

Science is the discovery and description of those rules by which the physical Universe operates. These laws of nature must be acknowledged as having objective existence, and are in no way the product of man's scientific endeavors.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 168

The Creation view accepts, on Faith in the revealed God, that His revelation of Scripture is inerrant, that finite man can know something of the Infinite, can deduce the existence of an unseen Designer Who possesses infinite intelligence, and can discern absolute principles.

A central feature of SC is that of separate distinct "kinds". Genesis refers to each being made according to its "kind". A "kind" includes creatures or plants that are derived from each of the original created life forms. A "kind" is a unique life form. We have seen that problems arise and confusion abounds in classifying various kinds of life forms and so SC scientists use the word "baramin" to facilitate a definition.

"From the Hebrew roots-"bara" (created) and "min" (kind)....The word "baramin" has been suggested as a modern name for the basic created types of living things. Creationists believe that a definite boundary was established between the various baramins and that this boundary has made possible the classification of living things into distinct groups, ...."baramin" is not exactly equivalent to any single category in modern (evolutionistic) taxonomy, such as the terms "species", "genus", "family", or "order". New species can arise, but new baramin cannot." Paul S. Taylor, "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" pg. 28.

Earlier I posted the division into kinds and pointed out that there may be various species within a particular "kind", and variety definitely does occur, but not beyond kinds. That's because a definite boundary was established by Creator God and that boundary or barrier we now know through the science of Genetics is DNA. Empirical science can, by deduction, shed light on the existence of an intelligent Force at work in the universe. The existence of DNA coded information impressed upon matter, its fantastic complexity and orderliness condensed into an incredibly tiny size suggests the work of a brilliant Intelligence, God, rather than random chance processes.

Evolutionists point out the fact that similiar traits appear in unrelated species and claim that convergence therefore occurs in the process of evolutionary descent. BUT WHAT CREATURES HAVE EVER TRULY CONVERGED?

You did well to propose your analysis of the Biblibal text, because it is mistaken in its interpretation of the meaning of "kind".

God established a boundary, but did so in spacetime, not in our categorial perception. When a species evolves, that's a "min" which manifests in creation, not something new diverging from original creation.

You read "kind" as "the species I can see with my eyes and classify through its form, genetics and biology, the unity of population composed of individuals which can interbreed producing fertile offspring". This is a label which exists in your mind, not the species itself.

As you can see by the very composite meaning of the root in Strong (4478 and following): http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB44.htm#S4480

The boundaries posed by God are infinitely more complicated, self-replicating and self-preserving, and they cross the limits of appearance. Infact, we might state that the creation of kinds is the creation of blueprints, platonic ideas, which I mentioned before. DNA and its sequence is encoded information about something, not that something, which is conditioned by environement and its rules as well as DNA and information therein. If the environement changes in time within a certain spectrum of physical values, the appearance of that something will change as well.

To substantiate this assertion, we might analyze Genesis 1.

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

B(e)reshit means, in the beginning, but we might not farfetchedly translate it also with/in beginningness.

Bara means created.

Elokhim is a plurale majestatis for God.

At is the particle which introduces the object of a verb, as well as the equivalent of the greek alpha and omega, funnily.

Shamayim means heavens, but is also a composite of distant.

V(e) means and.

Haaretz is Earth, and yet it also may, more or less metaphorically stand for something else, depending on its solidity and conventional meaning in ancient philosophies.

This verse might yeld a subsidiary meaning of in/with the beginning of time God created space and matter.

Now, this is a subsidiary meaning, and yet, it may be suggesting to consider the nature of time and its relationship to the divine act of creation. With/in beginning(ness).

To expound this a bit more, let us consider Shatnez and Kilayim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil%27ayim_%28prohibition%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil%27ayim_%28tractate%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez

It is improper for man to interfere in God's creation mixing what has been created with an identity, because this is a form of meddling with kinds. Not so their natural developement through timespace. Infact, shatnez is allowed in the vestments of priests in Temple service: God is allowed to mix things as he wishes, any time.

As for the rest, I consider it a sensible contribution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sinperium,

reply 167

The OP isn't possible. No one is going to "prove" God to anyone else.

Exactly so and if more people would acknowledge that simple fact, we could begin to discuss something meaningful ... but most theists I've run into on JU don't seem to be capable of discussing much besides their chosen religion ... which seems pointless when nonbelievers are the target. You have always appeared to be honest and fair and that everyone should appreciate, but we know it doesn’t work that way, so sad. You have found a way to blend your spiritual beliefs with the real world and that must be commended IMO because that is no easy task with so much pressure from both sides if the aisle … accolades.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GirlFriendTess,

reply 172

Quoting Sinperium, reply 167The OP isn't possible. No one is going to "prove" God to anyone else.

The fact that no one is going to prove absolute truth to another, doesn't mean that truth becomes a lie. It's not a fault of the object, but a fault of our ability to understand.

You seem under the impression that Sinperium is commendable because he asserts the relativity of his experience. Sinperium is commendable for his respect of another's point of view, and yet what he is stating is somehow something which should worry you: infact, what he is doing is telling you that you cannot understand his religion without an experience of God. He is stating that his God (which he believes exists) has on purpose rejected you, unless you have that experience.

A truly protestant/reformed crypto-elitist vision of christianism, under some aspects. Not that this is in itself reprehensible.

On the other hand, while I respect your right to have your opinion, I will not do the same. I am telling you that there is an absolute truth (which is undeniable, although we may disagree on its nature) and that you and I cannot know it (because of the limits of our human minds), but that you and I can have a reasonable glimpse of it, with repeatable experiences.

This is not saying that God can be proven (I don't think you want to study for 20 years just to know that God exists, although I would advise it: for the usefulness of study alone if not for the collateral and yet fundamental benefit), but saying that God doesn't hide behind purely subjective experiences. Besides, it's a bit too timid to believe something is true (absolutely true) and then not expounding such truth (tolerantly and respectfully) to others.

Of course, if when I have expressed to you this truth you are still of the same idea as before, I am not going to chase you to convince you.

Democracy has given us the highly mistaken idea, that because we are all equal (false, we are all equivalent under certain aspects, not equal), everyone has the same right to assert everything which he happens to believe. There are things which are true, and things which aren't. Although we don't know who is right for certain, it would be a good idea that we started reflecting a bit more about it.

Of course, if intelligent and prepared and with access to good enough evidence and reasoning, you might convince me that I am wrong. The question is: can you consider the opposite case? I suppose that such question can yeld interesting results.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting lulapilgrim,

reply 170

Reply #170 lulapilgrim

Lula, I don’t have much use for a creationists/religious list of definitions and classifications for things that are common knowledge. And your continued use of such terms as ‘atheistic evolution’, ‘Darwinism’ and ‘true science (???)’ etc. just accents your prejudice and your complete misunderstanding of what it even means just to be an atheist or a scientist today. I can match you article for article and jab for jab if that is what you want (not) … but I prefer to do my own thinking and talking as much as possible. I am sure most would prefer a link though and not any more of this bulk copying and pasting nonsense, just an idea. I am more of a ‘meat and potato’ woman and claim little psychological expertise beyond simple contemplation anyway preferring instead real physiological and scientific efforts. I actually understand why we go to doctors for our ailments instead of the church for an exorcism as is proper … do you?

Successfully updated karma reason!

You would be surprised how many doctors today study astrology. Or how many psychologists dabble in the occult. They don't tell non-doctors or non-psychologists, though.

Fact is: your mental state has measurable physiological effects on your health, and not all occult kookery is such because it doesn't work.

http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=52815

The Baylor Survey found that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases credulity, as measured by beliefs in such things as dreams, Bigfoot, UFOs, haunted houses, communicating with the dead and astrology (Ch. 15, "Credulity: Who Believes in Bigfoot"). Still, it remains widely believed that religious people are especially credulous, particularly those who identify themselves as Evangelicals, born again, Bible believers and fundamentalists. However, the ISR researchers found that conservative religious Americans are far less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal than are other Americans, with self-identified theological liberals and the irreligious far more likely than other Americans to believe. The researchers say this shows that it is not religion in general that suppresses such beliefs, but conservative religion.

"There's an old saying that a man who no longer believes in God is ready to believe in just about anything, and it turns out our data suggests it's true. That is to say, religious people don't believe this stuff, but there's no education effect," Stark said.

Among other interesting findings on paranormal or occult beliefs: People who have read The Purpose-Driven Life or any book in the Left Behind series are less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal, while those who have read any book on dianetics or The Da Vinci Code are more likely to believe.

http://socreal.fom.ru/?link=ARTICLE&aid=159

Women are twice as likely as men to believe in magic: 40% of women assume that it can affect human fate or health (50% are skeptical about it), while men are much less likely to believe in miracle-working (23% believe, and 68% are skeptics). Age differences are much less noticeable here, but it should be stressed that younger respondents (under 35 years old) are more apt to believe in magic than older respondents (55 years and older): 35% and 26%, respectively. Attitudes towards magic do not seem to have any strong correlations with the interviewee's place of residence: the ratio between believers and non-believers is more or less the same in the villages, small towns and big cities we surveyed, with the exception of Moscow, where 74%, or three-quarters of those polled reported having no faith in magic, and as few as 23% admitted to believing in the occult.

Meanwhile, the survey revealed a very strong correlation between people's belief or disbelief in magic and their income levels. A total of 43% of respondents with monthly earnings under 1,500 rubles believe in metaphysics, while 51% do not. In contrast, just 25% of respondents with monthly incomes at 3,000 rubles and over believe in magic, and 68% do not.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read • Delete cookies created by the forum • Return to Top

Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0 #108436 walnut3 Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001031 Page Render Time: