is there a "God test" that can be viewed as proof?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...ah, Virgil posted while I was typing... then we'll have a another week to work on our virtuous patience... 

[chiver78]

Feb 18, 2013 18:54:16 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I'm curious about what expectations of evidence and verification that some of you require... are two testimonies enough? twenty? two hundred? ...is five examples of empirical evidence for supernatural (aka divine) order enough? ten? fifteen? ...or might you simply reject a metaphysical study as "hokie science" since it might not fit your description of natural science? or even agree that many scientists disagree about these limitations?

...just curious...

 

I am a scientist, BTDT, specifically an engineer. I tend to hold that multiple documented instances of evidence to support a specific theory suffice as scientific proof of that theory. I asked Virgil to back up his claim of proof in that other thread, knowing he's also scientifically-minded. he's committed to providing links to back up his claim, as long as I started this other thread here....which I did.

Virgil Showlion, I thank you for following up on your word. Unfortunately, I leave for my vacation this coming Saturday and will not be around until I get home late Friday 3/1. Please don't wait for me to post your links and info, but I'd also ask that you task someone who will be here with holding you to your commitment. I'll be happy to read up when I get home.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 18:57:00 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...ah, Virgil posted while I was typing... then we'll have a another week to work on our virtuous patience... 

I know it's not ideal, but circumstances are what they are.

In the meantime, a friend provided me with this link to a layman's introduction to happiness set-point theory. If Weltz concedes that amputees aren't the most miserable, suffering human beings in existence, I'll consider it a success.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 19:05:25 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Feb 18, 2013 18:54:16 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I'm curious about what expectations of evidence and verification that some of you require... are two testimonies enough? twenty? two hundred? ...is five examples of empirical evidence for supernatural (aka divine) order enough? ten? fifteen? ...or might you simply reject a metaphysical study as "hokie science" since it might not fit your description of natural science? or even agree that many scientists disagree about these limitations?

...just curious...

 

I am a scientist, BTDT, specifically an engineer. I tend to hold that multiple documented instances of evidence to support a specific theory suffice as scientific proof of that theory. I asked Virgil to back up his claim of proof in that other thread, knowing he's also scientifically-minded. he's committed to providing links to back up his claim, as long as I started this other thread here....which I did.

Virgil Showlion, I thank you for following up on your word. Unfortunately, I leave for my vacation this coming Saturday and will not be around until I get home late Friday 3/1. Please don't wait for me to post your links and info, but I'd also ask that you task someone who will be here with holding you to your commitment. I'll be happy to read up when I get home.

It will be next week Monday.

If you aren't around, I'm sure somebody (or three somebodies) will make sure I don't slink off quietly into the night.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

This thread is a healthy reminder to me as to why I never argue/debate religion - there's always at least ONE person who's sure they have all the answers or proof - and only their opinion is the right one. When questioned or asked for actual evidence or proof, they begin to talk in circles - or instead of providing a direct answer, turn it around by asking a question themselves - hoping to throw everyone else off track.

A person's opinion or belief in a religion - or non-belief - should be a personal one - there's really no right answer or side when it comes to this topic - since nothing's been proven one way or the other - except if you believe a book that was written by other human beings - and amended many times..

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 19:09:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

This thread is a healthy reminder to me as to why I never argue/debate religion - there's always at least ONE person who's sure they have all the answers or proof - and only their opinion is the right one. When questioned or asked for actual evidence or proof, they begin to talk in circles - or instead of providing a direct answer, turn it around by asking a question themselves - hoping to throw everyone else off track.

You're being a little hard on Weltz, Swamp, and Miss M, don't you think?

But now that you've broken your rule and you're here, you might as well stick around with BTDT and I. Make it an even three-on-three.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I don't think anyone is talking in circles or attempting to turn anything around.  The OP speaks of proof forthcoming.  Virgil has stated, on numerous occasions and in quite simple and clear wording that he is working on obtaining the sources/links for said proof.  Nothing he has debated in this thread has been purported to be the "truth" the OP promises, but simply a debate over questions asked.  I don't know how much more clearly that can be stated.  I guess it's easier to just accuse him of skirting/avoiding the issue than to actually read what he posted and be patient. 

[swamp]

Feb 18, 2013 19:18:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:09:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

This thread is a healthy reminder to me as to why I never argue/debate religion - there's always at least ONE person who's sure they have all the answers or proof - and only their opinion is the right one. When questioned or asked for actual evidence or proof, they begin to talk in circles - or instead of providing a direct answer, turn it around by asking a question themselves - hoping to throw everyone else off track.

You're being a little hard on Weltz, Swamp, and Miss M, don't you think?

But now that you've broken your rule and you're here, you might as well stick around with BTDT and I. Make it an even three-on-three.

My opinion is I don't know if there's a god.  I'm not sure how that makes me sure of anything. 

[chiver78]

Feb 18, 2013 19:09:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

This thread is a healthy reminder to me as to why I never argue/debate religion - there's always at least ONE person who's sure they have all the answers or proof - and only their opinion is the right one. When questioned or asked for actual evidence or proof, they begin to talk in circles - or instead of providing a direct answer, turn it around by asking a question themselves - hoping to throw everyone else off track.

A person's opinion or belief in a religion - or non-belief - should be a personal one - there's really no right answer or side when it comes to this topic - since nothing's been proven one way or the other - except if you believe a book that was written by other human beings - and amended many times..

I wholeheartedly agree with you here, luv. I offered up this thread because Virgil said he would back up his claims if I did so. I know that nothing I'm going to say will sway his opinions, and I really doubt that anything he's going to post will alter mine. I have committed to reading through his links with an open mind, though.

all that said, I'm going to reiterate my opinion that religion (spirituality, really.....religious folk just choose an organization in which to be spiritual) is absolutely personal. my major glaring issue with religion as a whole is when any one person, or group of people, move to have the law that governs everyone be part and parcel of their own religious text....and I really don't care which flavor of text.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Feb 18, 2013 19:30:59 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:09:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

 my major glaring issue with religion as a whole is when any one person, or group of people, move to have the law that governs everyone be part and parcel of their own religious text....and I really don't care which flavor of text.

...interesting... if a group of people (let's say a nation-state) choose theocracy, why deny them the choice to do so?

 




eta ...wonky quote box... chiver said it, not SL...

[chiver78]

Feb 18, 2013 19:38:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:30:59 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

...interesting... if a group of people (let's say a nation-state) choose theocracy, why deny them the choice to do so?

 




eta ...wonky quote box... chiver said it, not SL...

I'm not sure what you're asking here. a majority of this country hasn't chosen the same theocracy. what are you referring to?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

You're being a little hard on Weltz, Swamp, and Miss M, don't you think?

But now that you've broken your rule and you're here, you might as well stick around with BTDT and I. Make it an even three-on-three

But I haven't broken my own rule - I already said that I won't debate religion - and so far I haven't. That wasn't the point of my post. Nice try though.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 19:47:40 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

You're being a little hard on Weltz, Swamp, and Miss M, don't you think?

But now that you've broken your rule and you're here, you might as well stick around with BTDT and I. Make it an even three-on-three

But I haven't broken my own rule - I already said that I won't debate religion - and so far I haven't. That wasn't the point of my post. Nice try though.

So you came into the thread just to condemn Weltz's, Swamp's, and Miss M.'s arguments as baseless and cyclic? No other reason?

You surprise and disappoint me, madam.

[weltschmerz]

The arc about healing wasn't offered as proof. It was dredged out of the ether by Ms. Weltz who claimed that lack of miraculous limb regeneration documented in medical journals was proof of God's nonexistence, and I was simply pointing out to her the flaws in her reasoning.

Nonsense. It's not proof of the nonexistence of God. It's merely proof that if there is a God, he doesn't care much for amputees, since he sees fit to reward others with miraculous healings, yet the pleas of amputees go unanswered. I'll even settle for the miraculous regeneration of a pinky toe, and not an entire limb.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Feb 18, 2013 19:45:24 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:38:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...interesting... if a group of people (let's say a nation-state) choose theocracy, why deny them the choice to do so?

 




eta ...wonky quote box... chiver said it, not SL...

I'm not sure what you're asking here. a majority of this country hasn't chosen the same theocracy. what are you referring to?

...you posted that your glaring issue with religion as a whole was when theocracies are established... I wondered why you'd deny them the choice to embrace it, since you presumably claim the choice to reject it?

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 19:55:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

The arc about healing wasn't offered as proof. It was dredged out of the ether by Ms. Weltz who claimed that lack of miraculous limb regeneration documented in medical journals was proof of God's nonexistence, and I was simply pointing out to her the flaws in her reasoning.

Nonsense. It's not proof of the nonexistence of God. It's merely proof that if there is a God, he doesn't care much for amputees, since he sees fit to reward others with miraculous healings, yet the pleas of amputees go unanswered. I'll even settle for the miraculous regeneration of a pinky toe, and not an entire limb.

Why would anyone need to regenerate a pinky toe?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Feb 18, 2013 19:55:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Nonsense. It's not proof of the nonexistence of God. It's merely proof that if there is a God, he doesn't care much for amputees, since he sees fit to reward others with miraculous healings, yet the pleas of amputees go unanswered.

...I took issue with that... it doesn't serve as proof...

[weltschmerz]

Why would anyone need to regenerate a pinky toe?
---------------------
Same reason someone would need to have a withered limb he's had for a lifetime regenerated, I suppose.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 19:58:46 GMT -5 @missmargarita said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:54:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So you came into the thread just to condemn Weltz's, Swamp's, and Miss M.'s arguments as baseless and cyclic? No other reason?

You surprise and disappoint me, madam.

Silly Virgil... it wasn't our arguments she was condemning...

That's what she wants you to think.

You notice how the word "ONE" is capitalized? You assumed that was for emphasis, but it's actually an acronym for "Our Natural Enemies", which is the term SL, BTDT and I use in our debate planning sessions.

My job is to get your blood pumping, and then SL swoops in for the kill. Just like that scene in Jurassic Park where the hunter sees the one raptor ahead of him and the second raptor behind him, but he doesn't notice the third raptor slowly... stalking... him... through... the... bushes.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

So you came into the thread just to condemn Weltz's, Swamp's, and Miss M.'s arguments as baseless and cyclic? No other reason?

You surprise and disappoint me, madam.

LOL - still trying to drag me in the door - I didn't condemn anyone's arguments as baseless. I didn't even mention them or anything they'd posted - or you for that matter. I was just stating the reasons why I don't debate this subject. And how I feel about it one way or the other is of little relevance to this discussion or to anyone else - since it doesn't affect anyone's life but my own.

[vonna]

• Reply

is there a "God test" that can be viewed as proof?

Doesn't the answer depend on whether or not you believe in a god?

For those that believe, they can drum up proof.

For those that don't, they have not encountered proof enough.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Feb 18, 2013 20:14:07 GMT -5 vonna said:

• Reply

is there a "God test" that can be viewed as proof?

Doesn't the answer depend on whether or not you believe in a god?

For those that believe, they can drum up proof.

For those that don't, they have not encountered proof enough.

...good points... I almost would prefer the word "accept" over the word "believe" in those inquires... for example, one may accept the truth of something while another reject it... same someone, same something, same story, different listener... the final interaction between OJ and Nicole Simpson comes to mind...

 

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 20:13:13 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

So you came into the thread just to condemn Weltz's, Swamp's, and Miss M.'s arguments as baseless and cyclic? No other reason?

You surprise and disappoint me, madam.

LOL - still trying to drag me in the door - I didn't condemn anyone's arguments as baseless. I didn't even mention them or anything they'd posted - or you for that matter. I was just stating the reasons why I don't debate this subject. And how I feel about it one way or the other is of little relevance to this discussion or to anyone else - since it doesn't affect anyone's life but my own.

I know. I was being facetious.

But you'd better watch out for Ms. Swamp. She's mistakenly of the belief that you were referring to a specific individual and specific set of arguments in this thread.

Anyway, how about that weather, huh? With all this snow, you'd think they'd call it Coneada.

You're inside thirty feet of her now. Bear to your 1 o'clock. She has a rifle, so make sure you're inside ten feet before you go for the kill. I'll keep rustling the bushes over here. Tonight we feast like kings.

And how is that local sports team doing? Are they still scoring... points?

[chiver78]

Feb 18, 2013 19:57:01 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:45:24 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I'm not sure what you're asking here. a majority of this country hasn't chosen the same theocracy. what are you referring to?

...you posted that your glaring issue with religion as a whole was when theocracies are established... I wondered why you'd deny them the choice to embrace it, since you presumably claim the choice to reject it?

I don't. I live in country that was founded in response to a threat of religious oppression, and that has allowed for a freedom of religion.....that also infers a freedom FROM religion, as the case may be.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 18, 2013 20:32:47 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:57:01 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...you posted that your glaring issue with religion as a whole was when theocracies are established... I wondered why you'd deny them the choice to embrace it, since you presumably claim the choice to reject it?

I don't. I live in country that was founded in response to a threat of religious oppression, and that has allowed for a freedom of religion.....that also infers a freedom FROM religion, as the case may be.

It was freedom from a church, actually. And we should also emphasize a church--singular.

A church is an institution like any other. Confusing religion with a church is like confusing scientific knowledge with a university.

[mmhmm]

Feb 18, 2013 19:08:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 18, 2013 19:05:25 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I am a scientist, BTDT, specifically an engineer. I tend to hold that multiple documented instances of evidence to support a specific theory suffice as scientific proof of that theory. I asked Virgil to back up his claim of proof in that other thread, knowing he's also scientifically-minded. he's committed to providing links to back up his claim, as long as I started this other thread here....which I did.

Virgil Showlion, I thank you for following up on your word. Unfortunately, I leave for my vacation this coming Saturday and will not be around until I get home late Friday 3/1. Please don't wait for me to post your links and info, but I'd also ask that you task someone who will be here with holding you to your commitment. I'll be happy to read up when I get home.

It will be next week Monday.

If you aren't around, I'm sure somebody (or three somebodies) will make sure I don't slink off quietly into the night.

LOL!  I'll be here, Virgil.  If you try to sneak off, I'll stand on your tail to be sure you don't get anywhere.

[weltschmerz]

Any proof yet?

[Virgil Showlion]

Ah right. Yet another project I've put off.

I wasn't able to determine this past weekend if the two video sermons I'm specifically looking for or the book I'm looking for are available online. That said, I can provide a fair bit of online literature to tide you over.

The first pillar of truth is prophecy. "Required reading" for this section--getting our feet wet, so to speak--is as follows.

Firstly, three booklets published by the media branch of the LCG which provide a primer into Biblical prophecy:

www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/prophecy-fulfilled-gods-hand-in-world-affairs
www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/the-united-states-and-great-britain-in-prophecy
www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/the-bible-fact-or-fiction

I note that the only portion of any of the above references skeptics would consider 'definitive' are the fulfilled promises (as opposed to the promises that are presently being fulfilled or have yet to be fulfilled).

I'll also note that the above are meant to be broad overviews rather than comprehensive topic studies, hence interested readers will want to supplement with slightly longer (but still by no means exhaustive) supplemental studies on Daniel

www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm

and on Tyre

www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

You may also request topic studies on other specific prophecies, but I'll leave it at this for now to avoid spamming you with links.


For those who prefer video to reading, a church member recommended the following sermon to me, which is available online:

www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/sermons/lcg-sermons.cgi?category=Sermon1&item=1263538801

This selection should be broad enough to fairly debunk all but the last section of

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

That is, the material should be sufficient to show the error of (and in many cases, the casual ignorance of) "rational" skeptics. Issues regarding the "failed prophecies" regarding Jesus Christ (the topic of the last section) are covered in different material.

[swamp]

www.tomorrowsworld.org/about-us

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 25, 2013 21:04:12 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.tomorrowsworld.org/about-us

They're the ones who compiled the documents at the first three links, yes. I consider them to be a fair, authoritative source of what the Bible says (they're diligent about backing up all claims from scripture), and the three documents cited pertain to prophecies and their fulfillment.

It's an analysis of what the Bible says will come true and what history reveals did come true. If you're going to preemptively reject any and all references authored by churches and Christian scholars, the best I can do is hand you a Bible, hand you the Encyclopedia Britannica, and say "check the claims made by the former in the latter".