"Finding" "God"

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:58 pm

depends on your definition of faith cail.

The Esmer wrote:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

and if you think The Esmer is anyone other than who he claims to be, I only ask for "proof".

(sorry ur-bane, you had some good points, seems me and cail have "gotten each others goats")

Post by **Cail** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:02 pm

OK so if the "primary idea" of faith is "trust", then why do you require "proof"?

If indeed you are a person of "faith", what was the "evidence" to grant you that "trust"? Why do you require more "proof"?

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:05 pm

Esmer, that is only part of the commentary on faith after the definitions at dictionary.com. You are being very selective when it comes to defining faith, and your excerpt does not encompass alll of faith.

If you are asking about "finding god," proof has nothing to do with it.

If I may ask, are you a Christian? If so, here's a part of the definition that you may (and should) be interested in:

4. often Faith Christianity.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:06 pm

because if I'm wrong, my entire life is a fraud, and that is more frightening than anything else. I need proof, and I need to find a way to get it. Some say it can be done, others not so enthusiastic. But how to go about it is the most frustrating question.

ur-bane, we ourselves determine what definitions we are willing to accept, I selected that one because it best describes my idea of faith. Christ was a man, and he got whacked by "the man". He represents what we are capable of as humans to me, if we try hard enough, and that only speaks for his "abilities", not the "words put into his mouth" that we are all familiar with.

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:09 pm

WHAT?!?!?! Your entire life is meaningless if you are proven wrong?
This goes back to another topic....why can't the deeds of your life be meritous in and of themselves? Why does god or faith have anything to do with it?

Plus, if you are afraid of being wrong, why would you want "proof" when it is that very proof which may prove you wrong?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:12 pm

why do we stand in the window watching our girlfriend have sex with another man? We HAVE to know, thats why.

Post by **Nathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:16 pm

I don't think you have too much to worry about.

Religion is very carefully put together in such a way that it is very resistant to any kind of "proof" for or against it.

Faith is important to religion because there is no proof. What would be the point of a religion if it were provable? It wouldn't be religion any more, would it?

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:17 pm

Hmmm....when I was still dating, that window would have been broken, and I would have beat the crap out of the guy. Then I would have left the bitch anyway for cheating in the first place.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:25 pm

and the "reality" of that relationship? obliterated and invalidated.

Post by **Cail** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:02 pm

That's a pretty shaky analogy.

But seriously, If you don't have faith, how is it you came to believe in God?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:12 pm

(shaking with laughter was the intention, cail)

I do have faith, cail, I just need to verify it. but thats just me, and my definition of faith. And I came to believe in God by reading books, like most everyone else, but all they had were answers with no way to prove them, just "suppositions of reasonableness", which I won't bet my life, or soul on. That to me is "foolish". If I am going to "believe", I have to "believe in that belief". Its definitely tricky, or "shaky" as you put it, but its all I have, and all I am, a "prove it" kinda guy, but it requires "irrefutable evidence", which is hard to define, much less find.

So my question remains, if "everything came from", it should be logical to assume that there is a single point of origin that can be discovered, and therefore THE question answered. But HOW?

Post by **Nathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:23 pm

Of course, the question remains, but we already came to the best answer we have available. We established the "fact" that nobody knows for sure. Hence you must have faith to believe something about the origin of the universe.

By the way, are my posts invisible today, or are you just deftly avoiding them?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:27 pm

first, I am sorry for "ignoring" you, TMG, and second, who is "we"?

The question is, IF God is true, does science, or religion, have the best ability to "prove" it? Leave The Esmer, and his "motivations, out of it! You are all "questioning" me, and not "answering the question"!

"SAMPLE ANSWER"- "gee, I don't know, but I think "science" could best achieve that goal, and here's how I think it should go about it......."

Post by **Nathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:34 pm

it's an unanswerable question, though. If there was an available proof, you'd have been given it by now. You haven't been, so no proof is available.

who is "we"?

Anyone who's ever asked the question "is there hard and fast proof for any religion?" and then thought about it for a while.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:37 pm

so, by your reasoning, X-Rays and Gamma Rays never existed before we "discovered" them? "By now" is "when" exactly? At what stage of our development are we that we can determine "we already have the answer"? What's the point of any question? They've all been asked, haven't they?

And are you saying no man alive has ever "proved", to himself and others, that God does exist for a fact?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 pm

This is getting pretty out there. So, let me be really certain here, we're saying that faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive, right? Because proof would take something and make it certain, correct?

So, it would be impossible for someone to accurately say:

"I have faith that god exists"
and
"I know that god exists"

correct?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:20 pm

I disagree, only because there may be a way for "his" proof to become "your" proof, and then "our" proof, and therefore validate it. And knowledge doesn't disprove or eliminate faith, it supports it, and drives it, doesn't it?

(ur-bane, what? you've never seen a ceasure before?

)

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:21 pm

Not quite, Jem Cheeta.
To a person with faith, they know. They just can't prove it to anyone but themselves.

It's not the same "know" as "I know my car is silver."

But it is valid for a person of faith, unless they try to prove it.

Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:24 pm

So, then, You can say "I have faith, and I know"
but you cannot say "I have faith, and I can prove it"
right?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:27 pm

prove that you have faith in God? or prove that He actually exists? And when I say religion may prove it, I include "meditative" and other "perceptual" practices can be used to verify it.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

"Finding" "God"