Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Aquila King

Does 'God' Intend to be Proven?

163 posts in this topic

You mentioned individuals like Melchizedek   in the teachings & prophecies , they prophesied  about Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Will Due that post was for you.

I've read everything I think there was to read that leads to other forms of what people believe or ritually put their faith and trust in ,  I see through it all because I compared it with Jesus and there is no other way that succeeds him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2017 at 11:43 AM, Aquila King said:

The big debate for several millennia is whether or not the existence of what many people call 'God' can be proven. Some say they can prove God exists, others vise versa. Still others say God's existence can't be proven either way, or at the very least that we simply have no way of knowing at this time.

But what if God never intended to be proven to exist in the first place? What if being proven to exist is irrelevant to his/her goal(s)? What if this whole debate that's been raging for thousands of years was intended to take place, or at the very least meant to remain an open question?

Of course this is all under the assumption that God does exist, and that God has a plan; just that the 'plan' doesn't involve proving his/her own existence. I have my own ideas concerning what we call 'God' (as we all do), but when it comes to these big questions I honestly don't know. Just figured I'd throw this idea out there since there seems to be many people operating under some pretty big assumptions.

What does the bible say about knowing God? That's a good place to start on your journey if you really don't know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

What does the bible say about knowing God? That's a good place to start on your journey if you really don't know

Brilliant. A book that begins with a fictional story.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Brilliant. A book that begins with a fictional story.

It's not all fiction.

Do you know which parts are true?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good argument for the case of Christ can be found via Simon Greenleaf. He was awarded the honorary Doctor of Laws degree by Harvard in 1834. He received the same honor from Amherst in 1845, and again from the University of Alabama in 1852.

In 1833, Greenleaf was named to the Royall professorship, and in 1846 succeeded Judge Joseph Story as Dane professor of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library. He was retained as chief counsel by the Warren Bridge group in the US Supreme Court case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837),where the case laid down the rule that public contracts must be construed in favor of states.

In 1848, Greenleaf retired from his active duties, and became professor emeritus. After being for many years president of the Massachusetts Bible Society, he died at Cambridge. Greenleaf's well-known work, a Treatise on the Law of Evidence, is considered a classic of American jurisprudence. Greenleaf prepared the original constitution of the Colony of Liberia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

Simon Greenleaf penned the Testimony of the Evangelists. After reviewing evidence for Christ, and His resurrection, he came to the only conclusion, it was legit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelists

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

It's not all fiction.

Do you know which parts are true?

It begins with fiction making it already suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It begins with fiction making it already suspect.

Every suspect deserves a fair trial.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

What does the bible say about knowing God? That's a good place to start on your journey if you really don't know

I'm very well aware of what the bible says concerning this. I was a devout evangelical Christian for many years before opening my mind to different possibilities.

Though thank you for the consideration.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To AK, ( Aquila King: I hope you don't mind me addressing you with your screen name initials. If you do mind, let me know, and I will then on call you the way you choose. :) ) 

Ok, what was going to be my point? :o   

Oh I remember! Anyways, sorry I"m a bit late on responding to this post. On top of long shifts and some of them on top of each other, I also had a medical procedure (no worries anyone, routine) that was on my mind, and now it's done. :yes: 

On 9/4/2017 at 2:07 PM, Aquila King said:
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

The main thing I'm feeling within this part of your post, is confusion. I'm not sure how you are guiding your point here. Anyways, I can see how it can be a wish to be viewed into a scientific question, because thus looking at it that way, so one can get their proof to prove God, scientifically. 

Although, I am wondering if you are understanding what I'm trying to say, when I see the wish to prove God, came from attempts at converting the non-believers. I'm saying, it's not the wish of the ones, who are trying to prove God to get converts, or that it is really a wish from the non-believers to have them be converted. I feel strongly, it was a point, and justification that was brought up to show reasoning why non-believers feel they cannot honestly convert. In a sense, the asking for proof, seems to me, to be a by-product of dismissal of proselytizers. I feel, if I can put myself in place of the non-believers, it was probably thought that by reason of that asking for proof, they didn't think there was going to be an answer and thought that was going to be it, and then everyone can move on. 

Yes, I agree with you, it can be seen in a scientific sense, because when asked for proof, it would have to be scientifically, so the non-believers would then believe. Right? But, the kicker here I feel, is that it was probably believed, there wasn't going to be a scientific answer to that, and thus non-believers were going to have their reasoning to not convert, and again, for everyone to move on. 

Maybe you did understand my point, and I'm misunderstanding that you got my point, and I'm reading this wrong on first reading. *shrugs* :cry: 

I actually agree with you whole heartedly in regards to the italicized above. ^ ^_^

I think the confusion came from the fact that you were speaking from the perspective of origins of the intention to prove, whereas I was speaking from the perspective of the epistemological nature of how to prove. In other words, I was saying that if someone had the intention to go about proving God, it should be approached scientifically (at least to a degree) as it is a truth claim about the nature of reality. Where as you were explaining the origins of people's intentions to prove God, and the reasons why people have this intent in the first place.

I believe I understood what you were saying, we were both just speaking in different directions. :wacko: It's kinda my fault for going slightly off on a tangent. Sorry 'bout that.

Well, first I thank you and I'm :D  and :sk and high fiving the air for you seeing what I'm saying. Thank you. And I think that happens, we're talking behind two different perspectives. And I believe, it's understandable, because that's how each of us see it. (I thank you for such a wonderful debate here. Nope, I shall say, a wonderful intellectual discussion. :yes: ) And I also feel, I can see how you have come to how it can be looked upon scientifically. I think I have mentioned this in the past, but I often reflect in that thought process myself. 

On 9/4/2017 at 2:07 PM, Aquila King said:
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You know something, believe it or not, I agree with you whole heartily here!!! :yes:  That is how I would see it too. :tu:  In fact, this often comes up in various science fiction and fantasy shows, where the 'save the day' type answer, doesn't always come quickly to the straight up logical and factual characters like Spock (Star Trek) pretty much most of the town of Eureka(Eureka) Sheldon, Howard, Leonard, and Raj (Big Bang Theory), and that sometimes intuition and instinct, hunches, and such seems to add into that to help or even solely save the day. Like from the characters of these shows who end up adding to that mix, but does not meet the level of the other characters. McCoy and Kirk (Star Trek) Sheriff Carter (Eureka) Penny (Big Bang Theory) 

I myself, add both into the mix in my life, and it helps me a lot

The thing is, I don't see this as entirely objective, and there will be those who will see differently, and on times, come to successful conclusions at this. I have seen this, by observations through out my life. 

I'm glad we could agree on that! :D This always seems to be a strong point of disagreement with some people, so it's refreshing to know I'm not alone in that way of thinking.

I try to live my life in a state of balance. I think that's a general goal to strive towards in almost everything.

I feel the same way, myself. I feel, that is how I try to go on, trying and hoping in succeeding maintaining a balance of it. Sometimes, I find it hard. But a lot of the times, it clinches. :D 

On 9/4/2017 at 2:07 PM, Aquila King said:
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, yes, we could agree to disagree. :D  ;)   

Or, this could be seen, as something a lot more complicated to put into clear defining words. It also could be added on, there is probably a lot that you and I don't know, that would make it more complicated to just say in a post. 

As I have said before, a lot of the times, the pointing out of why God exists and doesn't intervene in a world full of pain, is their reasoning to not believe. Not to question God himself. If God is said to be caring, and he doesn't intervene when there is suffering, therefor one could conclude that he must not exist. For I think, it is easy to see a caring God to actually want and will intervene to eliminate pain and suffering. To sum that up, it's not questioning God why he ignores us, it's justification that he doesn't exist, because of seeing no evidence. 

I can maybe understand some asking, 'who are we to question God?', but, I also understand others in seeing there is no way he can exist for one to even question him. 

I can see how some cannot fathom that he doesn't exist, but I feel they should realize, that others who just do not believe, are not denying the existence of God, but seeing the reasoning of the lack of existence of God. I feel strongly, one cannot deny a belief. I feel, that you can deny the existence, if there is no evidence of it. So, if there are 'justifications' from some who feel there is a reason that God does exist and lacks interference in a pain and suffering filled world, OK, and I can understand they feel that way. But, I feel this is placed under the subjective outlook, and not for the objective outlook. 

Yes, God's apparent silence as well as the mere existence of evil in this world would definitely lend credence to the belief that God does not exist. I merely suggest that under certain specific possibilities regarding the nature of God (a.k.a., defining exactly what 'God' is and how 'God' operates), it is possible for God's silence and the existence of evil to be congruent with his existence rather than contradictory. There are too many dogmatic assumptions made about the nature of God (mostly by the religious) that if strictly adhered to would cause confusion towards topics such as evil and suffering.

I've always found the question 'who are we to question God' to be a lazy excuse not to question him, or on a darker note, a lie taught by the church in order to maintain control. How will we ever know the answer to anything if we don't question it first? To the people that say that God cannot be understood or even proven, I merely ask 'how do you know?' I find there to be nothing more inherently wrong then to simply not ask questions, or to deny that there even are answers. Or worse, to consider questioning things a mortal sin.

I think what you said, is wonderful. And, I also agree with you. I feel, because of the lack of response, it is probably understandable to question. The silence begets the questioning, I would think. 

Quote

Beliefs are not chosen. If someone were to strap me to a lie detector test, put a gun to my head, and say "believe in Santa Clause or I'll shoot!" I can't say for certain that I'll pass. Because I can't just 'choose' to believe in something. I have to be convinced of it first, and then I will subconsciously believe it as a result of convincing. And I find that a sad fact of life, because so many have spent so much time and effort to try and force people to believe certain things (the most commonly forced means of believing being brainwashing and indoctrination from birth) without simply using the most obvious (and frankly humane) way of getting someone to believe something: by convincing them. It seems to me to be a deeply rooted insecurity concerning the so-called factual nature of their arguments.

Exactly the way I see it. Thank you! And I think you put it very well. And yes, those who insist on getting others force to believe, is probably using brainwashing to do it, and just don't see it as brainwashing. I'm glad to see how I am not the only one that sees 'choosing to believe' is just not plausible to do and done harmlessly. 

On 9/4/2017 at 2:07 PM, Aquila King said:
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ahhhh! :yes:  I see. :)  You have had the experience of exploring more outlooks and background in various beliefs and religions, and that is how you came by it in your point of view. I find that is cool, and see how you have come to this conclusion. Like I said, this is the first time I have seen someone thinking this type of thought. I think it is actually refreshing too. 

Thank you. :) I actually started out as a fundamentalist Christian, then a staunch atheist, and now I've leveled out a bit along the way.

Thank you for imparting yourself here. I find it fascinating and something to learn and reflect from. Thank you. :yes: 

On 9/4/2017 at 2:07 PM, Aquila King said:
On 9/4/2017 at 0:29 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

No, it's cool. And, I thank you on the more in depth response. :)  :yes:  And your last part of your post, seems to come to a particular conclusion I mentioned in my post here. 

I thank you for a very reflective nature of your point of view and to looking at mine open minded like. :)  I think, in the end, as we as your op is questioning the motive of God and his intention of his existence, I think we learn other things, in how you, and I, and probably others see things and learn a little more about it. 

Frankly, I think us both still have a different outlook on the answer, (which is understandable and ok :tu: ) but, I wonder if this is the first time the motive of God and how he is being seen. 

I like that we're able to openly discuss controversial topics such as these, as well as various viewpoints, without any hateful arguments. ^_^ I find it refreshing.

I have been wanting to thank you for this discussion between you and I. You, (along various wonderful others here) I find to be one of those beautiful rare gifts that give my synapses a wonderful jolt when reading and discussing points in posts to each other. I  love that. I think your points and how you have presented them and how you took in what I posted, is very very stimulating. In fact, I found it 

tenor.gif

:tu: AK!!! :D  

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

To AK, ( Aquila King: I hope you don't mind me addressing you with your screen name initials. If you do mind, let me know, and I will then on call you the way you choose. :) ) 

I call myself AK on here, so it's kool. :D Whichevs you prefer. ;)

53 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, first I thank you and I'm :D  and :sk and high fiving the air for you seeing what I'm saying. Thank you. And I think that happens, we're talking behind two different perspectives. And I believe, it's understandable, because that's how each of us see it. (I thank you for such a wonderful debate here. Nope, I shall say, a wonderful intellectual discussion. :yes: ) And I also feel, I can see how you have come to how it can be looked upon scientifically. I think I have mentioned this in the past, but I often reflect in that thought process myself. 

Seth-Meyers-Amy-Poehler-High-Five-Weeken

Darn tootin'!! :P

53 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Thank you for imparting yourself here. I find it fascinating and something to learn and reflect from. Thank you. :yes: 

I have been wanting to thank you for this discussion between you and I. You, (along various wonderful others here) I find to be one of those beautiful rare gifts that give my synapses a wonderful jolt when reading and discussing points in posts to each other. I  love that. I think your points and how you have presented them and how you took in what I posted, is very very stimulating. In fact, I found it 

tenor.gif

:tu: AK!!! :D  

 

giphy.gif

:blush: I feel exactly the same about your posts! :D I hope to have many more discussions like this with you as well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 2:29 PM, Aquila King said:

I call myself AK on here, so it's kool. :D Whichevs you prefer. ;)

Seth-Meyers-Amy-Poehler-High-Five-Weeken

Darn tootin'!! :P

giphy.gif

:blush: I feel exactly the same about your posts! :D I hope to have many more discussions like this with you as well.

You're post made me smile, while I was viewing it on my phone, while on a lunch break at work. :D  Thanks. :) 

I hope you'll forgive me for posting in spurts, and I'm going to try to keep up with all the posts. Real life keeps getting in the way!!! :o  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You're post made me smile, while I was viewing it on my phone, while on a lunch break at work. :D  Thanks. :) 

I hope you'll forgive me for posting in spurts, and I'm going to try to keep up with all the posts. Real life keeps getting in the way!!! :o  

oh it's kool. ^_^ If I actually had a life I'd do the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.