Many have talked about proof - proof of religious claims, proof of the Bible (or other religious texts), proof from science or logic that God does not exist or is not worthy of worship or belief or faith.

One person may say that liver tastes good. Another says no, it is terrible. Yet another says it has no taste whatsoever. And there may be some who cannot taste anything, and doubt that anyone does.

Even with all our senses (taste, sight, touch, hearing, smell), we have different levels of capability. Some can be "measured" and analyzed, to an extent. But some cannot because we can't measure all aspects.

So, I see the demand that the person, who has a religious faith or has had spiritual experiences, prove it, to be similar to asking the person who thinks liver tastes great to prove it.

Believe God to be real and active in your life? You're asked to prove it. If you can't, then that is shown as evidence that God is not real and active.

It has been commented that various topics reach the same point. In my opinion, it is because the subjective is being judged on the objective scale. I say that if it could be judged on that objective scale, it probably wouldn't be the God that we are discussing.

And that is never going to go away Carl. This debate will go on until the end of time, or until science puts belief away. As long as there are people who claim such knowledge, there will be others who demand proof. That's just the way it is.

There's no escaping the fact that if anything, Christianity if full of inconsistencies. The god of the bible seems unable to pull it off in plain sight for all to see, with anything we can all agree on. You are merely one more person with your own slant on things and you see it all your own way.

I'm happy that the big screen television I purchased has a clearly written manual that I can follow, which is written is several languages by the way. Wow, quite an accomplishment for mere men!

Subjective...objective...whatever. What is written must be qualified. Eyes that have scales, pshaw! I see crystal clear when it comes to all of this. Been there, done that.

Thanks Carl for your well thought out posting. As was stated in another post, we learn from this forum but we don't change anyone which is not our place anyway.

People can believe as they wish, but in my case, I will state like Joshua "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord".

Blessings,

Emilie

Hi

I agree, Carl, that different people seem to respond differently to different stimuli ~ to pain, for example ~ and that some people do seem to be more "spiritually in tune" than others ~ though defining or explaining that would not be easy.

Maybe we could say that this could include people who have seen ghosts, or interacted with deceased people in some other way, for example.

But that leaves us open to asking about those who are deluded, or who hear voices because of a mental illness, perhaps, or because drugs have been used.

I suppose that I don't have a problem so much with people believing in God or a holy spirit ~ I don't actually have a problem with anyone believing anything ~ but I have a problem accepting that God, if God exists, is as described in the Bible, and that people accept that God is this way.

As for proof, I think that it is normal, if presented with the apparently unbelievable, to ask for proof or evidence.

When members have come on here claiming to be God incarnate or an angel of God, or whatever, those people have been challenged ~ by 'believers' and 'unbelievers' alike. Provided it's not done rudely, I think that this is to be expected.

So, while I can perceive of some sort of spiritual element to life, I must also accept that those who do not believe in such a possibility will question me ~ and may be right. And I know that I will become frustrated, because this is something I sense, rather than something I can prove.

The point is, I don't know ~ ~ back to agnosticism again. I don't know if the spirituality that I can conceive of is real, or an invention of my own imagination. I don't know if the voice I occasionally hear is real or an invention of my own imagination.

But if that voice is real, it could come from deceased relatives; or the mass subconscious, or telepathically from a loved-one, or from my own mind. I don't know. I don't understand how others can feel so sure that they do know.

If I were to say that the real God was Zeus, rather than God as described in the Bible, I'm sure that people ~ including Christians ~ would argue points with me and request evidence. I would expect that.

Or am I wrong?

We discuss; we don't convert ~ that's why we always reach stalemate, I think. But that's ok. It's all part of the learning process; all part of life's rich pattern.

Are we talking specifically about Christianity here, or about 'spiritual' matters in general?

I basically agree with Argyll that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and what I consider to be tall stories. But just because this one particular vision of God is imperfect, does that mean that there cannot be a God at all?

I would argue that to discount even the possibility is to abandon objectivity. To say that 'there cannot possibly be a God of any sort' is not an objective statement, it's a statement of faith.

I was talking about both, I suppose ~ an acceptance that there might be a spiritual aspect to humanity, or even that there may exist 'God', does not mean that it has to be God as described in the Bible, or that Jesus has to be God incarnate. It's all a mystery ~ I think that the Bible actually says something like that somewhere???

Hi PDM...I actually composed that post before you posted, so I was responding to the earlier posts rather than yours. But I agree with what you say.

I think we have to recognise the limitations of science, or at least the level of scientific knowledge currently available to us. I'm not knocking science; it has given us an understanding of the natural world far beyond anything our ancestors of just a couple of centuries ago enjoyed, and it has given us vast benefits in a myriad of different areas of our lives. But science cannot tell us whether 'God' is, or is not. For a start it's very difficult to apply the scientific method to such a question; what hypothesis do we start from? How can we test it? What measurements or data can we use? What experiments can we carry out?

You just can't test for God in a lab.

Above post is why I respect Joe so much. He always looks at both sides of the coin. It has been said time and again, there is no proof either way.

Have a blessed day all!

Blessings,

Emilie

Quite so!

So really, the only logical answer is for us all to be agnostic.