The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[Jpsmith1]

OK, so not only do you believe in things that can not be 100% proven other than just by observation from external, but you also have a moral code.

Lets break that down. Up to this point, there have been arguments about faith since it can not be tested, and it isn't provable. The standard for something definitive and real has been something proveable, reliable, repeatable, and testable. Essentially the scientific method. And yet, you are admitting your wife "proves" her love for you despite only external observation of her actions, with noway to gauge the validity, the reliability, or the repeatability other than just observations you see from her. Yet, this is enough for love, and you believe she loves you.

Am I wrong wit this assertion?

Next question:

Regarding your moral code, where does it come from?

I mean, 25 years of marriage has been a "proveable, reliable, repeatable and testable" thing, for sure. 2 or 3 surgeries for me and something like 17 for my wife, countless ups and down, sometimes at odds with one another like when I drew my "once in a lifetime" elk tag and got the phone call walking out the door to see my wife who was in ICU and damn near dead.

It's also observable. Others who know us have commented on it. Almost everyone within out friend group is divorced except us. People talk about things.

On to moral philosophy, a subject I am admittedly not the best at.

I am not a moral philosopher. I do my best. I observe how my words and actions impact other people and adjust the best I can. Additionally, when I have done a harm to someone, I try to work with that person to correct the harm.

This is a process that is never-ending. I have come to recognize certain internal biases that I have and I'm working on those now. I doubt I will completely eliminate those biases but I can improve and consistent, iterative improvement is better, to my thinking, than a static and unchanging thing.

 

[Shortschaf]

Which returns me to the question.

Is there ANY assertion, no matter how untrue, that cannot be taken "on faith"?

Probably not. People can certainly believe in anything based on faith alone. But we are not so careless about what to believe in. Christianity is not a small niche. It is a religion that started with double digit followers only 2000 years ago and is now the dominant world religion.
It did not get that way with evidence that looks untrue--the evidence is compelling enough to bridge the short gap of mystery with our faith

I will bet that, if all the believers here got together and started talking about specifics, details, minutiae of the things they believe, the 'broad strokes' would be the same but the details would differ. And we're just talking Christians.

Yes the minutia is not to be concerned with all that much provided the correct "broad strokes" are believed--IE, belief that Christ's ressurrection has saved us, there is a Holy Trinity, etc. There are minor things we all get hung up on still, but none of them are worth abandoning the faith for. We all grow in our understanding every day, and many (most) of the minor misunderstandings do get explained over time

So, are some of you wrong?

Yes not all of us can be right if we believe different things. On any individual topic there is only one right answer. I would say most of us Christians do agree on the vast majority of topics however, and the differences are truly minor in scope, or can be explained away with more education of one party.

Are you believing in different gods? And all believing with equal conviction...

No. Same God. That would be a "broad stroke" that all Christians agree on

Or do we just handwave those differences away because its too difficult to explain?

What differences?
But yes there are things taught as theory, or "we believe this explanation because XYZ", and then move on from that

Then, when you add in all the different religions in the world, again all believing with an equal conviction, what is a guy like me to do?

Im sure you have already looked at that for inspiration. But for anyone else reading I personally think the breakdown of the world religions is a logical starting point.

There are not that many religions to seriously consider. And if one goes by simple majority on that, you go God of Abraham > Christianity > Catholic
Statistical winner!

From there I would (and did) learn what that denomination actually teaches internally, see if I have further doubts, and if I do move on down the list

 

[Texasbuckeye]

I mean, 25 years of marriage has been a "proveable, reliable, repeatable and testable" thing, for sure. 2 or 3 surgeries for me and something like 17 for my wife, countless ups and down, sometimes at odds with one another like when I drew my "once in a lifetime" elk tag and got the phone call walking out the door to see my wife who was in ICU and damn near dead.

It's also observable. Others who know us have commented on it. Almost everyone within out friend group is divorced except us. People talk about things.

On to moral philosophy, a subject I am admittedly not the best at.

I am not a moral philosopher. I do my best. I observe how my words and actions impact other people and adjust the best I can. Additionally, when I have done a harm to someone, I try to work with that person to correct the harm.

This is a process that is never-ending. I have come to recognize certain internal biases that I have and I'm working on those now. I doubt I will completely eliminate those biases but I can improve and consistent, iterative improvement is better, to my thinking, than a static and unchanging thing.

You have to see tue hypocrisy you are speaking…you always didnt have 25 years of marriage to be reliable, repeatable, etc..at one point in your past it was as fresh as the morning dew and you still went with it…something no one else could see, test repeat, etc. And yet, you reject people who claim to have decades more experience with God just straight because you do not also have that same experience and can not see it. That is what some people would call a logical flaw.

Regarding the moral code, you certainly seem to have some sort of rules or basis you live by. So where did that come from? Have you ever given any thought to the orogin of your rule system? You clearly think a cheating spouse is bad, you clearly admitted harming someone else is not good. Where did these thoughts come from?

 

[Texasbuckeye]

You must be able to see that there is a major difference between real on one hand and reliable and credible on the other. Say a man commits murder and claims he was fearful not to because God told him to do it in a vision. The emotion of fear would be real but not the underlying cause of the fear. Would you consider that emotion of fear valid support for the existence of God.

I need proof of God to believe because the concept of God is likely the most important idea in the history of mankind. If true, it has profound implications and because of that, it deserves rigorous standards of evidence, just like any other extraordinary claim.

Regarding your claim that “the earnest seeker will find God,” I know this is meant with good intent but to someone who has sought and not found, it sounds like blame. It implies that failure to find God reflects a deficiency in the seeker rather than the possibility that God may not be there (or may not reveal himself). It becomes a no-win framing: if you find God, you're sincere; if you don’t, you're insincere or hard-hearted.

That mindset can be deeply harmful. There are people who have searched with genuine longing and anguish, and some have even despaired to the point of taking their own lives. Would we say to their grieving families, “If only they had been more earnest, they would have found God”?

Moreover, there are well-documented cases of former devout believers—people like Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker who are authors of some of the books on the list I sent you—who once experienced what they believed was a deep, personal connection to God but later lost their faith after continued study and reflection. Were they not sincere? Or is it possible that sincere people can honestly come to different conclusions?

Faith may be meaningful to you because of how it feels or what it brings to your life, and I can respect that. But for someone who values truth at the cost of discomfort, belief must come with sufficient evidence not just faith.

Any vision someone has where they are told to do something out of the character of God is not from God. There is no time when God would, or has ever, told someone in a vision to kill someone. If God wants someone dead (for whatever reason, but almost always in the old testament this was due to consumed worship of another god) then God takes care of that Himself. God would never ask someone to violate His commandments, and Thou shall not murder is a very direct command from God.

Regarding the rest of your post, i am going to address just the first two parts of it. First, you are willing to accept something as real but with no reliableeans of testing, ahowing validity, repeatability etc, and yet you reject as real something you dont want to see as real based on thise same reasons. Its a double standard, hypocrisy, logical fllaw. You can not have one (emotions) real and one (God) not real for the same reasons just because you want it that way. Logic doesn’t work that way.

Regarding earnestly seeking, yes i can see how this would be taken as harmful, if you don’t understand God. God does not work on our time, He has no time. Perhaps He is waiting to show you something that will be more meaningful for you when He knows it will he most impactful for you. I do not have an answer other than to say He 100% is seeking you and would love nothing more than to see you “see His glory”. God’s character is love, as a loving parent. And maybe you just are not ready for that yet. I dont know. If you have kids, or have been around many kids, there are times where a parent needs to let the kid grow up and experience life before the kid is receptive to accepting advice from the parent. Sometimes it is that way with us and God. I cant answer that for you. But maybe you are still in the rebellion mode (certainly sounds like it could be the case given the hypocrisy argument above) but thats not my judgement to deal with, it is God’s.

Praying for you brother, to see, be open to hear, and to create a heart willing to accept God’s love.

 

[Beagle1]

Any vision someone has where they are told to do something out of the character of God is not from God. There is no time when God would, or has ever, told someone in a vision to kill someone. If God wants someone dead (for whatever reason, but almost always in the old testament this was due to consumed worship of another god) then God takes care of that Himself. God would never ask someone to violate His commandments, and Thou shall not murder is a very direct command from God.

Regarding the rest of your post, i am going to address just the first two parts of it. First, you are willing to accept something as real but with no reliableeans of testing, ahowing validity, repeatability etc, and yet you reject as real something you dont want to see as real based on thise same reasons. Its a double standard, hypocrisy, logical fllaw. You can not have one (emotions) real and one (God) not real for the same reasons just because you want it that way. Logic doesn’t work that way.

Regarding earnestly seeking, yes i can see how this would be taken as harmful, if you don’t understand God. God does not work on our time, He has no time. Perhaps He is waiting to show you something that will be more meaningful for you when He knows it will he most impactful for you. I do not have an answer other than to say He 100% is seeking you and would love nothing more than to see you “see His glory”. God’s character is love, as a loving parent. And maybe you just are not ready for that yet. I dont know. If you have kids, or have been around many kids, there are times where a parent needs to let the kid grow up and experience life before the kid is receptive to accepting advice from the parent. Sometimes it is that way with us and God. I cant answer that for you. But maybe you are still in the rebellion mode (certainly sounds like it could be the case given the hypocrisy argument above) but thats not my judgement to deal with, it is God’s.

Praying for you brother, to see, be open to hear, and to create a heart willing to accept God’s love.

It is rational not hypocritical to believe emotions are real but not God. Just because you strongly feel something does not mean that it exists outside of your mind. An emotion is verifiable. The claimed source of that emotion (such as God) cannot be verified in the same way. The example I used was to prove this point. You missed the point.

“Maybe you’re just not ready.” “Maybe God is waiting for the right moment.” “Maybe you’re in rebellion.” These are just a continuation of you framing your argument in a heads I win tails you lose mode. If someone seeks and finds God, that’s proof he’s real. If they don’t, then they’re the problem, or not ready, or God’s working in mysterious ways. You are making unsupported psychological assumptions not arguments. That’s not how a serious honest discussion works.

And I’ll remind you of the point you didn’t address. Longtime fervent believers like Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker who had the personal relationship with God that you espouse didn’t lose their faith out of rebellion. They longed to believe but eventually, the evidence didn’t hold up. Were they not sincere? God could have revealed himself to them in a way that ended their doubts. That he didn’t do this with them and many others who sincerely seek him shows the possibility that God isn’t there or is not what his believers assume him to be.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

Maybe we are both arguing in circles, and i will accept that. But on one point you sit rhere and say you can judge something only because it is repeatable and reliably repeated, and then in another sentence you say that people “said” and that is reason not to believe in the revelation of God.

Can you actually read those peoples minds? Can you see inside their thoughts? You are making my argument anout emotions for me…tjey are neither reliable nor repeatable. What causes fear in one causes elation in another, what causes happiness one day may cause sadness the next.

Maybe we are both hypocritical. I just wish you would see the logocal flaw you are presenting. Its quite glaring.

 

[Jason Snyder]

It is rational not hypocritical to believe emotions are real but not God. Just because you strongly feel something does not mean that it exists outside of your mind. An emotion is verifiable. The claimed source of that emotion (such as God) cannot be verified in the same way. The example I used was to prove this point. You missed the point.

“Maybe you’re just not ready.” “Maybe God is waiting for the right moment.” “Maybe you’re in rebellion.” These are just a continuation of you framing your argument in a heads I win tails you lose mode. If someone seeks and finds God, that’s proof he’s real. If they don’t, then they’re the problem, or not ready, or God’s working in mysterious ways. You are making unsupported psychological assumptions not arguments. That’s not how a serious honest discussion works.

And I’ll remind you of the point you didn’t address. Longtime fervent believers like Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker who had the personal relationship with God that you espouse didn’t lose their faith out of rebellion. They longed to believe but eventually, the evidence didn’t hold up. Were they not sincere? God could have revealed himself to them in a way that ended their doubts. That he didn’t do this with them and many others who sincerely seek him shows the possibility that God isn’t there or is not what his believers assume him to be.

If you want definitive proof God exists, I think you'll be waiting a while. Even Thomas the disciple did not believe in Jesus' resurrection until he put his fingers in the holes in Jesus' body.

This is not a heads anyone wins, tails you lose argument. It is unfortunate anyone would view it as such or frame it as such.

Yes, longtime believers have deconstructed their faith. That is free will. If the evidence didn't hold up, that would speak to their faith. There is no definitive, irrefutable evidence. If anyone requires that, they will always be disappointed.

Yes, God could have revealed himself to them. And yes, of course, there ALWAYS is the possibility that every believer of Christ is 100% wrong. Beyond that, I won't speculate on why God didn't reveal Himself to them, because I don't know.

 

[Beagle1]

Maybe we are both arguing in circles, and i will accept that. But on one point you sit rhere and say you can judge something only because it is repeatable and reliably repeated, and then in another sentence you say that people “said” and that is reason not to believe in the revelation of God.

Can you actually read those peoples minds? Can you see inside their thoughts? You are making my argument anout emotions for me…tjey are neither reliable nor repeatable. What causes fear in one causes elation in another, what causes happiness one day may cause sadness the next.

Maybe we are both hypocritical. I just wish you would see the logocal flaw you are presenting. Its quite glaring.

You still miss the point. It is not just the feeling or “said”. It is what is used to support them.

You seem to think subjective emotional experience is evidence of a God yet deny it when others such as Barker and Ehrman report similar experiences that led them away from faith plus explain in painstaking detail what led them to break from their faith.

I’m asking for sufficient evidence, just as we would for any other claim of this magnitude. If God exists and wants to be known, then surely he knows what kind of evidence would reach honest, truth-seeking peopl and yet many of those people remain unconvinced despite years of searching. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s honesty.

Let me use a hunting analogy to explain the difference between how we feel about something and what’s actually true.

Imagine someone walks into your camp and says, “I feel like a .22 and a .308 are basically the same round, they’ll drop a deer just as effectively.”

Sure, they might feel confident. They might believe it with their whole heart. You disagree by showing ballistics charts, energy at impact, and real-world results, it’s not even close. He says I don’t care that’s the way I feel and you won’t convince me otherwise.

That’s the distinction I’m making.

People can feel something is true (about religion, emotions, or even rifles), but feelings aren’t evidence. Data, repeatable testing, and objective outcomes are. That’s why hunters trust ballistics, not just “gut feeling,” when choosing a round. Shouldn’t the same level of scrutiny be applied to whether an omnipotent God exists.


Likewise, when I say I need evidence of God, I’m not dismissing people’s experiences. I’m just saying: feeling convinced, even sincerely, isn’t the same as something being objectively true.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

And yet you say emotions are true.

I think you are not seeing my point, i am saying you acknowledge the existence of emotions and say they are true. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that a God can exist because you cant see Him.

You are circular in your logic in saying that you believe emotions exist with out any possible way to test and verify such emotions, and deny that God can even exist because of the same standards.

Can you not see the illogical thought process? I am Not asking you to believe in a God, i am simply asking you to acknowledge a God can exist. That is all.

 

[Beagle1]

If you want definitive proof God exists, I think you'll be waiting a while. Even Thomas the disciple did not believe in Jesus' resurrection until he put his fingers in the holes in Jesus' body.

This is not a heads anyone wins, tails you lose argument. It is unfortunate anyone would view it as such or frame it as such.

Yes, longtime believers have deconstructed their faith. That is free will. If the evidence didn't hold up, that would speak to their faith. There is no definitive, irrefutable evidence. If anyone requires that, they will always be disappointed.

Yes, God could have revealed himself to them. And yes, of course, there ALWAYS is the possibility that every believer of Christ is 100% wrong. Beyond that, I won't speculate on why God didn't reveal Himself to them, because I don't know.

I appreciate you acknowledging that both believers and nonbelievers could be wrong. I am not use to that.

To clarify: I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God's existence. Like you said very little in life offers that. But when we’re dealing with a claim as consequential as “there is an all-powerful being who created the universe and will judge every person,” it’s entirely reasonable to expect evidence on par with what we require in other important areas of life such as science, medicine and law.

On the issue of free will and deconstructing faith: I don’t quite follow the logic that places the burden solely on the individual. People like Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker were deeply committed believers who spent years seriously and sincerely examining the foundations of their faith. If God wanted to be known and they were actively seeking, why would he remain silent during that process?

You’ve chosen not to speculate on why God didn’t reveal himself to them—which I can respect. But I wonder if the possibility that God doesn’t exist shouldn’t be on the table as one reasonable explanation, among others.

Also, I’d be curious if your reluctance to speculate applies more broadly. Many believers do offer explanations when seekers don’t find God, suggesting they weren’t truly sincere, weren’t ready, or that God is waiting for the “right moment.” But doesn’t this framing place the blame on the seeker while protecting that which is sought. It becomes a kind of circular reasoning: if someone finds God, their sincerity is confirmed; if they don’t, their sincerity is questioned. That’s not a fair or evidence-based standard.

 

[go_deep]

God reveals himself to the Israelites, some still didn't stay committed fully to God, why?

Because like my father-in-law who sat in the doctors office looking at images of his lungs and after extensive testing was told he had to quit smoking, or he was going to die a lot sooner and likely a lot more of a miserable death, he just keeps smoking.

The truth, the way, the right path can be right in front of some people, and they still walk the other way.

Peace be with you all!

 

[Jason Snyder]

But I wonder if the possibility that God doesn’t exist shouldn’t be on the table as one reasonable explanation, among others.

Certainly it is.

 

[Beagle1]

And yet you say emotions are true.

I think you are not seeing my point, i am saying you acknowledge the existence of emotions and say they are true. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that a God can exist because you cant see Him.

You are circular in your logic in saying that you believe emotions exist with out any possible way to test and verify such emotions, and deny that God can even exist because of the same standards.

Can you not see the illogical thought process? I am Not asking you to believe in a God, i am simply asking you to acknowledge a God can exist. That is all.

You need to reread my posts. I have not said God does not exist. I have said the evidence supporting his existence is lacking.

I get what you're saying, but there's a big difference between emotions and belief in God that’s getting blurred here.

When I say emotions are real, I mean they’re real as experiences, we feel them, they affect our bodies, they show up in brain scans, etc. They're internal but observable in consistent ways.

Believing in God is a whole different kind of claim. That’s not just “I feel something.” It’s “There’s a supreme being who exists outside of us and created the universe.” That’s a much bigger, objective claiim, and I think reasonable people would expect it held to a higher standard than feelings.

So I’m not being inconsistent. I’m just saying we need different types of evidence for different kinds of claims. I’m not saying God can’t exist—I’m saying if he does, and wants people to know him, then there should be evidence strong enough for honest people to reasonably believe. And for a lot of people, that kind of evidence just isn’t there and it’s not because of a lack of sincerity by the seeker.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Many believers do offer explanations when seekers don’t find God, suggesting they weren’t truly sincere, weren’t ready, or that God is waiting for the “right moment.”

I don’t profess to know. I’m not God .

My faith journey would look like a drunken cricket. It’s had highs, lows, and everything in between. I’ve experienced events I attribute to God. Someone else might attribute them to random cosmos events.

The burden is on the individual. We can choose to believe or we can choose not to. If it’s not on us, then the other alternative is to blame God for not more fully revealing himself.

 

[Beagle1]

For the reasons I previously stated I disagree with placing all the burden on the seeker.

Never saw a drunken cricket.

 

[Jason Snyder]

For the reasons I previously stated I disagree with placing all the burden on the seeker.

Never saw a drunken cricket.

Then we can simply agree to disagree. The burden is really irrelevant, bless we think we should get a say in the rules too. Which, has happened numerous times in biblical history.

The cricket is hyperbolic. If you can’t use your imagination for a picture of a drunken cricket, I can’t help you.

 

[go_deep]

 

[Beagle1]

I did get the humor.

 

[go_deep]

I did get the humor.

If I tell you, don't walk around the back of my house and touch the metal fence you'll get shocked, would you believe me? Can you see the electricity to know if you would get shocked before you touched the fence?

 

[Texasbuckeye]

@Beagle1 i apologize if i mistook upur position. I thought upu said you were an atheist. Atheism means you do t believe there is any type of supreme being.

Please correct where i went wrong and state your position.