It works for me!
There are promises that if you set out to find wisdom, if you search for it like silver and hidden treasures, and raise your voice for understanding, and cry out for insight - then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. Then you will find righteousness and justice and equity, every good path....... If you were to set out to find gold you would have to go to some sustained effort. Here's another promise: If you draw near to God He will draw near to you. In other words He's ready to receive you just like the Father looking for the prodigal son. You are the one who needs to come to himself. Fonzie wrote:It makes a difference what is desired in the questioner. I admit I don't have any desire for atheist doctrine. Why is your desire for a claim or idea relevant? Your emotions don't affect reality. Desire affects sustained attention on what is desired. If you just give spiritual things a casual glance you can't expect to get anywhere any more than you could learn botany that way.Fonzie wrote:It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper. Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth. Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true? I am saying that over 40 years ago I finally found what I was looking for and it is proving more and more fulfilling. I'm saying that he who is stuffed loathes pizza but to him who is hungry even roadkill is sweet. I'm stuffed.
butterbattle wrote:It's simple. Make a claim. Is my claim correct? Check with reality. If reality agrees with my claim, then my claim is correct. If not, then I must revise my claim.
God and spiritual things are the unseen eternal reality. You are focused on the shadow of the eternal things (material) rather than the reality - and second causes as I mentioned. Instead of giving glory to the God Who made man you praise man and what he is able to do in the transient material world. butterbattle wrote: You could even make a case for the usefulness of science from just the definition of science. It's the study of our universe, and thing in it, depending on the field. And for ideas in science to have any merit, they must survive scrutiny from independent observers, who may not even like the original idea.
Yes, science is a form of work. People work at science, get counsel from others and their work and thereby accomplish things. In that way you are correct. butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:Spiritual things are spiritually discerned by those who have their spiritual faculties trained by experience to discern them. butterbattle wrote:Okay. How do you spiritually discern spiritual things with your spiritual faculties? How do you train someone to do this?
It starts with truly "seeing" Christ. If your eyes are opened to Christ and His atoning sacrifice you will see things differently. It is from the power of this you can be enabled by God to be "born again". Then you start as a spiritual baby, vulnerable, fragile. But you have help. You can grow and become mature in Christ and learn how to discern spiritual things. Just as the spirit in a man is what knows the thoughts of a man, the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God. When you are born again you are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. He makes known the thoughts of God to you, opens the Scripture, lights the heart. The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD searching out his innermost parts.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:You wouldn't start out in the lab with advanced work with chemicals, micro-organisms, whatever you do in there without a background preparation. butterbattle wrote:Right. First, you learn. How do you learn to "spiritually discern spiritual things?"
Like a child. From another angle, the Gospel is simple yet unfathomably deep; comparable to sailing. It is said you can be shown how to sail in a day, but it takes a lifetime to become a sailor.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:I try to use analogies, but it's not really possible to have a serious discussion about, say, unity in the Spirit without having the Spirit personally. butterbattle wrote:Why not?
It's kind of like the difference between talking about someone and knowing someone.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:The Bible says it pleases God to save people through the preaching of the gospel - which is foolishness to those being lost but to those being saved is the power of God to salvation. God enables it through a person's encounter with the gospel of Jesus' atoning death. That's the turning point, the winnowing floor. butterbattle wrote:Okay. So how would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?
That might compare to me looking up some deep science stuff and trying to talk about it as if I know it. It wouldn't go long to those who know. To just discuss God as a academic exercise is kind of where this "prove God " stuff is. There is a different approach - loving and seeking God. Do you see the difference?
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:The Bible says that the glory of God is evident in the creation such that men don't have an excuse. butterbattle wrote:How is it evident in the Creation?
How is it not evident in the creation?
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:I would paraphrase that to: He made man intelligent enough to know that. butterbattle wrote:How would they use their intelligence to know that?
Maybe by becoming a fool so that they can become truly wise.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:There are promises that if you set out to find wisdom, if you search for it like silver and hidden treasures, and raise your voice for understanding, and cry out for insight - then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. butterbattle wrote:How do I "set out to find wisdom?" How do I "search for it like silver and hidden treasures?" Raise my voice? Cry out for insight? You mean if I scream really loud, God will reveal himself?
If you truly see Christ as the Prize such that you will give everything you have to gain the Prize - you are promised you will find it. Nothing is accomplished in life without consecration - that's true in science, it's true when it comes to seeking and finding God.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:Here's another promise: If you draw near to God He will draw near to you. butterbattle wrote:How do I "draw near to God?"
You make God and Christ your focus, your top priority, your #1 in thought, your heart's treasure. It's not hard if your heart is in it - if you have truly "seen Christ". Then the same power that raised Him from the dead will fuel your drawing near.
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:In other words He's ready to receive you just like the Father looking for the prodigal son. You are the one who needs to come to himself. How do I "come to" him?
You get off the throne and fix your eyes on Christ. butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:Desire affects sustained attention on what is desired. If you just give spiritual things a casual glance you can't expect to get anywhere any more than you could learn botany that way.
butterbattle wrote:Okay. But, do you agree that desire does not affect the validity of a claim?
True, but if you have faith Christ is Lord you will have the desire. The "eye opening" that enables you to have that faith is not something I can do for you. That's a miraculous thing, opening the eyes of the blind, a thing God does. But as I said it pleases Him to do the eye opening through the preaching of His Son. God is intent on giving Christ glory.
butterbattle wrote:Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth. No, neither does the sun come out of its tent like a bride groom and run its course with joy - it's figurative. It's the artistry of the Scripture concerning the sun orbiting the earth. The Bible is not a science book, doesn't claim to be. butterbattle wrote:Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true?
butterbattle wrote:Fonzie wrote:I am saying that over 40 years ago I finally found what I was looking for and it is proving more and more fulfilling. I'm saying that he who is stuffed loathes pizza but to him who is hungry even roadkill is sweet. I'm stuffed. Okay, so stuffed = emotionally fulfilling. Pizza = Christianity. Roadkill = atheism. You don't want atheism because you are "stuffed" from Christianity. Correct?
I can't think of anything more unbelievable to me than atheism. Sorry, I can't think of a comparison. I am completely fulfilled with Christ and the Holy Spirit and God in me. It's a scientifically re producible thing too - I know several brothers and sisters that have the same experience with the same LORD and salvation. butterbattle wrote:I will ask you again. Do you value the truth more or do you value your beliefs more? If you received proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity was not true, what would you do?
I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus is LORD, died for my sins, rose from the dead, now lives in me. I believe the reality of this more than things I can touch and see. I know that the Bible is true though my understanding is imperfect. There is no proof that Christianity is not true. There's nothing to do with regard to that because it is true.
|
Offline 
Butterbattle,
How can you prove you were patient? How can I know you weren't sure about what I meant? How do I know you are being just about your probabilistic weighing as you say and rather are intuiting yourself from one of your "weigh ins" to the next? Does a good or bad day affect your measurement or do you have a definite benchmark - and where did you find this. How do I know you didn't get a bad attitude toward gravity when you toddled or were pushed by one you have less than 50% faith in?
How do you know what's contradictory to me - did you divine this scientifically? And doesn't your science teach you that there are no other people like me, even to the iris hue? Do you have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction? It's nice to know too that there is this possibility that all bets are off with the brain in a vat theory yet you keep up the act.
This "we" that "DO understand plant biology" are the same "we" that promoted and planted Multiflora Rose (Rosa Multiflora) here in the midwest and introduced Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in the south. I have less than 50% faith in your statement and your group's understanding.
You are riding through your scientific ideasphere on a magic carpet blown along by your faith in the blowers ready to turn with new evidence - am I going to tell you have faith in evidence? Does Elmer Fudd have trouble with "R's"? Yeah, it's a problem reproducing your faith in others I know.
My perception is that your basic operating program is faith - faith in ideas and perceptions that you can't prove, especially to someone who doesn't have at least 50% faith in you (that would include me). If you aren't sensing God you might check your sensors.
His continued participation in a thread where the same questions get repeated over and over again, and the answers are simply ignored or forgotten, is certain proof of his extraordinary patience, for anyone who can read (or can be bothered to).
As for the rest of your questions, you already had another 1000+ thread devoted to recycling the same basic premise, and forgetting all about the answers, or dismissing them as soon as you read them.
If Butter has yet more patience to spare for you, kudos to him, but I don't think you deserve it.
Btw, I'm still waiting for you to explain the reasons behind your lies, and why dishonesty plays such an essential part in your faith.
Fonzie, one cannot have faith in evidence. Faith is beleif in the absence of evidence. Faith in evidence is an oxymoron. You might have well of said, "beleif in the absence of evidence in evidence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.
I wrote a lot. And here's some more writing.
I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, but I'll do my best.
How do you know that I'm being impartial in my evaluation of evidence? Well, you really don't. I mean, this is an online forum; there's no way I can prove that to you. But, surely you agree that being open-minded and trying to evaluate evidence without personal bias is a good thing.........right?
Does a good or bad day affect my judgment? Probably.
Do I have a benchmark? Not sure what that means. I just do the best I can.
Where did I find this? Well, there isn't a single source that I can point to. It's what I've concluded after many years of thinking about it.
I don't think I have a bad attitude towards gravity. It's just the least well understood of the three (or four) fundamental forces at this point. In fact, you know what's funny? I wish we understood gravity as well as we understood evolution.
I don't see the point in having anything other than 0% or 100% faith in something. If you don't like it, then you have 0% faith. If you like it, you have 100% faith, right? My beliefs aren't based on faith; they're based on how likely I think something accurately describes reality. That's why I qualify virtually everything with possible, plausible, maybe, kind of, probably, etc.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
A contradiction is when, well, something contradicts itself. A married bachelor, that's a contradiction. Bachelors, by definition, aren't married.
If you're talking about Christians that have faith, then there's a lot of people like you. What's a "iris hue?"
Do I have a data base with control groups tested for contradiction? I'm not sure what you mean.
It would be an act if I really thought I was a brain in a vat, but I pretended like I wasn't, and that's not what I'm doing, so I don't really think that qualifies as an 'act.' But, you can think of it that way if you want.
Multiflora Rose was introduced into the United States in the 1860s. Kudzu was introduced in the 1870s. It would be an understatement to note that our knowledge of invasive species isn't nearly as good then as it is now. Additionally, both species were promoted by an agency under the Department of Agriculture, which is hardly an unbiased group of ecologists, to help reduce soil erosion, etc.
But, even if none of these things were the case, I never intended to imply that our knowledge of plants was perfect or that we never make mistakes. Of course there are things we don't know, but we know all the important parts of how plants function. And of course we make mistakes. Without mistakes, there would be no science. Science tries to correct these mistakes and learn how and why they happened, so that we can learn and make progress.
It's a bit interesting also, that you wrote, "I have less than 50% faith..." You reached this conclusion by referring to kudzu and multiflora rose, which you used as evidence that science didn't understand plant biology. So, even if you don't realize it, you do value evidence immensely, and you seem to use "faith" to describe belief with evidence AND belief without evidence, depending on which is convenient at the time.
Lol, bunny wabbit.
As DarkSam already noted, faith in evidence is an oxymoron. Beliefs based on evidence are, by definition, not faith. Faith, by definition, is belief not based on evidence.
I am not surprised that you really decided to make this claim. However, it's kind of disheartening. I really already addressed this claim multiple times before you even made it. In fact, I even addressed it right before I asked the question. It shows that you're really not comprehending what I'm reading at all. See:
"And, I'm willing to change my belief if the evidence arises, so by definition, it's not faith."
"Well...no. Faith is belief without evidence."
"We don't hold to claims absolutely, based on faith, at all. If new evidence arises, we change our positions. By definition, that cannot be faith. Are you going to tell me next that I have faith in evidence?"
What would be an example of something I have faith in?
Very good.
The only way to make someone who doesn't agree with you, agree with you, is to provide reason and evidence. In this regard, faith is useless. It seems like you really already understand the value of objective evidence, at least to an extent. I think your religion simply prevents you from making the connection.
Okay, let's expand on what you said. I don't have at least 50% faith in God. So, since you do, how can you prove to me that God exists?
You mention sensors. How do I check these sensors? If my sensors work, how do I sense God?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Butterbattle,
I like you and I appreciate your reasonable answers. I can't prove God to you and believe me over 50% I wish I could. I could enjoy your company, drink coffee with you, hear about plants and science and how this and that works and be fascinated. I think that there are several cliffs in your understanding of your science, plants, gravity that you would have to admittedly leap across in explaining. You trust someday science will put the rocks there and you will walk across, but now there are leaps of faith you can't prove to even yourself honestly and admittedly.
When we take this discussion to the spiritual realm rather than the biological, etc. in order to discuss spiritual things it is a different ball game. In order to talk about "unity in the Spirit (of God)" for instance it is impossible to discuss unless you personally have the Spirit of God. You get to know somebody when you live with them. In order for Christ's sheep to "know their Master's voice" they must be enabled by the indwelling Spirit to do this. This is not something you can't get. I'm not saying in any way I am better than you, but this (the Spirit of God dwelling in you) is something promised to all who believe in Jesus. But if it's something you don't have living in you then the sensors aren't active in the discussion.
As we maintain "unity in the Spirit" then since there is only One Spirit of God we are united with each other individually and collectively to the Head which is Christ and we are nourished and supplied in the body and the parts and ligaments fit together and work smoothly. The body of Christ is not a heap but a body with things in the right place, working in harmony - in unity with the Spirit.
As to how this faith in Jesus is enabled - this I'm relating to the question of how I can't prove God to you - my understanding of that is that it pleases God to do this through the preaching of the gospel - which I'm sure you are familiar with. God brings a man to life (from death) spiritually and he sees things differently, painfully, like a man drowning revived from a stupor it is painful when revived. Then the fragile seed (here's your biology analogy) grows (God is the Gardener) and hopefully survives storms and becomes strong like a mighty oak.
I have proved all this to myself and I have evidence of this power working in myself, but I have a problem presenting that personal evidence to you. There were those I had more than 50% confidence in that influenced me reading the Bible seriously and finding it happen to me as they were modeling it and telling me.
I know I haven't answered your questions adequately. I'm a little short on time at the moment. If I knew how to answer with laser precise surgery I would. You can find any number of loose ends in any answer, but desire plays a part too. It makes a difference what is desired in the questioner. I admit I don't have any desire for atheist doctrine. It would compare to being full on mom's cooking and being offered road kill helper. Don't take that as an insult, I am not flaunting that, I'm just fully satisfied in every way as I would want all to be.
*sigh*
Fonzie,
I can't prove the Risen Elvis to you, and believe me, over πei I wish I could.
Whe we take this discussion to the spiritual realm, we lose all objective credibility, unless your spiritual search leads us to Elvis.
It has been scientifically proven that "unity in the spirit of god" is a toxic mind disorder induced by lithium poisoning and extreme exposure to sawdust. Elvis has developed the technology to rid humanity of this tragic delusion. But you can only realize this if you personally accept Elvis first. You must put your faith in Elvis to escape the delusion of jesus. I highly recommend it from my experience.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Be-Bop-Aloola , He's our Roola !
. Do you see that fullstop at the front of my sentence? Prove to me that it doesn't have ultimate power over your life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.
Why not?
Okay. What leaps of faith am I making?
Why? How?
But that assumes God exists. How would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?
I'm not asking to personally get to know God. I'm asking how do you know he exists. You don't have to live with someone to know they exist.
Okay. How do I get it to live in me?
Why is your desire for a claim or idea relevant? Your emotions don't affect reality.
Truth is not a matter of taste (pun intended). For example, if the idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is roadkill helper to you, that's fine, but it does not mean that the sun actually orbits around the Earth.
Are you saying that you only believe what you want to believe, and you don't care about what is actually true?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It's not even a thing God tries to do - the Bible starts off assuming you believe in God - "In the beginning God created..." If you are enabled to believe in Jesus through hearing the gospel it is a thing God would open your eyes to - not me. "While we were dead God made us alive". It's something He does. If it's something you cry out for be assured there will be no man/woman in the end who will be able to say, "I cried out to God to help me believe and He didn't help me."
Okay. What leaps of faith am I making?
"Of course there are things we don't know" "our knowledge of invasive species is better now than then" "science tries to correct these mistakes and learn why they happened" - so you have gaps you have faith your source will fill in.
Why? How?
But that assumes God exists. How would someone who doesn't believe in God discuss God?
I'm not asking to personally get to know God. I'm asking how do you know he exists. You don't have to live with someone to know they exist.
Okay. How do I get it to live in me?