• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How long will it take for people to give up on Jesus coming back

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Hypothetical question...It's been approx. 2010 years since Jesus died, he has yet to return. That's a pretty long time but he still has a massive following. So..

How long before you think society would just give up on the notion that he is returning. 2,200 or year 3,000??
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
actually we start counting from when he was born, but there was some degree of error in that... herod, for instance, didn't become procurator of palestine until 4 C.E. which would mean they have been waiting 1975 years, or there 'bouts.

but... Jesus said it would happen within the lifetimes of the people who were listening to him... it didn't.

various people have been saying it would happen any day now... i do not expect that people will likely stop in the foreseeable future - in the Catholic tradition, despair (allowing Hope to fail) is a mortal sin.

geo.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hypothetical question...It's been approx. 2010 years since Jesus died, he has yet to return. That's a pretty long time but he still has a massive following. So..

How long before you think society would just give up on the notion that he is returning. 2,200 or year 3,000??
For those who believe, they will never give up.
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't know when and it is not for me to know.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I suppose Christianity will have lost it's followers for other reasons.
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I suppose Christianity will have lost it's followers for other reasons.
Not a Christian but if you say so.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Not a Christian but if you say so.
Religion in the western world is slowly losing it's grip, probably due to continued scientific advancements that go against what the Bible says. Scientists are on the doorstep to finding out how life on Earth started, and once they do find a plausible explanation with solid evidence to back it up then I believe religion will really begin to fall apart.

my assumption could be wrong though.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ask me again in 4001 AD and we'll discuss it.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Apostle Paul clearly thought Jesus was returning in his own lifetime, and even encouraged down-hearted Christains in his letters that they had to be patient and that Jesus's return was imminent. I guess Jesus in Damascus and the angels he encountered didn't tell him.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I went to church at Christmas with my family (the one time I set foot in church annually, to appease my parents), and I thought..."this is so odd...we're sitting here honoring a dead Jew from 2000 years ago, and everyone has heard the stories so many times that it seems perfectly normal."

As superstitions go, it's a doozy.
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Religion in the western world is slowly losing it's grip, probably due to continued scientific advancements that go against what the Bible says. Scientists are on the doorstep to finding out how life on Earth started, and once they do find a plausible explanation with solid evidence to back it up then I believe religion will really begin to fall apart.

my assumption could be wrong though.
i'm hedging my bets.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,251
Reaction score
3,979
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The question is "When will (Christian) Believers give up on awaiting the 2nd-Coming of Christ?"

The answer is "NEVER!"

People of faith (myself included) will always believe in something greater than themselves. I choose to believe none of what we see, hear, smell, touch or taste happened by accident. The basic elements in science and in nature came about somehow. Something we have yet to full explain placed the building blocks of that which we all enjoy today before us. But that's getting off the beaten path.

Scripture does give us a clue as to when Christ will return. I think it's in the Book of Matthew (I'll find it and post it here)...says something along the lines of (paraphrase) "...when people of all walks of live have been exposed to the word of God..."

We still have places on this Earth that don't know of Christ. But the world is getting smaller and smaller in terms of our reach via various means of transportation and the spread of information. So, you never know...

Is Christ a myth or will there really someday be a 2nd-Coming? I'd like to think that someday this world can live in peace where there is no more disease. But man, this place would be soooo crowded! We'd definitely have to stop "being fruitful and multiplying."

On second thought, who wants to give up having good sex? (Pssst...hey, Jesus! Can you stay away alittle bit longer...least until I bust this last one out? Then you can cum...errr...I mean "come on down". I said I was Christian, not celibate. :lol:)
 
Last edited:

SingleCellOrganism

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
531
Reaction score
105
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
^ I personally will never drop the belief, its too solid in my mind (former agnostic btw), anything that contradicts it I take as a lie/skew/dishonest analysis (proven time and time again in my personal life - those opposed to christianity will always present it in a negative light and misquote/lie or just not understand the philosophy and I have just stopped listening).

I love science too, but I take evolutionary biology with a grain of salt, I'm more interested in HOW things work; rather than the nebulous "we think it happened this way".
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
^ I personally will never drop the belief, its too solid in my mind
Learning is a life long process. Its a shame you have closed off your mind to the analysis of new reason and evidence.

(former agnostic btw)
Is this admission somehow supposed to grant you credibility?

anything that contradicts it I take as a lie/skew/dishonest analysis (proven time and time again in my personal life - those opposed to christianity will always present it in a negative light and misquote/lie or just not understand the philosophy and I have just stopped listening).
I would caution against assuming to know the thoughts and motivations of those who disagree with you before you listen to what they have to say.


I love science too, but I take evolutionary biology with a grain of salt, I'm more interested in HOW things work; rather than the nebulous "we think it happened this way".
Gravitation is "just a theory" too. Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same with germ theory. Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you admittedly won't listen to an atheist, perhaps another Christian can enlighten you.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
Francis Collins (geneticist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God- Beliefnet.com
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Religion in the western world is slowly losing it's grip, probably due to continued scientific advancements that go against what the Bible says. Scientists are on the doorstep to finding out how life on Earth started, and once they do find a plausible explanation with solid evidence to back it up then I believe religion will really begin to fall apart.

my assumption could be wrong though.
I wouldn't be so sure. We do see a natural wax and wane of religious beliefs but religion always seems to be here. And sometime it explodes back in a great awakening.

Scourge99,

I think there may be some miscommunication. I wouldn't say that those who believe strongly are closed minded. I would characterize it as our beliefs have been proven to us to such an extent that we treat it like most scientist treat gravity. Now I am not saying that these two are equal. I am saying that people treat them the same mentally. I understand that God has not been proven to this extent for you or others. However, if you understand this, religious belief become clearer here. What would it take for you to reject theories on gravity? That same level of evidence is needed for us to reject God as it would take for you to reject gravity (at least for some religious individuals).
 
Last edited:

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,188
Reaction score
4,822
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No religion in recorded history has lasted forever, and the ones that are around now will be no exception. Christianity will eventually fade away to be replaced by something else, or it will change into something that wouldn't be recognizable as Christianity to current day practitioners. This isn't to say that there will be no one who practices Christianity as it was, they will just be a small minority, rather than the huge group that they are today.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,444
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How long before you think society would just give up on the notion that he is returning. 2,200 or year 3,000??
Seeing as how you obviously don't believe he's coming back, and seeing as how Christians aren't becoming increasingly violent or agitated with each day that passes without a cameo from the Christ, what does it matter to you?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
actually we start counting from when he was born, but there was some degree of error in that... herod, for instance, didn't become procurator of palestine until 4 C.E. which would mean they have been waiting 1975 years, or there 'bouts.

but... Jesus said it would happen within the lifetimes of the people who were listening to him... it didn't.

various people have been saying it would happen any day now... i do not expect that people will likely stop in the foreseeable future - in the Catholic tradition, despair (allowing Hope to fail) is a mortal sin.

geo.
Who was waiting 1975 years? The Christian people - in general - for the End of Times?

Jesus' crucifixion is accepted to have occured in 31 AD.
If Herod was within Galilee and died in 4 BCE that pegs it all in the assigned timeframe.

Herod the Great was probably born around 65 BCE, became governor of Galilee in 47 BCE, was appointed king of the Jews in 40 BCE, captured Jerusalem in 37 BCE, and died in 4 BCE. King Harod
Everything religious around that is up for debate, though. . . but according to what I've learned in various classes - historians pretty much have decided that Jesus did exist and that he was crucified.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Scourge99,

I think there may be some miscommunication. I wouldn't say that those who believe strongly are closed minded.
If you'd actually quote what I wrote you'd notice I was responding to a single person. Not generalizing all religious people. Perhaps next time you can quote the posts you are responding to least pretend to have read what they have written.


I would characterize it as our beliefs have been proven to us to such an extent that we treat it like most scientist treat gravity.
All of science is subject to revision. ALL OF IT. The theory of gravitation may be strongly supported but it is not IMMUNE to criticism, revision, or rejection if new evidence is presented.

What SingleCellOrganism said was that he would never change his mind. N-E-V-E-R.

Now I am not saying that these two are equal. I am saying that people treat them the same mentally.
Science and religion do NOT treat their beliefs similarly. Science is based on verifiable, repeatable, evidence that is falsifiable. Religious claims are NOT. Religious claims are based on testimony, "prophecy", "miracles", feelings, and "faith". Attempts to relate science with religion is obviously equivocation.

I understand that God has not been proven to this extent for you or others.
Its my position that God hasn't been proven to anyone except perhaps those who have repeated personal visitations with their favored God(s). However, such personal experiences are necessarily 1st person and unsupportable in debate.

However, if you understand this, religious belief become clearer here.
I'm fully aware that the religious believe their beliefs are justified. But as often is the case, a belief that something is true doesn't mean it actually is. It is my observation that many believers THINK that they are somehow more right than others, or superior in ability or knowledge without any basis except their own beliefs (or deceptions). I challenge such CLAIMS made in public debate when they cannot be shown as true.


What would it take for you to reject theories on gravity?
Evidence that
1) provides more accurate or superior predictions than current theory.
2) satisfies the burden of proof.
3) accounts for the preponderance of evidence.
4) is not complex beyond necessity (Occam's razxor)

That same level of evidence is needed for us to reject God as it would take for you to reject gravity (at least for some religious individuals).
I do not claim that Gods do not or cannot exist. I simply find insufficient reason and insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of any of the gods proposed by man. Do you understand the difference?
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
All of science is subject to revision. ALL OF IT. The theory of gravitation may be strongly supported but it is not IMMUNE to criticism, revision, or rejection if new evidence is presented.
Yes the theory of gravity is subject to revision. However, the evidence needed to bring gravity in to question must be significantly greater than what we have now. I am not saying that gravity is immune to all criticism. I am saying that the theory is ubiquitous enough that minor less ubiquitous scientific attack will not be enough to overturn the theory. The shear amount of evidence need to be overcome is large. You have to at least amid this. I am then saying that for a religious person we treat God the same way as we see the evidence.

What SingleCellOrganism said was that he would never change his mind. N-E-V-E-R.
And if you look at the average person's belief about gravity, even your own if you are honest, changing your mind about the theory of gravity is so improbable that you will N-E-V-E-R change your mind either. This is gravity we are talking about. We prove it every second of every day of our entire existence.


Science and religion do NOT treat their beliefs similarly. Science is based on verifiable, repeatable, evidence that is falsifiable. Religious claims are NOT. Religious claims are based on testimony, "prophecy", "miracles", feelings, and "faith". Attempts to relate science with religion is obviously equivocation.
I think you are wrong here. I think science and religion do treat their beliefs similarly. Religious individual verify, repeatably their interaction with God. Now they are not the same completely. I will give you that. But to suggest they are incomparable is not accurate either. Further, I am not saying that the theory of gravity and God are equal. I believe I said this in my first post. I am saying that that religious people treat them the same here. It is a fundamentally different position.

Its my position that God hasn't been proven to anyone except perhaps those who have repeated personal visitations with their favored God(s). However, such personal experiences are necessarily 1st person and unsupportable in debate.
This belief is fine; it just isn't a scientific one. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. You can say you that the evidence doesn't yet support the idea of God and I respect that. You can't say God doesn't exist to anyone based off of evidence as clearly some religious people believe.

I'm fully aware that the religious believe their beliefs are justified. But as often is the case, a belief that something is true doesn't mean it actually is. It is my observation that many believers THINK that they are somehow more right than others, or superior in ability or knowledge without any basis except their own beliefs (or deceptions). I challenge such CLAIMS made in public debate when they cannot be shown as true.
How is this anything but your belief that you are superior and more right. It is just your personal opinion that these people are wrong. Think of it this way. If I do have a personal relationship with God, even one where I directly hear the voice of God, that is superior to your position. Your lack of experience is essentially a neutral. Now this doesn't mean you have to accept my personal experience as you clearly have stated you wont. But if you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God in any manner you want to quantify this as, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief. IMO, It would take a lot.

Evidence that
1) provides more accurate or superior predictions than current theory.
2) satisfies the burden of proof.
3) accounts for the preponderance of evidence.
4) is not complex beyond necessity (Occam's razxor)
There is a 5 here and that is acceptance. Just because you meet 1 through 4, it doesn't mean the scientific community will automatically accept your position. Tectonic plate theory history shows that even when evidence is in and clearly points in one directly, science is slow because scientist are still human. They still mentally invest in their theories. Now I am not saying that every scientist does this; there are several examples of where scientists have dropped their proven theories at a drop of a hat. But Buss's theory of human mate selection of traits is still widely believed even though it has been soundly proven as an effect of forcing the choices of the participants in those studies. So there are examples where science is slow to change too.


I do not claim that Gods do not or cannot exist. I simply find insufficient reason and insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of any of the gods proposed by man. Do you understand the difference?
I understand the difference. My point was that if you debate, you should be able to at least rationalize the other person's position. I am asking that you temporary flip your position here to understand why absolutes are likely on the religious side. If you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief.
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes the theory of gravity is subject to revision. However, the evidence needed to bring gravity in to question must be significantly greater than what we have now. I am not saying that gravity is immune to all criticism. I am saying that the theory is ubiquitous enough that minor less ubiquitous scientific attack will not be enough to overturn the theory. The shear amount of evidence need to be overcome is large. You have to at least amid this. I am then saying that for a religious person we treat God the same way as we see the evidence.
OK but the theory of gravitation is supported by verifiable, repeatable, evidence that is falsifiable. Other competing theories are rejected because the theory of gravitation is superior and/or these other theories do not adequately satisfy the burden of proof.

What support is there for your God (as opposed to other proposed gods) that is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable?

Or are you merely trying to claim that you have a similar conviction for your beliefs like scientists do for gravity. Except scientists believe gravity is true because it is based on that which is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable where support for your God is not?


And if you look at the average person's belief about gravity, even your own if you are honest, changing your mind about the theory of gravity is so improbable that you will N-E-V-E-R change your mind either.
I don't see how I can put a probability on beliefs. That seems silly to me.

If evidence for a contradicting theory came out and was in all ways superior (that list was specified earlier) then I would stop believing that the theory of gravitation was true.

This is gravity we are talking about. We prove it every second of every day of our entire existence.
You are confusing these two things:
1) observations that things fall down
2) the theory of gravitation.

That things fall when you drop them is what we call gravity.

The theory of gravitation is a scientific theory that (among other things) explains why things fall, at what speed they can be predicted to fall, and in what circumstances such predictions can be made.

The theory of gravitation =/= the observation that objects fall when you drop them.




I think you are wrong here. I think science and religion do treat their beliefs similarly. Religious individual verify, repeatably their interaction with God.
Individuals may believe they are communicating with some entity or person. How do they verify that they are communiating to:
1) a god
2) the christian god

What evidence or tests are done to verify such things? How can others objectively verify the integrity of these tests?

Now they are not the same completely. I will give you that. But to suggest they are incomparable is not accurate either.
Further, I am not saying that the theory of gravity and God are equal. I believe I said this in my first post. I am saying that that religious people treat them the same here. It is a fundamentally different position.
I never said science and religion were incomparable. I just disagree in the way which you have attempted to compare them so far.

The religious often acknowledge the great things science has achieved but then others, such as yourself, attempt to project that greatness onto their religious beliefs without submitting to the same rigors that scientific theories are put through. Your religious claims are NOT justified to the same extent scientific claims are if you don't submit them to the same rigors and criticism that scientific claims are.

I agree that the religious and nonreligious may be equally convinced of the truth of their beliefs. However, that does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.



Its my position that God hasn't been proven to anyone except perhaps those who have repeated personal visitations with their favored God(s). However, such personal experiences are necessarily 1st person and unsupportable in debate.
This belief is fine; it just isn't a scientific one. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. You can say you that the evidence doesn't yet support the idea of God and I respect that. You can't say God doesn't exist to anyone based off of evidence as clearly some religious people believe.
I challenge you to DEMONSTRATE that your God claims are true. To support them with evidence and not your imagination, opinion, speculation, and holy-book tales.

In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.

Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).

In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.



I'm fully aware that the religious believe their beliefs are justified. But as often is the case, a belief that something is true doesn't mean it actually is. It is my observation that many believers THINK that they are somehow more right than others, or superior in ability or knowledge without any basis except their own beliefs (or deceptions). I challenge such CLAIMS made in public debate when they cannot be shown as true.
How is this anything but your belief that you are superior and more right. It is just your personal opinion that these people are wrong.
Because such people cannot prove reason and evidence for the TRUTH of their claims. That is why.

Perhaps such people are right. But if they cannot demonstrate why their answers are true then in debate there is no reason for anyone to accept them.

Think of it this way. If I do have a personal relationship with God, even one where I directly hear the voice of God, that is superior to your position. Your lack of experience is essentially a neutral. Now this doesn't mean you have to accept my personal experience as you clearly have stated you wont. But if you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God in any manner you want to quantify this as, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief. IMO, It would take a lot.
Personal experiences that cannot be verified by others, have no value in debate. They are indistinguishable from a false observation, lie, or delusion.

In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.

Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).

In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.



I do not claim that Gods do not or cannot exist. I simply find insufficient reason and insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of any of the gods proposed by man. Do you understand the difference?
I understand the difference. My point was that if you debate, you should be able to at least rationalize the other person's position.
The burden is not on me to rationalize another's position or make their arguments for them. That burden is solely upon them.

I am asking that you temporary flip your position here to understand why absolutes are likely on the religious side.
Having believed in God at one time (though never being a fundamentalist) and being told the many different positions of theists, I am quite familiar with a believer's "shoes".

If you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief.
I would question how you verified that its:
1) a god that you are talking to and not another God or force or nothing but your own mind.
2) how you know its the Christian God and not some other god or force.
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
OK but the theory of gravitation is supported by verifiable, repeatable, evidence that is falsifiable. Other competing theories are rejected because the theory of gravitation is superior and/or these other theories do not adequately satisfy the burden of proof.

What support is there for your God (as opposed to other proposed gods) that is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable?

Or are you merely trying to claim that you have a similar conviction for your beliefs like scientists do for gravity. Except scientists believe gravity is true because it is based on that which is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable where support for your God is not?
My original point was about an internal mental process yes. However, here I would have to say proof of God that is verifiable and repeatable is the communication itself. Christians see God as a entity that can communication. We verify that communication ever time we talk. Now, my job here is not to prove God under these conditions. He is to prove himself just as it is my job to prove my own existence and not to prove BRC's existence. This is a problem for those who don't believe in God which I will get to later.

If evidence for a contradicting theory came out and was in all ways superior (that list was specified earlier) then I would stop believing that the theory of gravitation was true.

You are confusing these two things:
1) observations that things fall down
2) the theory of gravitation.

That things fall when you drop them is what we call gravity.

The theory of gravitation is a scientific theory that (among other things) explains why things fall, at what speed they can be predicted to fall, and in what circumstances such predictions can be made.

The theory of gravitation =/= the observation that objects fall when you drop them.
Your over-analyzing my argument here. This is not about the actually ins and outs of the theory of gravity.


Individuals may believe they are communicating with some entity or person. How do they verify that they are communiating to:
1) a god
2) the christian god

What evidence or tests are done to verify such things? How can others objectively verify the integrity of these tests?
It is the only practicable answer for religious people. I will explain a little later in the post.

I never said science and religion were incomparable. I just disagree in the way which you have attempted to compare them so far.

The religious often acknowledge the great things science has achieved but then others, such as yourself, attempt to project that greatness onto their religious beliefs without submitting to the same rigors that scientific theories are put through. Your religious claims are NOT justified to the same extent scientific claims are if you don't submit them to the same rigors and criticism that scientific claims are.
Maybe you have my post confused with someone else. Here I have only claimed religious people think about the evidence for science and the evidence for God in the same way.



I challenge you to DEMONSTRATE that your God claims are true. To support them with evidence and not your imagination, opinion, speculation, and holy-book tales.
As God can speak for himself, it is not my place to demonstrate God to you. God is not thing or a non-living force like gravity. I take this challenge the same way as if you asked me to DEMONSTRATE my Mom. I would say why don't you talk to her yourself and be done with it.

In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.

Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).

In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.
Nice rant; complete irrelevant. You want proof of God; talk to him. It is that easy. The problem here is that scientifically, there are two options for both of us.

theist
A. God exist, I am communicated with him.
B. God doesn't exist and I am insane.

atheists
A. God doesn't exist, I am normal
B. God exist and he refuses to talk to me.

The Bs really suck and so we both reject them for the more self-serving As. Nothing I do will ever get you to change your mind here. This is a forum; not science. No matter what you or I say, you always have the option to back out or hold firm to the "that isn't evidence" line. I could tell you that after are conversation on Saturday, I went to church and now have an answer to defeat the atheist mental hiccup in B. You could just call this coincidence instead of communication. What are the odds of having a conversation about a topic on a forum and then 24 hours later understanding a psychological block to B? I could give you countless accounts but you don't want accounts. You want God to be a box; a thing that you can open with a pair of tweezers. This answer sucks for the God as an object thought process. You will rail and rant again at how the religious fail instead of blaming yourself for asking a question that is valueless. If,however, you you stop thinking about God as a box or an object and start thinking about a living breathing entity, this answer would not suck and you would be okay with it until you realize that God not talking to me. And that is where Psalm 14 and Luke 15 1-10 this Sunday comes in and answer the question as to why God may not be talking yet. But all of this is JUST a COINCIDENCE.

Because such people cannot prove reason and evidence for the TRUTH of their claims. That is why.
Prove reason and evidence that you accept. There is a difference.



The burden is not on me to rationalize another's position or make their arguments for them. That burden is solely upon them.
This is my logic with God to. It isn't my burden to prove a living entity that can speak for itself. That burden is solely on God. But some reason that isn't good enough for you. It works for you to get out of an argument; but it doesn't work for others when you are asking. This transference of burden of proof from God to me is the issue I have with this post.


I would question how you verified that its:
1) a god that you are talking to and not another God or force or nothing but your own mind.
2) how you know its the Christian God and not some other god or force.
I also see that you read through my post and failed to answer the really question here. If you were a believer at one time, which I see no reason to doubt, then you would know that the level of evidence need to change the belief is high. You are never going to get a religious person to willfully pick the B. That will not happen.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,197
Reaction score
32,778
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Religion in the western world is slowly losing it's grip, probably due to continued scientific advancements that go against what the Bible says. Scientists are on the doorstep to finding out how life on Earth started, and once they do find a plausible explanation with solid evidence to back it up then I believe religion will really begin to fall apart.

my assumption could be wrong though.
and it probably will be. if i may direct you to two specific examples of leading scientists in just that field of work.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How long will people deny that Jesus is coming back despite Biblical prophecies of the end times being fulfilled?
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
How long will people deny that Jesus is coming back despite Biblical prophecies of the end times being fulfilled?


Prophecies? Such as?

Have you ever talked with a rabbi about these supposed "prophecies" that Christians claim exist in their book?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom