English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Regardless the question, without empirical evidence of God, aren't all questions about God of poor quality?

How tall is God? Without empirical evidence, how can this ever be answered?

How does God feel about homosexuality? Without empirical evidence of God, how can this ever be answered?

Why did God create the world? Without empirical evidence of God, how can this ever be answered?

If you offer to me that you have a religious text that is the "TRUTH"; from "God"; if it was from "God" and it was the "Truth" why wouldn't everyone on this wonderful Earth today have the same religion?

Wouldn't God's word be so plain and obvious that it would be empirical evidence of his existence, thus we could have quality questions that would have objective answers.

2006-07-31 07:58:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

14 answers

If running this planet was left up to psychics, waiting for messages to come through, we would all be dead!

Its' not my fault I'm skeptic. The reason I'm still a skeptic is because I've no reason to think otherwise.

2006-07-31 11:49:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, I must agree .. I think methods of selfstudy ..study of consciousness ... with an idea of practicing selfpsychology ... are perfectly fine for religions to dwell on ... they are techniques and procedures ...

There is definitely a theurgic part of the brain inclined to the socalled "visionary religious experience" .. There is even now in research a helmet that by stimulating this part of the brain causes both euphoria and visionary experiences ...

In JudaeoChristian teachings we have the few little blurbs where Jesus told folks that "fasting and meditation" were fundamentally important .. yet somehow all techniques for practising this got lost to the "moralisms and other dogmas "...

Some Eastern cultures ..ie,Bhuddhism and Hinduism have made quite a science out of the "study of self" ..in fact the first translation of a Manas yoga scripture (Patanjali's yoga sutras w/Vyasu's commentaries) inspired Emanuel Kant to write his 'Criticque of Reason ' ..by which the terminologies of "empirical" vs "a priori" really entered into the collective Occidental philosophy dialect ...

Interestingly ..in the deeper Hindu yogas I have studied ..as well as the diverse Bhuddhist branches (of Mahayana,Hinayana and Zen)... All of them warn not to accept an "illumination".. or "visionary experience" for an enlightenment .. and that the disastrous results of a huge inflated deluded ego may be the consequence ..

Now consider visions such as Saul-Paul's and John of Patmos's .. How zealous they became- as they felt they had become appointed messengers from on high ..

Study some Eastern meditation practices .. and some of them will amaze you how circumspect they are .. and how much they confine themselves to the tangible ...

hmkay!

2006-07-31 13:53:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Only if God were capable of unilaterally bringing about some state of affairs -- such as taking over the mind of some scribe -- could anyone assert that a text "infallibly" communicated "God's will."

But it's evident to me from the enormous amount of suffering and evil in the world that if God exists, God *cannot* unilaterally bring about any state of affairs God wishes.

Therefore any text is an amalgam of divine inspiration and human error, and only the carefully and freely exercised conscience of the individual can sort out which is which.

2006-07-31 12:32:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Everything we know about God is in the Bible. There are other evidences of God in the things he created that point to Him, but even that is written in the Bible...
Empirical evidence??? If you want to believe I'll show you 1000 reasons to believe, but if you don't then I am afraid there's none. The only 'hope' you can have is that you were right... Cuz if you are wrong, you'll be damned for eternity... Do you want to take thet to the bank?

2006-07-31 08:04:39 · answer #4 · answered by Pivoine 7 · 0 0

What does God call it? Preach love too you? Lets see what God says, to do with you.

You have unbeliever's. Chaff, Scoffers.

An Atheist is a scoffer. The WORD of God, clearly tells you the filhty rags they are, and to stay away from them, and avoid them. We are NOT to plant seeds. God knows it is useless and that is why he tells us, "You stand firm against them" ( Jer.17:8 14:1 Iah 44:4) You disassociate them completely. Any Believer that does not abide in God's own Word, does not know God, according too God Himself. Atheists are "chaff" A simile of the wretchedness of the wicked. Chaff is carried away by the lightest wind, and it's removal brings about cleansing by extracting what is utterly useless. (Ruth 1:22). They will NOT stand in the judgment. They will NOT be able to withstand God's wrath when He judges.( Paslams 76:7 Exra 9:15). This is not my opinion, this is God's very own Words, in the Bible. You know, the BIble? The same Bible atheist scholars quote. There is a reason God, said this. Psalms.1.1-3 Jer. 17:8 14:1 12. 1-2 18:9-10 Prov1.10-19 (vs 5) scoffers:(atheists) those who ridicule God and definatley reject His Law. Prov 1.:22 Ruth 1:22 Jer 18:7 (pull down-destroy) 1:10 (evil-calamity) 18:11

Pslams 1:
godly wisdom here, declare the final outcome of the two "ways". The paths of "sinners" (unbelievers) and the "way of the righteous. he speaks progressively of assoociation with the ungodly and participation in they're ungodly ways.

God said it. End of Story. Jesus Himself said "Let the dead bury they're dead".

Use all the Internet and Dictionaries they want to and call themselves anything they wish. God "defined" what they are by His own words.

They can hang a dog tag* around they're neck in the pits if hell itself and separate each other by name categorically.

God's Word said it. By God's definition. There is NO opinion.

Hate? Where do you get hate? If God's TRUTH is hate too you, then, so be it. You and God, can and will discuss the means of your sciptural interpretation, consisting with a man-made defacto on a motion of plea bargin I guess. I dunno.

2006-07-31 08:41:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Were you trying to be funny about that versicle you gave your Christian "friend" who was suicidal.

Because if you were that wasn't funny. Don't mock that.

I suffered from depression when I was younger and I had many thoughts of suicide and the only thing that kept me alive was God because he made me feel that I was in the world for a purpose, and I still believe I am here for a purpose and my life has improved for the better.

If believing in God works for some people and make their lives better you don't have the right to make a mockery of their beliefs.

That's cruel and inhumane. I wonder what makes you to think that way.

2006-07-31 08:01:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yeah, I'm a big supporter of God gettin back down here after a 2,000 year vacation and writing Bible: the Sequel. Subtitled: Everything Y'all Missed the First Time Around

2006-07-31 08:09:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Everyone begins with inner Light. Those who ignore it and extinguish it continue in darkness, and nothing can be shown to them because they are now blind. Those who are true to the Light they start out with are given more, and they come to see a great many truths about Life and God. They don't need proof because they have a Light to see by, and continue the journey able to see things for themselves because of the Light revealing them, like the sun does in the physical realm. Those who are blind, and are stirred to want to see, are drawn to those who radiate the Light. A spark can leap from one soul to another when they are together, restoring the lost flame in the darkened soul. Does that answer your question?

2006-07-31 08:09:44 · answer #8 · answered by Ariel 2 · 0 0

How did you initiate via asking approximately clever human beings, yet then pass into conceited as against humble? a clever guy or woman might never have confidence in something that has no data to assist it. that should pass against the very meaning of understanding. And it is not conceited to ask for data before accepting. as quickly as back, that should be understanding.

2016-11-03 09:39:44 · answer #9 · answered by bucknor 3 · 0 0

I thopught the question about God and Transformers was a quality question.

Of course, you're right. Whatever the question, it all comes down to idle speculation. Those of us who says 'God is this way because of a book', those of us who say 'God is this way because of my reasoning and logic', those of us who say 'God is this way because He told me Himself', those of us who say 'there is no God', were all just guessing and speculating.

But what the hell... what else are we going to do? There's nothing good on TV.

2006-07-31 08:04:37 · answer #10 · answered by XYZ 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers