Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Bad, stupid, or poor formed religion does not negate God!

Originally Posted by morfiel

I think that us men cannot know God or fully understand the concept of God. We often speak about things that we do not know or fully understand. We believe or disbelieve. Hence, I think that it is possible for us to have a discussion on God.

Yup, you got the right thread here!

We need some new input, some fresh ideas, different points of view on things, welcome to the thread!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

This thread is full of straw man arguments

And even more full of arguments from incredulity, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, and non sequiturs.

"Get your own sand"? Making audible sounds implies being a real entity. Sorry, God fails that requirement.

Unless the whole Xman situation also takes place in the mind of a human, in which case it seems anything can be real if we insist that it is.

C'mon now, I'd like to talk details here. There has been a lot of reference to occurrences that couldn't possibly have been coincidental, I'd like to hear some of them. And maybe some commentary on how the experiences necessarily point to God.

Originally Posted by JMS

Bad, stupid, or poor formed religion does not negate God!

The same books that those religions use are cited as proof (or at least corroborating evidence) of his existence, yet somehow that's a different story...

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

C'mon now, I'd like to talk details here. There has been a lot of reference to occurrences that couldn't possibly have been coincidental, I'd like to hear some of them. And maybe some commentary on how the experiences necessarily point to God.

nah

That's fine if you don't want to share, I suppose if they are too personal (or whatever your reasons) that's your business.

No they are not too personal to share, but I think I am hesitant to do so on the internet. But generally it is a combination of personal experiences and heart to heart personal exchanges through which God has continued to present himself (at least as far as my own personal experience has shown)

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The same books that those religions use are cited as proof (or at least corroborating evidence) of his existence, yet somehow that's a different story...

I am not certain of what you are saying, but holy books stand as a witness, not necessarily proof! The people who wrote those books are just that, people who are fallible, as are scientists, by the way!

That's why science is peer reviewed, not so for the ancient texts that may have or may not have been written by the alleged authors and the religious powers of the day chose to include in the New Testament while not including others .

Originally Posted by Hutch

That's why science is peer reviewed, not so for the ancient texts that may have or may not have been written by the alleged authors and the religious powers of the day chose to include in the New Testament while not including others .

Ahh yes, but peer - reviewed by whom? Other scientists generally, who work in the same area or an approximate field, and who are thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of science and the scientific method. The peer review I get back from my research articles generally say things like "the simulation study in section 5 needs to include reference to blah-blah's 1971 work". Generally, I don't get reviewers saying "The whole premise of science is flawed. Science does not exist. Therefore your article is a waste of time. Rejected!"

On a like-to-like scale, I would say the ancient texts are as valid in a peer review sense as any scientific article.

James.