# Give us your best evidence for a god



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

I'd like to hear from the theists your single most convincing reason to believe in a god or gods.


----------



## Gaswamp (Jul 29, 2017)

your question


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

Gaswamp said:


> your question



Elaborate?


----------



## Swampfox1775 (Jul 29, 2017)

People are convinced of the existence of their all-powerful, yet oddly jealous, Levantine gods through fear, ignorance, despair, lust and so on. There is no "evidence" beyond ancient, fragmented writing which, in themselves, aren't "evidence" either.


----------



## Gaswamp (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Elaborate?



You are pursued


----------



## lagrangedave (Jul 29, 2017)

He sends angels to look out for me........................unworthy but he still protects me...............


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 29, 2017)

Gaswamp said:


> your question



^^^^^^^^^^^
This


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 29, 2017)

I would like to ask the same question:  your single most convincing reason to NOT believe in God?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would like to ask the same question:  your single most convincing reason to NOT believe in God?



Then create a separate thread.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

Gaswamp said:


> You are pursued



I am? Is that supposed to be code for something?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

lagrangedave said:


> He sends angels to look out for me........................unworthy but he still protects me...............



Thank you.


----------



## lagrangedave (Jul 29, 2017)

Code for he is trying to talk to you..................Listen.........


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

lagrangedave said:


> Code for he is trying to talk to you..................Listen.........



Oh I see. Asking for the single best piece of evidence that something exists is in itself the best evidence that it exists.


----------



## lagrangedave (Jul 29, 2017)

It's a sign. Everything is indeed not as it appears. Mysteries abound if you are receptive.................


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2017)

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=881467


----------



## lagrangedave (Jul 29, 2017)

+=-  make sense?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

lagrangedave said:


> +=-  make sense?



Nope. Not picking up what you're putting down. Maybe you should just communicate in plain english a dummy like me can understand.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

lagrangedave said:


> It's a sign. Everything is indeed not as it appears. Mysteries abound if you are receptive.................



Does that hold true for all things whose existence is in question?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Then create a separate thread.



Done


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2017)

The Bible.

Second would probably be the Willard article.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The Bible.


Now that I am "out of religion", I can see this clearly. LOL, I may not have been able to before.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2017)

I honestly don't believe there will ever be proof. If you believe the bible is true,  then I think it says that it is by faith. So it makes interesting discussion to state our points of view, however, I don't think we will have a clear winner.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The Bible.
> 
> Second would probably be the Willard article.



Thanks String. Anything in particular about the Bible?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Thanks String. Anything in particular about the Bible?


LOL, it begs the question, best evidence that it is true. Then we get circular, dizzy


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Thanks String. Anything in particular about the Bible?



Not anything in particular, just as a whole. 

I believe it's the only book/worldview that answers life's most important questions with a coherent set of answers.


----------



## red neck richie (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I'd like to hear from the theists your single most convincing reason to believe in a god or gods.



Just curious why you want to know? So you can pick it apart perhaps? Do you actually think anybody's experience will change your mind?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Just curious why you want to know? So you can pick it apart perhaps? Do you actually think anybody's experience will change your mind?



Most of us are here TO discuss things.
Within those discussions many intricate details are explored.
If you do not want to participate nobody is making
you answer the question, but this thread is about answering that question.


----------



## Israel (Jul 29, 2017)

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


----------



## red neck richie (Jul 29, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Most of us are here TO discuss things.
> Within those discussions many intricate details are explored.
> If you do not want to participate nobody is making
> you answer the question, but this thread is about answering that question.



Yes I get that. I was just wondering if Atlas possibly had a specific reason for the question other than to start a discussion.


----------



## rebelsrbad (Jul 29, 2017)

My personal relationship with Jesus Christ


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I'd like to hear from the theists your single most convincing reason to believe in a god or gods.



Just a note Atlas.  When I framed the question in my thread I was going to just duplicate yours and substitute theist with athiest, but I noticed something about yours that caused me to word mine slightly different.  In your thread title you ask for "best evidence", but in your actual initial post you ask for "best reason".  For a believer they may very well be two separate answers.  For instance my "best evidence" is the universe and every thing in it.  Athiest and thiest present the same evidence.  It's the explainations for it that differ.  My "best reason" for believing in God and his son Jesus Christ is that the Holy Spirit personally revealed them to me( as I believe he does in all cases based on what the individual believer needs).  Two totally separate answers to two separate questions. 
One deals with physical evidence and the other with non-physical evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a note Atlas.  When I framed the question in my thread I was going to just duplicate yours and substitute theist with athiest, but I noticed something about yours that caused me to word mine slightly different.  In your thread title you ask for "best evidence", but in your actual initial post you ask for "best reason".  For a believer they may very well be two separate answers.  For instance my "best evidence" is the universe and every thing in it.  Athiest and thiest present the same evidence.  It's the explainations for it that differ.  My "best reason" for believing in God and his son Jesus Christ is that the Holy Spirit personally revealed them to me( as I believe he does in all cases based on what the individual believer needs).  Two totally separate answers to two separate questions.
> One deals with physical evidence and the other with non-physical evidence.



Yeah evidence can be a reason but I know for believers sometimes they have reasons that aren't evidence based. I'm open to hearing those too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Just curious why you want to know? So you can pick it apart perhaps? Do you actually think anybody's experience will change your mind?



I asked to get a composite in one place of the best cases our resident theists can put forward. I've heard some stories before on here about how god helped them find a lost ring in a beach. We've had other similar testimonies. This is a chance to put forward the best reasons you have for believing. I'm not likely to agree with them or change my mind because I'm not likely to hear anything compelling but that isn't the point of the thread. I've welcomed the answers received and asked for more details if possible. I could start picking things apart. We already do that here regularly. That's not the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Swampfox1775 (Jul 30, 2017)

Wait, somebody said the Bible is "coherent?"


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 30, 2017)

Of the reasons that believers believe I think the one that would make ME believe is:

"I had a personal revelation from Jesus Himself"

The problem with that one is that I've had personal revelations of all kinds of "mystical" phenomena.  I know where they come from and how they work.  It's gonna be hard for someone to say "Those experiences weren't real.  When He touches you you'll know it".  Well, I have to take your word for that so you'll have to take my word that what  I experienced is also true.  That's the problem with subjective evidence.  It also means that you have to believe ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who have had the same kind of experience as you did with other Gods or you're just a hypocrite.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah evidence can be a reason but I know for believers sometimes they have reasons that aren't evidence based. I'm open to hearing those too.



I guess to clarify my above post I would say Christians have reasons to believe in addition to empirical evidence.  My question, raised by your above statement is  "Would it be fair to say the same holds true regarding athiest?  Do they not also take many things, in fact most things, based on faith alone and if so isn't it special pleading to require more "faith" for God than one has for everything else required to live life.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I guess to clarify my above post I would say Christians have reasons to believe in addition to empirical evidence.  My question, raised by your above statement is  "Would it be fair to say the same holds true regarding athiest?  Do they not also take many things, in fact most things, based on faith alone and if so isn't it special pleading to require more "faith" for God than one has for everything else required to live life.



Nope,wouldn't be fair to say that. I'd love to see that empirical evidence your talking about. Especially if it is evidence of a nature that would convince you of other gods.

One thing I think theists misunderstand about atheists is they think they are anti gods. They are not. They are anti falsehood.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> One thing I think theists misunderstand about atheists is they think they are anti gods. They are not. They are anti falsehood.



Absolutely!
It should be so easy to understand, but it isn't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 30, 2017)

> Originally Posted by atlashunter
> One thing I think theists misunderstand about atheists is they think they are anti gods. They are not. They are anti falsehood


.


ky55 said:


> Absolutely!
> It should be so easy to understand, but it isn't.


From what Ive seen over the years right here on this forum, I don't believe its a misunderstanding.
I believe its a purposeful, willful denying regardless of how many times its said (with a few exceptions).
These guys aren't stupid and as ky55 said its pretty easy to understand.
Unless you don't want to understand.
To believe A/As "hate God" is far more satisfying than the truth.


----------



## Israel (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Nope,wouldn't be fair to say that. I'd love to see that empirical evidence your talking about. Especially if it is evidence of a nature that would convince you of other gods.
> 
> One thing I think theists misunderstand about atheists is they think they are anti gods.
> 
> ...




On the face of that I can see why someone would take that stance.
But let's go behind faces.
You know how it goes up your nose when you guys (if you are going to speak of _the atheists_, as a group) get a whiff of self righteousness, especially from those you call believers? Really though it's true for anyone. It may take a while to be discerned, it may take a while before the sniffer is educated to the nosing of it. But, once _self righteousness_ is _really_ smelled, well, I don't think anyone calls it a delightful fragrance.

But, you also know how stink works, stay around it long enough and you become inured to it. And, as a nurse, I am no longer puzzled how some folks just don't have any idea...of how they smell. When it's ourselves especially, all sorts of BO is not only tolerated, but the sensing of it all but absent.

So how grand it sounds to say



> They are not. They are anti falsehood.



I mean, who could argue with the nobility of that? It's not that we don't believe, it's not that we perceive life (seemingly) quite differently...we are, in all these things _against falsehood_. It's not far from saying "all I care about is truth". That's noble too, and I sure couldn't recommend anyone against it.

But the thing is "how personal" is that? How much rooting out of falsehood in our own selves do we submit to? Yes, submit. For truth, if we are to communicate at all, is either the "what is _real_" shaping us to conformity to it, and in it, or it's really just some vain concept we like to have discussions over...but none of us ever really intending to take it seriously.

Let me ask you this, if indeed the "no plan", no "reason to it" is at the heart of a man. Oh, yes, we discuss and make demands of each other to be _reason_able, but again, if reason to everything is non existent except according to the fiat of man and where he cares to assign it...what makes any man's reason, more or less superior...to any others? What matter if 10 million declare a thing _reason_able and one oppose? Do numbers weigh in on reason? No, either reason itself exists, or it is just "up for grabs" according to the whim of any _one_. Like truth, either reason has its being which men may somehow approach, or be made approachable to...or it's all just anything any man simply holds to himself. My avatar says far more than just a clever mathematical play on words. (kudos to the guy or gal who saw its inherent...truth)

The tension between being _real_ and being _rational_ is always at play. I don't have to go beyond my skin to find it. I will not give you occasions of faith being justified to me so far beyond what my mind has told me_ is possible_, and rational. I fear you would only hurt yourself in their consideration. In probably the same manner I would have been hurt had not faith outstripped my most _rational_ expectations.

But this doesn't solve the matter of _truth_, who is _really_ for it, and who may be found standing opposed. This is all amix amongst us. Indeed, we may all be all just as wrong as each other, at least as pertains to "having the truth" in toto.
So, if there is indeed "no plan" to anything...at all, no overarching reason to our reasonings that is the _Reason of all_ and by which our small letter reason is simply a device to crucify others to it...what matter at all? What then is_ true_ man?

I cannot help but confess my own abrogations, my own dissonances discovered and made plain in what I "say" I believe, what I do _believe I believe_, and whatever then I find in manifest opposition by either word, thought or action. I fall short of all the things I present to both others, and _even_ my own self, often, in these things. (I cannot relate the extreme value of mercy to one such as that...seeing the things I know are true of me as found so often in opposition to the truth I embrace..._mercy is real_ to me).

But for the man who says  "there is no plan"...how many plans does he find when looking within? How many that he makes and seeks to see executed...or come to fruition? How many times he puts on a matching pair of shoes? Puts his pants on with zipper in front? If there is "no plan"...who, or which man is less in concert with what he "says he believes?" If all is really "of just happenstance" then every plan, every seeking to arrange according to some perceived, _or hoped for_ outcome testifies such a man is not at all living according to what he says he believes. How would such a man look who forswore any and all attempt at finding or presenting an order he claims in a place where he embraces "nothing is of Ultimate order"...true?

In that way both men may find themselves in the same boat. The man who is not 100% in accord with all the faith he senses, and the man who lives as far from congruency to a reality he claims has no overarching order to it, at all.

Mercy toward a thing that doesn't really know itself at all, though protesting much it does has issued a call to me. Neither man can live without mercy shown to their incongruities. For me Jesus is far more than what makes sense, He is the perfection of it. And, I am not.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

Didn't read through all of that. You really need to work on getting to the point in a concise manner. I did get as far as "we are all against falsehood". I would like to believe that is true but I've had enough conversations with believers to convince me it isn't. The truth is some folks just want to be stroked. It's no accident that the most prominent religions in the world promise immortality. I'm convinced that most if not all believers prefer their god over truth. Else why would they sacrifice reason on the alter of faith? It's not a mentality I could ever relate to even as a believer. "Do god(s) exist?" There is a correct answer to that question. I'm open to either yes or no and willing to let the evidence provide the answer regardless of what's in it or not in it for me. Most atheists would share that sentiment. I don't believe most believers can honestly say the same.


----------



## Israel (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Didn't read through all of that. You really need to work on getting to the point in a concise manner. I did get as far as "we are all against falsehood". I would like to believe that is true but I've had enough conversations with believers to convince me it isn't. The truth is some folks just want to be stroked. It's no accident that the most prominent religions in the world promise immortality. I'm convinced that most if not all believers prefer their god over truth. Else why would they sacrifice reason on the alter of faith? It's not a mentality I could ever relate to even as a believer. "Do god(s) exist?" There is a correct answer to that question. I'm open to either yes or no and willing to let the evidence provide the answer regardless of what's in it or not in it for me. Most atheists would share that sentiment. I don't believe most believers can honestly say the same.



That's kinda interesting, cause not in the above will you find what you quoted.
You made this proposition if I read correctly: 

a man - falsehood (or at very least _against it_)=atheist. (or at least, most)

And yet you speak this as a seeming negative you find as truth:



> The truth is some folks just want to be stroked.



I am going to guess by this that those _some folks_ are not this fellow:



> I'm open to either yes or no and willing to let the evidence provide the answer regardless of what's in it or not in it for me.



I'd have to say you are as guilty as I in mishandling evidence. I have no plea against that...truth. As a twist on an old aphorism  

The problem with the common man is that he does not believe himself common.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 30, 2017)

I witnessed a demon-possessed boy suddenly changed to being demon-less. 

I certainly would not consider this to be my best reason for believing in God, because at the time I witnessed this as a young teen, I was not a believer, but a full fledged skeptic. It was years later after becoming a believer, that I really realized and believed that God did this.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

Israel said:


> That's kinda interesting, cause not in the above will you find what you quoted.
> You made this proposition if I read correctly:
> 
> a man - falsehood (or at very least _against it_)=atheist. (or at least, most)
> ...





> "we are, in all these things against falsehood"



That tickle your ears a little better?


----------



## Israel (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> That tickle your ears a little better?



My ears are old and sprouting things like pig bristles.


 Me: 





> So how grand it sounds to say




 Not me, but the speaking _of the atheist_ or one believing himself suitable to speak for them:  





> They are not. They are anti falsehood.




Me: 





> I mean, who could argue with the nobility of that?



Me again, but interpreting what could be included in the saying of the atheist when he says "they are anti falsehood":



> It's not that _we don't believe_, it's not _that we perceive life (seemingly) quite differently_...we are, in all these things against falsehood.
> It's not far from saying "all I care about is truth.








So when I hear someone say, as you have, atheists are _against falsehood_, as though they have staked out pursuit of "anti falsehood"  (what might be a word for  "anti falsehood"...?) as their proprietary domain...well, all I hear is a man eagerly stroking himself, thinking he is all, (and wanting others to think) and only, about the truth.

The "let the chips fall where they may" sentiment of this:



> I'm open to either yes or no and willing to let the evidence provide the answer regardless of what's in it or not in it for me.



Is again on its face, a _seemingly noble_ stance in exempting ones self from the implication they have a stake in the matter that could skew their "handling of the evidence".

You think I was in some way noting or taking umbrage at a misquote? My own words are nothing.

You and I_ are_ the stake in the matter.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

I think I struck a nerve. No it's not the proprietary domain of atheists. I never suggested it was. If I posit to a Christian the validity of Islam or Hinduism they will not supplant reason with faith. They will apply the same critical thinking an atheist would. If I posit the validity of other religions to the Muslim or Hindu they will do the same. But when it comes to their own, which just happens to be the religion they were indoctrinated into from childhood more often than not, they supplant reason with faith. If you disagree with that assessment then here is your opportunity to show the evidence that underpins your religion that couldn't equally by used by those theists of a different stripe.

We can approach this another way. I can tell you what could persuade me that a god or gods exist. I'm willing to bet every other atheist on this forum can do the same. How many theists are even willing to consider the possibility they are wrong let alone able to say what would persuade them?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

Oh and by the way, Pascal's wager which goes back centuries and has often been used by apologists on this forum demonstrates my point. It says that one should believe not because that is what the weight of the evidence supports but because the potential consequences of being wrong are higher for one than for the other.


----------



## formula1 (Jul 31, 2017)

*re:*

To OP:

The evidence pointing to the truth of God is simply that everyone who does not know Him is still trying to find Him, even on this very forum.  You can read right here about 'I want to find evidence that I will accept' before I accept the truth of God and so many are exactly that way for whatever reason they are brought to that current conclusion.

What I have found out about all men including myself is we just want to accept the truth 'my way'.  But some of us come to the point where they find a way to surrender 'my way', and a whole new world of truth is found.  Men who never surrender never find it!  

This is why I came to believe in Jesus Christ and as time has moved forward the Bible as well.  I surrendered to Christ and I learned the truth, the only truth that makes sense of the complete confusion this world has to offer!

You asked!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

formula1 said:


> To OP:
> 
> The evidence pointing to the truth of God is simply that everyone who does not know Him is still trying to find Him, even on this very forum.  You can read right here about 'I want to find evidence that I will accept' before I accept the truth of God and so many are exactly that way for whatever reason they are brought to that current conclusion.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the response. We got that answer on page one too. Will add your name to that one as best evidence.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 31, 2017)

formula1 said:


> You can read right here about 'I want to find evidence that I will accept' before I accept the truth of God



I can honestly state that I don't believe there is a God. 
I do not want to find evidence. Especially for the God of the Bible. That doesn't mean I wouldn't accept it.


----------



## formula1 (Jul 31, 2017)

660griz said:


> I can honestly state that I don't believe there is a God.
> I do not want to find evidence. Especially for the God of the Bible. That doesn't mean I wouldn't accept it.



Thanks for you honesty!

I was comfortable in my own belief as well.  Until I wasn't!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Didn't read through all of that. You really need to work on getting to the point in a concise manner. .



Oddly, I don't think he's ever heard that.


----------



## Israel (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I think I struck a nerve. No it's not the proprietary domain of atheists. I never suggested it was. If I posit to a Christian the validity of Islam or Hinduism they will not supplant reason with faith. They will apply the same critical thinking an atheist would. If I posit the validity of other religions to the Muslim or Hindu they will do the same. But when it comes to their own, which just happens to be the religion they were indoctrinated into from childhood more often than not, they supplant reason with faith. If you disagree with that assessment then here is your opportunity to show the evidence that underpins your religion that couldn't equally by used by those theists of a different stripe.
> 
> We can approach this another way. I can tell you what could persuade me that a god or gods exist. I'm willing to bet every other atheist on this forum can do the same. How many theists are even willing to consider the possibility they are wrong let alone able to say what would persuade them?



To tell you I am consistently "wrong" in my appraisal of God, the deficit between the "what I know", and who He shows Himself to be I might think could be meaningless to you. But, I've already told you.

It's really such a small thing for me to say...basically...I am all wrong about everything. You could say, as is sometime my own thought..."that's just a quantitative admission...not a truly qualitative one". For, for the most part to myself, I _remain_ a believer. 

But the reality of my existence is that I am as often faced squarely with "this I do" while seeming to maintain God does all, and alone is doing all. I am just a beginner in this life, always. The moment I stake a claim to knowing anything for advantage, I become completely disadvantaged by it.

I once knew, or thought I did, what it "meant" to be a christian, a believer, a disciple of Jesus Christ. You would be right to say, if you cared to "who could be the man that admits he knows nothing of what he claims to be about?" But, I am always the man needing to be shown.
What "comes out of that" is really not my business, at all.

In some circles it has been handshakes and "welcome, brother." In others simply a finger making circles around the temple area of the head. It matters not.


If I told you "but I am interested in the truth" what would that matter if to you I am liar to myself? And I am that, always. It costs nothing to admit it. The cost has simply been shown far too great for me to be ignorant of it. Of course you must take me for a fool for only the fool is forgiven, the man who "knows not what he does".

I am one who simply cannot forfeit the mercy found there for want of appearing as something else...in someone else's mind.

I could tell you it's the easiest place to live but for that you would have to believe another...who is not _ me_.

The perfection of having the final sacrifice revealed becomes all of fulfillment to a thing that once needed to present its own effort in being right, its own work to show as "time and effort put into a thing" to hold a certain position. The earning of right...to be...right.

But now I find the ease of being all wrong...and discovering it's allright. Someone has taken the burden of being right from me...and for me. I'm just dust...here...and gone.


What a kinship we share.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 31, 2017)

660griz said:


> I can honestly state that I don't believe there is a God.
> I do not want to find evidence. Especially for the God of the Bible. That doesn't mean I wouldn't accept it.


Same here.
I do not want/desire/need (emotions) to prove there is a god.
I do not want/desire/need (emotions) to prove there isn't a god.
If there is, I will accept it.
If there isn't, I will accept it.
What I wont do is pick one based on emotion.
Either way.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oddly, I don't think he's ever heard that.



I doubt that. 

He's heard it from me before although he probably doesn't remember.

Something about his prose reminds me of this guy. "Mystery Men" if you haven't seen it.


----------



## Israel (Jul 31, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Same here.
> I do not want/desire/need (emotions) to prove there is a god.
> I do not want/desire/need (emotions) to prove there isn't a god.
> If there is, I will accept it.
> ...


 

Please...tell me...is there a satisfaction found in believing oneself to be congruent to what one holds as truth...in the intellect? I don't deny it, don't say it isn't a "thing" experienced. But...whence this thing of satisfaction...if not a _feeling_, an emotion?

I think we all know what it means to be _troubled_.

Might it be these distinctions are not as clearly wrought out in ourselves as we imagine they are...clean lines of demarcation...this is reason...this is emotion? I'd concede we could surely be given to one over another, even find ourselves tripped up by what is held in "intellect" betrayed by emotion. I know it is wrong to holler at my dog, why would I expect him to hold any relation to a poop made 6 hours earlier to my present chagrin? But, I have. Of course in other circumstance it might seem fitting...if he's running for a traffic laden road.

We easily think in terms of "control the emotions", more rarely so of "control the intellect" thinking the one is purer than the other. And also perhaps mistakenly believing there is a line between them we easily discern.
But that brings us back to whether or not there is a "pleasure" found in intellect?

We can easily say, and I am persuaded, often do, think in terms of "intellectual pleasure" as being a superior thing.
The old "I enjoy the pleasures of the intellect, that venal beast of a man is just all given to his own feelings". As though we ourselves do not recognize a blending.

I follow as best I know (but He knows) a man who did not shrink back from saying "now is my soul troubled...even unto death". No, I do not believe him to be "anti intellect" anymore than I believe Him to be _all for_ emotional responses. He is simply to me the unity, expressing of being a man, perfectly. Some things do make us cry out, while sometimes consideration in intellect of other things, cause us to forbear.

What if...in the deciding "I will only be moved by intellect" we refuse the God who is neither ashamed of emotion nor willing to exalt (what we might call) pure intellect? Might we in essence really be deciding how we will accept his evidence? He may, if he is inclined to, acquiesce to less than a wholeness of presentation, according to his own will.  

But, what will _satisfy_ the intellect... as a _seemingly_ separate thing if the truth of the matter is that the man has no idea that what he calls intellect is actually simmering over the intense flames of emotionalism, already?
That very thing that is so given to itself to believe "my intellectual endeavor is totally free of all emotion". Yes, there might be _great pleasure_ to a man to think that way...especially if all he see of others is a benighted emotionalism. Yes, a great pleasure.

He might be more inclined to help the man see first, he is not at all what he thinks he is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 31, 2017)

Israel said:


> Please...tell me...is there a satisfaction found in believing oneself to be congruent to what one holds as truth...in the intellect? I don't deny it, don't say it isn't a "thing" experienced. But...whence this thing of satisfaction...if not a _feeling_, an emotion?
> 
> I think we all know what it means to be _troubled_.
> 
> ...


Sometimes I think you could be philosophical about a piece of toast 
Just a few comments -
I don't view myself as an "intellectual" or of having a superior intellect.
I am uneducated (formally, however I have been around the block a time or two) and admittedly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Nor am I free of emotion. I make decisions daily that involve emotion.
I'll go so far as to say I am "simple minded".
So I keep things simple.
"Is there or isn't there" is pretty simple. Either there is or there isn't. Emotion, intellect, what pleases me and what doesn't has 0 effect on the answer to that question and therefore are not considered.
"Is there or isn't there"?
Neither answer produces a "satisfaction/pleasure" in me.
It just is what it is.


> What if...in the deciding "I will only be moved by intellect" we refuse the God


Every decision we make whether based on intellect or emotion has a cost either to ourselves or someone else..


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes I think you could be philosophical about a piece of toast
> Just a few comments -
> I don't view myself as an "intellectual" or of having a superior intellect.
> I am uneducated (formally, however I have been around the block a time or two) and admittedly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
> ...





Excellent.

I would add that no tool at our disposal has the track record of sorting the wheat from the chaff that our intellect has. It's not perfect but nothing else comes close. And if there were a creator then that tool would have also been provided by the creator. It would be an odd creator that gives their creation a powerful tool for learning about their creation yet makes it a hindrance in learning about the creator.


----------



## Israel (Jul 31, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes I think you could be philosophical about a piece of toast
> Just a few comments -
> I don't view myself as an "intellectual" or of having a superior intellect.
> I am uneducated (formally, however I have been around the block a time or two) and admittedly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
> ...


 
Of course I could get philosophical about a piece of toast.

I mean...who wouldn't?


But this:



> Every decision we make whether based on intellect or emotion has a cost either to ourselves or someone else..



Yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Excellent.
> 
> I would add that no tool at our disposal has the track record of sorting the wheat from the chaff that our intellect has. It's not perfect but nothing else comes close. And if there were a creator then that tool would have also been provided by the creator. It would be an odd creator that gives their creation a powerful tool for learning about their creation yet makes it a hindrance in learning about the creator.



Well put.  

I would add that the Bible says not to trust the intellect that God gave us.  The Bible is so convincing of this, that I've seen several believers express the notion that if "intellectual pursuit" brings them away from God then they abandon it, indeed they call it Satanic.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Excellent.
> 
> I would add that no tool at our disposal has the track record of sorting the wheat from the chaff that our intellect has. It's not perfect but nothing else comes close. And if there were a creator then that tool would have also been provided by the creator. It would be an odd creator that gives their creation a powerful tool for learning about their creation yet makes it a hindrance in learning about the creator.



Well put.  

I would add that the Bible says not to trust the intellect that God gave us.  The Bible is so convincing of this, that I've seen several believers express the notion that if "intellectual pursuit" leads them away from faith then they abandon it, indeed they call it Satanic.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Well put.
> 
> I would add that the Bible says not to trust the intellect that God gave us.  The Bible is so convincing of this, that I've seen several believers express the notion that if "intellectual pursuit" leads them away from faith then they abandon it, indeed they call it Satanic.



Cult like?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

660griz said:


> Cult like?




It's a strategy that cults employ.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> 
> 
> Unless you don't want to understand.
> To believe A/As "hate God" is far more satisfying than the truth.



I agree with this.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Didn't read through all of that. You really need to work on getting to the point in a concise manner.



Years ago I stopped reading his posts... After starting to become active again last year I quickly remembered that best practice and continue it. I'd like to understand what he's trying to communicate but realized after a while that I rarely was able to. Thought it was just me....


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Years ago I stopped reading his posts... After starting to become active again last year I quickly remembered that best practice and continue it. I'd like to understand what he's trying to communicate but realized after a while that I rarely was able to. Thought it was just me....



I struggle mightily to understand what Isreal is saying.  When I do it makes for good conversation.  

Isreal,  please take note of how many of us have a hard time with your style of conversation.  I'd like to be able to discuss more with you but you're gonna have to dumb it down a little.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I struggle mightily to understand what Isreal is saying.  When I do it makes for good conversation.
> 
> Isreal,  please take note of how many of us have a hard time with your style of conversation.  I'd like to be able to discuss more with you but you're gonna have to dumb it down a little.



I find his posts more of a question and answer session with himself pretending that we are involved so that it somehow seems he is answering questions we are asking. The reality is that it is a platform to turn the conversation towards the points he wants made that often have nothing to do with the topic and it often ends up as proselytizing.
For instance:
"Perhaps you were wondering..." " You may ask yourself..." "We can easily say..." " What if..." "That brings us back to..."

Much too hard to follow to the end and only because the end usually has nothing to do with the start.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 31, 2017)

Man, you guys are a tough crowd 
I can appreciate (though not always understand) Israel's posts. Figuring them out is kind of like making your brain do a couple hundred sit ups. 
It hurts but its good exercise.
Are they on topic? Not necessarily.
Do they promote discussion? Not necessarily (though we are discussing it right now).
But here's the thing -
Ive never heard Israel intentionally insult anybody.
Ive never seen Israel play the "drive by ignorance" game.
He doesn't regurgitate scripture.
Heck, he's even posted a vid of him singing. That takes bigger cajones than Ive got.

Art posted a vid in the Something Different thread of a rather rotund woman being moved by the Spirit and dancing her derriere off. He entitled it "when the Spirit says dance you gotta dance".
So Israel if the Spirit says philosophize you gotta philosophize!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 15, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Well put.
> 
> I would add that the Bible says not to trust the intellect that God gave us.  The Bible is so convincing of this, that I've seen several believers express the notion that if "intellectual pursuit" brings them away from God then they abandon it, indeed they call it Satanic.



without "intellectual pursuit" (and I will lump curiosity in with that too) we as a species would have become extinct. Granted the exact opposite of the evolutionary viewpoint is the creation viewpoint:  if we hadn't sinned we would have never left the garden of eden AKA god's abundant and limitless gifts and would have no need for intellectual pursuit. Everything would be given to us, no prey animals or enemies would kill us, the climate would never change forcing us to figure out how get out of dodge and survive our new surroundings, etc. etc.


----------

