Not only that, but they demand proof under their own qualifications for proof. The trouble with that way of thinking is simply that God HAS already told us that he requires faith in order to please him. Without faith, no one can "see" God. The dilemma then is a battle of wills. The atheist/agnostic on one side demanding visual, verifiable, somewhat nebulous proof and on the other side is the Almighty Creator of all things saying he demands faith first. Someone has to give in, and it ain't gonna be God, I know that much. So the choice is really up to the person. Do it your way and NEVER know truth or do it God's way and know what you desire to know.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.(I Samuel 15:23)
No, boatbums. rea,l things are provable for all. I don;t have to device my own special emthod to prove that you will sink if you try to wlak on water. I will sink just the same. That's relaity. Either God exists or doesn't. IF you say he doe,s then you should be able to prove it whtout special "qulificaitons of proof". reality doens;t recongize believers and nonbeievers. It affects all equally.
Not only that, but they demand proof under their own qualifications for proof
No, boatbums. real things are provable for all. I don't have to device my own special method to prove that you will sink if you try to walk on water. I will sink just the same. That's realty. Either God exists or doesn't. IF you say he doe,s then you should be able to prove it without special "qualifications of proof". reality doens't recognize believers and nonbelievers. It affects all equally.
True.
"In an analogous way, if someone asks for evidence of God, we might say "truth," or "beauty," or "virtue." For a soul of sufficient purity and depth, this will be an adequate argument, especially once the implications are fully appreciated and worked out in an ontologically consistent manner. However, materialists, Darwinists.. and other metaphysical yahoos imagine that they can reject the whole of religion based upon a single argument taken out of context, just as a savage could reject the big bang based upon the obvious empirical evidence that refutes it.
Thus... both types of primitives "want more than evidence; they want the whole science by which their mind could be moved by the evidence" .. They essentially want to see the tree that will prove the existence of the forest, when the forest is on a different ontological level than the tree. ...."