I consider myself to be an agnostic: a person who recognizes they are not wise enough to answer the question of whether or not there exists an "aware" creator of the universe, i.e. the jury is still deliberating.
As such I have belonged to groups with, and had many conversations with Atheists. Some believe they know the truth, and the truth is there is no creator. I have turned several of these people into Agnostics by the simple logic of how their beliefs are also not based on fact but on faith: their main complaint against the popular creator stories.
Most "Atheists" however are actually agnostic, with a slant very specifically against the tenants of Christianity (because its the most popular creator narrative in America). Their primary objections against these narratives are very logical conclusions against the stricter beliefs that don't pass muster against available evidence, they are not against the wisdom of the teachings.
I'm just putting that out there from the perspective of one who has been involved with those that call themselves "Atheist." That doesn't go against the OP. Atheism as a religion (those that fall into the first category above) could very well have been a Luciferian psy op.
So I recently started praying, not sure what pushed me to this, being spiritual but not tied to any "belief system."
So far I feel comfortable with this, feels more intimate to me. But when I admitted this to TDW a bit back, many were encouraging, but poignant to make it clear I should consider church. Thing is, most around me are questionable from a distance. So I am keeping to my solo prayer for now.
I was Agnostic until God reached out to me via his messenger. There is no mistaking the touch of God, at that point it is no longer a question of faith, but of faithfulness.
I can not agree with your assessment "There is no mistaking the touch of God." Evidence to support that idea beyond a reasonable doubt simply does not exist from my explorations. And before you think I say that in ignorance, please understand that I was raised by an amazingly wise and inquisitive theologian and Lutheran minister. At about 16 I began questioning the narrative (with much healthy debate with that minister, my father). At about 20 I began studying all the worlds religions in depth. By 30 I had come to the conclusion that no one knew shit, and most were still searching, even those that believed they were not.
The most important conclusion that I came to, was that despite all my years of studying science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, history, despite all my degrees, despite all my years of solving problems internally and professionally, despite all the incredibly wise people I learned from, spoke to, debated with, read from; I knew that I knew absolutely nothing about ANYTHING, and every time I found an answer to a question, and the more "expert" I became, the less I knew. The second most important conclusion I came to was that not a single other person knew anything either.
That is why the jury is still deliberating, because the question can not be answered by mere mortals to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence" without a much better body of evidence.
Having said that, I fault no one for their faith. In fact, I think it is a wonderful tool to allow oneself to take comfort there. I know that feeling. I had it for the first 16 years of my life. I doubt I will ever have it again, but I am ok with that as well.
Perhaps when I die I will find out more, perhaps while I live conclusive evidence will present itself. Perhaps when I die I will simply cease to exist. But none of those prospects really holds more importance to me than any other. The only thing that ever exists is the moment. Each moment is to be appreciated. When I remember that, tomorrows answers or lack thereof are meaningless, and there is more comfort in the appreciated moment than any faith can ever provide.
You are free to disagree with my assertion for you, but know that it has no bearing on me.
I literally saw 'the light', and whilst I could try and describe it, any description I gave would only demean what I experienced. The sense of knowing I experienced was like nothing else in my entire existence. It was like tearing a hole in the fabric of my reality and seeing that there was a light shining behind it.
I appreciate and respect your position and beliefs. The problem I had was with your statement, "There is no mistaking the touch of God."
That statement suggests that it is objectively impossible to not see the touch of God if anyone really looks (and gets lucky?). It suggests that if I have not seen, it is only because I have not looked long or hard enough (or have not been lucky enough?). It suggests that if I continue to look with complete openness of spirit I will eventually see what you have seen, because it is objectively there; something that exists outside of belief, as some universal truth.
I object to anyone suggesting that because they personally believe something, that they are somehow more in tune with reality than anyone who doesn't share that belief.
I do not object to someone feeling comfort or finding peace in a strong belief system. I appreciate anyone who finds internal peace, no matter where they find it, as long as their beliefs do not allow for infringement upon others rights, thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
There is a point where some individuals have direct witness of God. For those people, their knowledge obviates faith. For anyone who has not had direct experience, I agree that their faith can simply be the product of intellect or belief. I was agnostic for many years, later acquired intellectual belief, grew in faith even as a doubting Thomas, but was blessed by direct contact that was truly unmistakable. I don't have any material evidence to share, but offer my testimony for what it's worth. It is possible that you may receive the proof you seek. If you are like me, the form will surprise you.
I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Ah, I think I understand now. I looked at your other post. You believe you have (or someone has) proven that earth is the center of the universe. One of my degrees is in physics with an emphasis in cosmology (the study of the evolution and formation of the universe) so I feel I have enough knowledge to speak on this topic.
There being an organization to the universe is interesting, even exciting, but it does NOT point to the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, the more likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that there is a preferential spin to the universe that causes our solar system to be oriented along that plane. Indeed this preferential spin shows itself in other ways across all the known universe, such as Kaon decay, and in the existence of time itself (only flows one way outside of large bending of space).
There are many solar systems (infinite amount perhaps) that would have the same orientation as ours just by chance. Given this preferred universal orientation the more likely scenario is that solar systems PREFER to align along the same plane. If true, this would make our solar system the norm, rather than the exception.
Given that our models of universe evolution are just that, models, and that those models are drastically changing constantly (and never agreed upon), there is no way that this evidence is sufficient to prove that Earth is the center of the universe, or come to the conclusion that humans are something special cosmically speaking. In fact, I find that to be the ultimate arrogance to even attempt to prove such a thing without substantially more evidence than a pulling out the less likely reason for an observation than the more likely reason (Occam's razor).
I consider myself to be an agnostic: a person who recognizes they are not wise enough to answer the question of whether or not there exists an "aware" creator of the universe, i.e. the jury is still deliberating.
As such I have belonged to groups with, and had many conversations with Atheists. Some believe they know the truth, and the truth is there is no creator. I have turned several of these people into Agnostics by the simple logic of how their beliefs are also not based on fact but on faith: their main complaint against the popular creator stories.
Most "Atheists" however are actually agnostic, with a slant very specifically against the tenants of Christianity (because its the most popular creator narrative in America). Their primary objections against these narratives are very logical conclusions against the stricter beliefs that don't pass muster against available evidence, they are not against the wisdom of the teachings.
I'm just putting that out there from the perspective of one who has been involved with those that call themselves "Atheist." That doesn't go against the OP. Atheism as a religion (those that fall into the first category above) could very well have been a Luciferian psy op.
So I recently started praying, not sure what pushed me to this, being spiritual but not tied to any "belief system."
So far I feel comfortable with this, feels more intimate to me. But when I admitted this to TDW a bit back, many were encouraging, but poignant to make it clear I should consider church. Thing is, most around me are questionable from a distance. So I am keeping to my solo prayer for now.
Absolutely disagree. Why would you steer clear of the body of Christ?
Churches are by no means perfect, but small, unaffiliated groups have their own set of problems.
I was Agnostic until God reached out to me via his messenger. There is no mistaking the touch of God, at that point it is no longer a question of faith, but of faithfulness.
I can not agree with your assessment "There is no mistaking the touch of God." Evidence to support that idea beyond a reasonable doubt simply does not exist from my explorations. And before you think I say that in ignorance, please understand that I was raised by an amazingly wise and inquisitive theologian and Lutheran minister. At about 16 I began questioning the narrative (with much healthy debate with that minister, my father). At about 20 I began studying all the worlds religions in depth. By 30 I had come to the conclusion that no one knew shit, and most were still searching, even those that believed they were not.
The most important conclusion that I came to, was that despite all my years of studying science, philosophy, religion, spirituality, history, despite all my degrees, despite all my years of solving problems internally and professionally, despite all the incredibly wise people I learned from, spoke to, debated with, read from; I knew that I knew absolutely nothing about ANYTHING, and every time I found an answer to a question, and the more "expert" I became, the less I knew. The second most important conclusion I came to was that not a single other person knew anything either.
That is why the jury is still deliberating, because the question can not be answered by mere mortals to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence" without a much better body of evidence.
Having said that, I fault no one for their faith. In fact, I think it is a wonderful tool to allow oneself to take comfort there. I know that feeling. I had it for the first 16 years of my life. I doubt I will ever have it again, but I am ok with that as well.
Perhaps when I die I will find out more, perhaps while I live conclusive evidence will present itself. Perhaps when I die I will simply cease to exist. But none of those prospects really holds more importance to me than any other. The only thing that ever exists is the moment. Each moment is to be appreciated. When I remember that, tomorrows answers or lack thereof are meaningless, and there is more comfort in the appreciated moment than any faith can ever provide.
You are free to disagree with my assertion for you, but know that it has no bearing on me.
I literally saw 'the light', and whilst I could try and describe it, any description I gave would only demean what I experienced. The sense of knowing I experienced was like nothing else in my entire existence. It was like tearing a hole in the fabric of my reality and seeing that there was a light shining behind it.
I appreciate and respect your position and beliefs. The problem I had was with your statement, "There is no mistaking the touch of God."
That statement suggests that it is objectively impossible to not see the touch of God if anyone really looks (and gets lucky?). It suggests that if I have not seen, it is only because I have not looked long or hard enough (or have not been lucky enough?). It suggests that if I continue to look with complete openness of spirit I will eventually see what you have seen, because it is objectively there; something that exists outside of belief, as some universal truth.
I object to anyone suggesting that because they personally believe something, that they are somehow more in tune with reality than anyone who doesn't share that belief.
I do not object to someone feeling comfort or finding peace in a strong belief system. I appreciate anyone who finds internal peace, no matter where they find it, as long as their beliefs do not allow for infringement upon others rights, thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
There is a point where some individuals have direct witness of God. For those people, their knowledge obviates faith. For anyone who has not had direct experience, I agree that their faith can simply be the product of intellect or belief. I was agnostic for many years, later acquired intellectual belief, grew in faith even as a doubting Thomas, but was blessed by direct contact that was truly unmistakable. I don't have any material evidence to share, but offer my testimony for what it's worth. It is possible that you may receive the proof you seek. If you are like me, the form will surprise you.
I made clear that faith is a choice. I'm not sure why you made that a point after I did.
As for scripture, one must assign divinity to it (or it must assign divinity to itself, for which there is no evidence outside of the circular logic of faith) for it to hold more weight than words of wisdom and a history book (loosely).
As for "what I should look into, I am not sure what you mean. I know those passages, I don't know why they hold special importance to you. Again, for them to mean anything more than history, vague prophecy or wisdom it is necessary to give them divinity. I am unwilling to do so after all I have learned about it. I am more than happy to debate the finer points of that stance if you wish (or any other related topic you wish). I have no end of things I can say on these topics, having spent decades in study and contemplation on them.
Ah, I think I understand now. I looked at your other post. You believe you have (or someone has) proven that earth is the center of the universe. One of my degrees is in physics with an emphasis in cosmology (the study of the evolution and formation of the universe) so I feel I have enough knowledge to speak on this topic.
There being an organization to the universe is interesting, even exciting, but it does NOT point to the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, the more likely conclusion (by Occam's razor) is that there is a preferential spin to the universe that causes our solar system to be oriented along that plane. Indeed this preferential spin shows itself in other ways across all the known universe, such as Kaon decay, and in the existence of time itself (only flows one way outside of large bending of space).
There are many solar systems (infinite amount perhaps) that would have the same orientation as ours just by chance. Given this preferred universal orientation the more likely scenario is that solar systems PREFER to align along the same plane. If true, this would make our solar system the norm, rather than the exception.
Given that our models of universe evolution are just that, models, and that those models are drastically changing constantly (and never agreed upon), there is no way that this evidence is sufficient to prove that Earth is the center of the universe, or come to the conclusion that humans are something special cosmically speaking. In fact, I find that to be the ultimate arrogance to even attempt to prove such a thing without substantially more evidence than a pulling out the less likely reason for an observation than the more likely reason (Occam's razor).