Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
MilanPan!c wrote: »It's not rational as there's NO EVIDENCE to suggest it.
All metaphysical positions based on thoughtful reason with respect to the available evidence, objective and subjective, are rational. It is quite possible to be a rational or an irrational believer, or for that matter to be a rational or an irrational non-believer.
Example of a rational believer: Someone who believes that all of reality, including the bit we experience, is God (Spinoza's / Einstein's God, or Pantheism). Someone whose belief in God has a positive impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of an irrational believer: Someone who believes God sits in the clouds and fires bolts of lightning at humans for fun. Someone whose belief in God has a negative impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of a rational non-believer: Someone who sees no evidence for God, and has no reason to believe in God.
Example of an irrational non-believer: Someone who thinks the questions of the existence of God, belief in God, and various religious beliefs are the same thing.
In other words it is easy to argue against a God that fires lighting bolts from the clouds, but much more difficult to argue against say Pantheism.0 -
All metaphysical positions based on thoughtful reason with respect to the available evidence, objective and subjective, are rational. It is quite possible to be a rational or an irrational believer, or for that matter to be a rational or an irrational non-believer.
Example of a rational believer: Someone who believes that all of reality, including the bit we experience, is God (Spinoza's / Einstein's God, or Pantheism). Someone whose belief in God has a positive impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of an irrational believer: Someone who believes God sits in the clouds and fires bolts of lightning at humans for fun. Someone whose belief in God has a negative impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of a rational non-believer: Someone who sees no evidence for God, and has no reason to believe in God.
Example of an irrational non-believer: Someone who thinks the questions of the existence of God, belief in God, and various religious beliefs are the same thing.
In other words it is easy to argue against a God that fires lighting bolts from the clouds, but much more difficult to argue against say Pantheism.
But why does the non believer have to argue against anything ?0 -
All metaphysical positions based on thoughtful reason with respect to the available evidence, objective and subjective, are rational. It is quite possible to be a rational or an irrational believer, or for that matter to be a rational or an irrational non-believer.
Example of a rational believer: Someone who believes that all of reality, including the bit we experience, is God (Spinoza's / Einstein's God, or Pantheism). Someone whose belief in God has a positive impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of an irrational believer: Someone who believes God sits in the clouds and fires bolts of lightning at humans for fun. Someone whose belief in God has a negative impact on their lives and/or the lives of others.
Example of a rational non-believer: Someone who sees no evidence for God, and has no reason to believe in God.
Example of an irrational non-believer: Someone who thinks the questions of the existence of God, belief in God, and various religious beliefs are the same thing.
In other words it is easy to argue against a God that fires lighting bolts from the clouds, but much more difficult to argue against say Pantheism.
Panthiesm is hardly "religion" and if you're honest you know that panthiests can't even agree what it means.
Calling all existence "god" is not based on any evidence, and instead is best described as a stunt.
I understand Spinoza was serious, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence with which to justify his redefinition of reality.
There's no evidence at all for any sort of creator god, which is what most people consider to be "god".
There's certainly few people that would self-describe as religious that don't believe in some sort of Magical event which lead to the formation of the universe, spurred by a conscious entity of some description.
That's not rational and is not back up by anything but faith in a lie someone told them.0 -
But why does the non believer have to argue against anything ?
They don't, which raises the interesting question why some spend so much time arguing against (for example) the Christian concept of God. As I said the position that someone finds no reason to believe in God is a perfectly rational one.0 -
MilanPan!c wrote: »Panthiesm is hardly "religion" and if you're honest you know that panthiests can't even agree what it means.
There are different flavors and views on pantheism, some are religious and some are philosophical. Hinduism and Taoism are very strongly pantheist in nature, and arguably all modern religions are trending towards pantheism, some more quickly than others.MilanPan!c wrote: »Calling all existence "god" is not based on any evidence, and instead is best described as a stunt.
It is based on the evidence of the existence of the universe and the natural laws that govern the universe, hardly a stunt.MilanPan!c wrote: »I understand Spinoza was serious, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence with which to justify his redefinition of reality.
I don't see where you are getting the idea that Spinoza or any of his followers like Einstein are attempting to define "reality". Perhaps you can expand on that a little for clarity.MilanPan!c wrote: »There's no evidence at all for any sort of creator god, which is what most people consider to be "god".
As I said above there is the evidence of existence, and of nature which is endlessly creative.MilanPan!c wrote: »There's certainly few people that would self-describe as religious that don't believe in some sort of Magical event which lead to the formation of the universe, spurred by a conscious entity of some description. That's not rational and is not back up by anything but faith in a lie someone told them.
This I would largely agree with. There is really no evidence that the ultimate reality of existence (multiverse / megaverse / omniverse / metaverse, whateververse) is anything other than eternal, and that our local observed material universe (cosmos) came into being, complete with a time dimension, some 13.8 billion years ago. Speculation as to what happened at the instant of the big bang is just that, speculation, including any speculation as to what a God might have done. However, this does not take away from the fact that we live in an endlessly creative universe.0 -
Advertisement
-
The whole premise of your claim is that religious people, or people with "faith", paper mache over grief
I know what my own claims are thank you, I do not need to be told them by someone who clearly wants to turn them into things they are not. AGAIN: My point is that I am genuinely interested in seeking an understanding of what occurs when people use faith to help cope with bereavement but then lose that faith later on. And my curiosity on the subject is driven by the anecdotal fact that the only cases I have seen exampling this have been horrific.
That is my point here and anything else you want to make of that point is of your own invention, not mine.What I am questioning is the basis for your claim that religious belief or faith is a band aid.
One of the steps in dealing with bereavement is acceptance. Accepting that a loved one is dead and gone. So what I mean by "band aid" is the practice of using the unsubstantiated claims of religious belief or other after life claims.... for example your own failure and retreat in this very thread to substantiation the claims of reincarnation..... to act like a dead person is not _really_ dead, only temporarily absent.
So again what I am curious to see more research on is what happens when people later lose that faith and have to go through the "Acceptance" step much later when we know that "time" is a strong factor in dealing with that particular step.Grieving is a natural human process that no amount of belief or disbelief in God alleviates in the short term.
You are entirely wrong here. Belief in gods and after lives and the idea that dead people are not really dead but in this alleged "Better place" very much is something people draw consolation from.
But AGAIN, that is not my point and you bypass my point as usual. The point is a very simple IF..THEN statement. The point is that IF (regardless of whether you think they do or not, I am saying IF) people are drawing massive consolation and comfort and peace from the idea THEN this in no way constitutes even a modicum of evidence that a god actually exists.The only practical help for those suffering from grief is support from family, friends and the community (and religion frequently provides the latter support)
You are essentially now repeating some of my own points back at me because I already said the above myself. Many people do try to quote studies showing a correlation between religious belief and "better" recovery from bereavement, measured by such things as post bereavement tension and the like.
But as I acknowledged in an earlier post, one of the great failures of such studies is that they do not account for the fact that community is a massive factor in recovery and so normalize the results for the fact that being a member of a religion tends to correlate with being a member of a support community.The evidence for God is subjective evidence, something you no doubt attach little value to.
No doubt. I read the words in the above sentence and the only meaning I actually take from the words is "I have no evidence or arguments whatsoever to support the claim there actually is a god".Attempts to explain this evidence for God is the equivalent of trying to explain color to a blind person.
The difference being that one can evidence the existence of light and color to a blind person, regardless of the difficulty (though not impossibility) of linguistically conveying the subjective experience of color to them.
I hear the "Color to a Blind Person" analogy made often, on many threads, on many forums, but the analogy completely fails in that clear difference: Even a blind person can be brought evidence demonstrating the existence of light and color.
Whereas no one, much less so on this thread, has managed to bring even the FIRST shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent or intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
But that poor assertions are often supported with poor analogy is not something I can pretend is news.
But the REAL and poorly hidden agenda in that analogy is clear. Blind people have a disability, a lack of an ability others have. The real point of the analogy is not to demonstrate the difficulty of explaining god to atheists. No, the agenda is to portray atheists as having some lack or disability. It is not that the evidence for the assertion fails.... but that the failure lies with the "mark". A subtle canard but not one that is lost on anyone who can actually read.How is the hypothesis that the universe we observe is due to a higher creative power unbelievable?
Because many people can not believe things for which not a single piece of support exists. I can not, for example, take an open and empty box in my hands and simply BELIEVE it to be full of money.
Perhaps your own credulity is so labile as to simply switch belief on and off like a switch. Mine however is not and an assertion is "unbelievable" if it lacks any basis upon with to found a belief.0 -
There are different flavors and views on pantheism, some are religious and some are philosophical. Hinduism and Taoism are very strongly pantheist in nature, and arguably all modern religions are trending towards pantheism, some more quickly than others.
It is based on the evidence of the existence of the universe and the natural laws that govern the universe, hardly a stunt.
I don't see where you are getting the idea that Spinoza or any of his followers like Einstein are attempting to define "reality". Perhaps you can expand on that a little for clarity.
As I said above there is the evidence of existence, and of nature which is endlessly creative.
This I would largely agree with. There is really no evidence that the ultimate reality of existence (multiverse / megaverse / omniverse / metaverse, whateververse) is anything other than eternal, and that our local observed material universe (cosmos) came into being, complete with a time dimension, some 13.8 billion years ago. Speculation as to what happened at the instant of the big bang is just that, speculation, including any speculation as to what a God might have done. However, this does not take away from the fact that we live in an endlessly creative universe.
OK, let's unpack all of this.
Hinduism. Many many many Hindus believe in a creator god - for which there is no evidence.
Other Hindus see it as a culture/philosophy and are atheist. They believe in no god.
There's VERY few Hindu that just say all existence is gonna be labelled god.
Saying that, there's basically four main denominations of Hindu and all four believe in a creator god.
Even the most lax of these four believes that while god is "everything" he also has emotions... have you seen any evidence that the universe has emotions? Of course you haven't.
Taoism on the other hand actually believes in the "Jade Emporer" god. You've seen no evidence for that god either.
Of course people that call themselves Taoist believe all sorts of things, just like Christians, but... the religion itself has a creator god.
You say Pantheism is based on the evidence of existence. That evidence (i.e. things exist) is NOT evidence of anything supernatural or magical. Simply renaming all existence as god is about as deep as renaming a banana as god. Because you know, gravity, and bananas and all existence, etc.
Existence and natural laws are not PROOF of any god. And they are not intrinsically god. There's no reason to believe that except a burning desire to impose order. And fear.
As for you repeated statement that the Universe is endlessly creative, it is false.
You claim - rightly - that the universe has laws. You even cite the existence of these laws as "proof" for Pantheism. A universe where space and time and matter are bound by fairly strict laws cannot be said to be "endlessly creative". In fact is it obviously limited in what it can create.0 -
They don't, which raises the interesting question why some spend so much time arguing against (for example) the Christian concept of God. As I said the position that someone finds no reason to believe in God is a perfectly rational one.
We do spent lots of time arguing against the Christian concept of God , but the sole reason for that ( in my case anyway) is that it has a pervasive influence on our lives whether we like it or not. For an example just look at abortion in Spain today.
That of course and the whole idea of such woolly thing
being taught to our kids is just wrong , but solve the first and the second goes away.0 -
We do spent lots of time arguing against the Christian concept of God , but the sole reason for that ( in my case anyway) is that it has a pervasive influence on our lives whether we like it or not. For an example just look at abortion in Spain today.
That of course and the whole idea of such woolly thing
being taught to our kids is just wrong , but solve the first and the second goes away.
This.
Their is nothing so irreligious as imposed religion. If believers are serious about their beliefs then it's incumbent on them to allow others the same cutesy.
Once they start insisting that everyone follow their creed then it crosses a line into bullying.0 -
There is really no evidence that the ultimate reality of existence (multiverse / megaverse / omniverse / metaverse, whateververse) is anything other than eternal, and that our local observed material universe (cosmos) came into being, complete with a time dimension, some 13.8 billion years ago. Speculation as to what happened at the instant of the big bang is just that, speculation, including any speculation as to what a God might have done. However, this does not take away from the fact that we live in an endlessly creative universe.
If the big bang was the starting point for everything and if God caused it, that means that God existed before the big bang. What was he God of, if there was nothing but him in existence? What was he up to for the trillions and trillions of years (you know what I mean) before the big bang? Was he lazy, just lolling about in nothingness since the beginning of eternity and suddenly decided 'I know, I'll do a bit of creating'? and Hey Presto, it all began.
Help me here, i'm confused.0 -
Advertisement
-
If the big bang was the starting point for everything and if God caused it, that means that God existed before the big bang. What was he God of, if there was nothing but him in existence? What was he up to for the trillions and trillions of years (you know what I mean) before the big bang? Was he lazy, just lolling about in nothingness since the beginning of eternity and suddenly decided 'I know, I'll do a bit of creating'? and Hey Presto, it all began.
Assuming the big bang theory is correct, and it is the best theory we have currently on the origin of our observable universe, then time (and space) as we experience it began at the instant of the big bang and there is no "before". We have no empirical evidence whatsoever that a millisecond of time existed before the big bang, let alone trillions of years. This is why many theists point to the big bang as an event that must have been caused (by God, whatever their concept of God is) from outside our observable reality, as something as vast as our universe coming from nothing breaks all the rules of physics.
In terms of science we currently have no answer as to what existed at the instant of the big bang as our physics breaks down at the Planck time. So, if we keep the discussion on science, the answer is we don't know what happened "before" the big bang or whether there even was a "before", at least in terms of time as we experience it. The idea of a singularity, or a region of infinite density existing at the instant of the big bang, is a man made model that has no empirical evidence that I know of.
In the absence of any science to explain how the universe emerged, or what it emerged from, we get into the realm of metaphysics. While we have various models of a multidimensional reality out of which 4 became our observable universe (3X space dimensions, and 1 time dimension), or a multiverse of which our is just one of millions, these again are man made models that have no empirical evidence beyond the mind bending mathematics that describe them. So in terms of how our universe emerged, we are firmly on "we don't know".0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »One of the steps in dealing with bereavement is acceptance. Accepting that a loved one is dead and gone. So what I mean by "band aid" is the practice of using the unsubstantiated claims of religious belief or other after life claims.... for example your own failure and retreat in this very thread to substantiation the claims of reincarnation..... to act like a dead person is not _really_ dead, only temporarily absent. You are entirely wrong here. Belief in gods and after lives and the idea that dead people are not really dead but in this alleged "Better place" very much is something people draw consolation from.
This (again) is where we disagree. I have seen no evidence, either in studies or personal experience, that suggest religious belief in any practical sense somehow lessens grief after a bereavement. You are making an unsubstantiated claim and need to back it up. The idea that religious belief somehow lessens the (in particular short term) devastation of bereavement is I believe a myth.
Your real claim of course is that believers live a life of fantasy and don't experience real life fully, including the full devastation experience of a bereavement, and you have the gall to accuse me of suggesting atheists are somehow "disabled".
When it comes to belief in God or the lack of belief in God (not to be confused with the existence of God, or concepts of God, separate questions), the use of analogies is valid. Someone with a passion for football for example could wax eloquently for hours about the beauty in the game, but to someone with no interest in football it is just babble. Belief in God is something you either experience or don't experience, just as with any aspect of life. I happen to enjoy certain genres of music, but when some of my friends come over I wouldn't play them as I know it grates on their nerves. It doesn't mean they are disabled, nor do I think they are disabled.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But AGAIN, that is not my point and you bypass my point as usual. The point is a very simple IF..THEN statement. The point is that IF (regardless of whether you think they do or not, I am saying IF) people are drawing massive consolation and comfort and peace from the idea THEN this in no way constitutes even a modicum of evidence that a god actually exists.
You are now moving the goalposts. Your claim is that people use religion to avoid accepting teh reality that their loved one is dead and gone, and may have to deal with accepting that their loved one is dead and gone later if they lose their faith (that is the if, you clearly believe the former to be true). I am calling bs on that and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. Your claim is clearly "religious people avoid accepting the death of their loved ones, and if they lose their faith later, then they have to deal with this acceptance later".
You have provided no evidence for the first part of the claim, and a few examples of anecdotal evidence for the second part, and you have accused me in the past of presenting claims without valid evidence? As an aside, I did not run away form the reincarnation discussion, it had reached a stalemate and life is too short for endless circling. But from your comment above, it is clear that you never understood my claim for reincarnation to begin with. My claim is that some aspects of personality or memories from one lifetime show up in a separate lifetime. Nowhere did I make any claim that this suggests proof of an afterlife.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Whereas no one, much less so on this thread, has managed to bring even the FIRST shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim that a non-human intentional agent or intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
I understand this is your favorite line and you must repeat it in literally every post, but someday hopefully you will realize it is meaningless. The evidence for God is all around you and within you should you care to look. It is in the very fact of existence and your ability to experience existence.0 -
We do spent lots of time arguing against the Christian concept of God , but the sole reason for that ( in my case anyway) is that it has a pervasive influence on our lives whether we like it or not. For an example just look at abortion in Spain today. That of course and the whole idea of such woolly thing being taught to our kids is just wrong , but solve the first and the second goes away.
I think we are in agreement here. Parents have the right to bring up their children in a religious environment, but the state should have no role in promoting religion.0 -
MilanPan!c wrote: »Many many many Hindus believe in a creator god - for which there is no evidence. Other Hindus see it as a culture/philosophy and are atheist. They believe in no god.
If we get into the specifics of what each religion believes, we could debate that for the rest of our lives, which is a bit of a tangent to the topic at hand. In my opinion the older traditions such as Hinduism and Taoism are closer to a reasoned concept of God, but I would say that as my beliefs are Pantheist.MilanPan!c wrote: »You say Pantheism is based on the evidence of existence. That evidence (i.e. things exist) is NOT evidence of anything supernatural or magical. Simply renaming all existence as god is about as deep as renaming a banana as god. Because you know, gravity, and bananas and all existence, etc.
Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural or magical God, those would be Panentheists. Pantheists believe that all of reality reflects God, and we experience a tiny proportion of that reality (as it is we can only describe 4% of the universe that we believe exists based on our observations). In other words to a Pantheist there is nothing that is supernatural, everything is natural, the fact that we only experience a small fraction of said reality is immaterial.MilanPan!c wrote: »You claim - rightly - that the universe has laws. You even cite the existence of these laws as "proof" for Pantheism. A universe where space and time and matter are bound by fairly strict laws cannot be said to be "endlessly creative". In fact is it obviously limited in what it can create.
The existence of the universe and our ability to experience this existence is proof of Pantheism. Remember Pantheists do not see God as a separate supernatural thing, but as the overall thing, including the bit we experience. The idea that the universe/God is constrained in what it can create because primates with a large frontal lobe say so is quite hilarious if you think about it. There are no "fairly strict laws", there are laws that we humans continue to discover and update as we go along.0 -
If we get into the specifics of what each religion believes, we could debate that for the rest of our lives, which is a bit of a tangent to the topic at hand. In my opinion the older traditions such as Hinduism and Taoism are closer to a reasoned concept of God, but I would say that as my beliefs are Pantheist.
Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural or magical God, those would be Panentheists. Pantheists believe that all of reality reflects God, and we experience a tiny proportion of that reality (as it is we can only describe 4% of the universe that we believe exists based on our observations). In other words to a Pantheist there is nothing that is supernatural, everything is natural, the fact that we only experience a small fraction of said reality is immaterial.
The existence of the universe and our ability to experience this existence is proof of Pantheism. Remember Pantheists do not see God as a separate supernatural thing, but as the overall thing, including the bit we experience. The idea that the universe/God is constrained in what it can create because primates with a large frontal lobe say so is quite hilarious if you think about it. There are no "fairly strict laws", there are laws that we humans continue to discover and update as we go along.
"Reasoned concept of god" is a oxymoron
Faith in the irrational is acceptable in society, but that's as close as you'll get to me being ok with any sort of projections onto the universe.
As for the difference between Pantheists and Panentheists, well... I am well aware of that.
The vast majority of religious believers (that includes Hindus and Taosits) aren't Panthiests. You claim it's closer, but... you can't just decide to make them into Pathiests because it suits your self-image. they're mostly not by a large margin. As for you restating that you believe that all of existence is God, it's a stunt. You could call of of existence a cow if you want, but that wouldn't be an argument for the existence of cows.
Existence is proof of existence. If you choose to label it "god" that's fine, but I'm with the majority of people that label you and Spinoza as atheists.
And btw., the laws of the universe are fairly strict. No one but someone trying to prove some unproveable point would suggest otherwise.
Those limits by definition mean that the universe is not infinitely creative, and therefore greatly limit that avenue you like to pursue.0 -
MilanPan!c wrote: »"Reasoned concept of god" is a oxymoron
Faith in the irrational is acceptable in society, but that's as close as you'll get to me being ok with any sort of projections onto the universe.
As for the difference between Pantheists and Panentheists, well... I am well aware of that.
The vast majority of religious believers (that includes Hindus and Taosits) aren't Panthiests.
You claim it's closer, but... you can't just decide to make them into Pathiests because it suits your self-image. they're mostly not by a large margin. As for you restating that you believe that all of existence is God, it's a stunt. You could call of of existence a cow if you want, but that wouldn't be an argument for the existence of cows.
Existence is proof of existence. If you choose to label it "god" that's fine, but I'm with the majority of people that label you and Spinoza as atheists.
And btw., the laws of the universe are fairly strict. No one but someone trying to prove some unproveable point would suggest otherwise.
Those limits by definition mean that the universe is not infinitely creative, and therefore greatly limit that avenue you like to pursue.
You better believe they are limited - that is exactly what makes the fact you can figure it out kinda special if a little lonely..so you do what you do and we 'behave' the way we do. However we are the sole observers of this beautiful universe. That is rather grand..0 -
We're not the sole observers, lmaopml ... there is also a (vast) spiritual realm out there watching (and inspiring) as well.:)You better believe they are limited - that is exactly what makes the fact you can figure it out kinda special if a little lonely..so you do what you do and we 'behave' the way we do. However we are the sole observers of this beautiful universe. That is rather grand..0 -
-
-
It isn't grand, it is arrogant in the extreme.You better believe they are limited - that is exactly what makes the fact you can figure it out kinda special if a little lonely..so you do what you do and we 'behave' the way we do. However we are the sole observers of this beautiful universe. That is rather grand..
How do you know we are the sole observers?
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Many Happy Returns to you and your family, lmaopml.:cool:I think there is..'A cloud of witnesses'. 'We' call them the Saints...those long gone, but teaching still..
;-)
Happy new year to you and your family JC! Very best wishes.
BTW, a Saint is a Saved Christian ... living or dead.0 -
The good ones inspire good ... and the evil ones inspire evil.MilanPan!c wrote: »Ehhhhh... Not so much...
... and the 'ETs' are a smelly sulphurous bunch!!!:eek:0 -
-
You're correct that the responsibility for any evil we commit rests firmly with us ... but people can be inspired towards good or evil ... by the people (and spirits) with whom they interact.MilanPan!c wrote: »Ehhhh.... No.
Sorry to break it to you, but all your evil is yours alone. No shirking responsibility.0 -
You're correct that the responsibility for any evil we commit rests firmly with us ... but people can be inspired towards good or evil ... by the people (and spirits) with whom they interact.
No. Spirits are make-believe.
Show many ANY evidence - other than "faith" - of "spirits".
Then, after we see this evidence we can chat about what the spirits are telling you to do, and if there's an appropriate form of therapy to rid you of these voices you're hearing.0 -
There you go jumping to conclusions (about my sanity and the existence of God) without first examining the evidence.MilanPan!c wrote: »No. Spirits are make-believe.
Show many ANY evidence - other than "faith" - of "spirits".
Then, after we see this evidence we can chat about what the spirits are telling you to do, and if there's an appropriate form of therapy to rid you of these voices you're hearing.
I'm not hearing voices ... and I never said I was!!!!
... but I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God ... and He inspires me.
... so thanks ... but no thanks ... I don't need any therapy.:P0 -
There you go jumping to conclusions (about my sanity and the existence of God) without first examining the evidence.
I'm not hearing voices ... and I never said I was!!!!
... but I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God ... and He inspires me.
... so thanks ... but no thanks ... I don't need any therapy.:P
Being indwelt by an imaginary friend sounds incredibly --- not sane.
But sure, we all let our imaginations run away with us from time to time.0 -
He is my Forever Friend ... as Charlie Landsborough would say:-MilanPan!c wrote: »Being indwelt by an imaginary friend sounds incredibly --- not sane.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
... one person's 'creepy' is another person's Salvation ... welcome to the Christianity Forum.:DMilanPan!c wrote: »That's just creepy.
"He's my Forever Friend ... and He can be your Friend too."0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement