Help: How do I know that your God is the one, true God?

[Kir Komrik]

Hi all,
I'm new here and have just read up on the policies and finished my signature, etc. I hope I've done everything correctly so far.
I would like to believe in an almighty power but the problem is that in my research I've found so many gods out there. Coming from a family that has been explicitly atheist for generations, I'm starting from scratch and am looking at all religions.
I am sincerely curious to know how would I know, for instance, that your god is the one, true God?
Thank you.

[Nickman]

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

Which would support the flood theory. Apparently there were several other places that used to be oceans....... Here is a snip with the link....

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
So were there

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

Im sorry, but the global flood argument has been 100% destroyed by actual evidence. As I said before, the face of the earth was not always the same as it is today. All continents and land masses used to be one land mass in our distant past. Oceans covered areas that are now dry land, and full of vegetation. It is no mystery that we find fossils of sea creatures thousands of miles inland, because these areas were not always inland, they were underwater.

I would direct you to a peer-reviewed archive of scientific literature that actually addresses all of the arguments creationists claim using their bible. If you are actually interested in truth then you will find this website helpful and educational.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

Evidence requires interpretation. I would argue that presuppostion can and does influence both sides. Your side does not want a God and so they interpret it in a way that will support their own presupposition.

You are completely wrong here. "My side" does not decide what they want. We look at the evidence. As an atheist, I tried very hard to find a reason to believe which would be a bad way to go about it because it could cause subjectivity. The evidence for god is not there, so atheists decide the default position which is that we don't believe in gods.

[Zetesis Apistia]

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

Which would support the flood theory. Apparently there were several other places that used to be oceans....... Here is a snip with the link....

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
So were there

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

Im sorry, but the global flood argument has been 100% destroyed by actual evidence. As I said before, the face of the earth was not always the same as it is today. All continents and land masses used to be one land mass in our distant past. Oceans covered areas that are now dry land, and full of vegetation. It is no mystery that we find fossils of sea creatures thousands of miles inland, because these areas were not always inland, they were underwater.

I would direct you to a peer-reviewed archive of scientific literature that actually addresses all of the arguments creationists claim using their bible. If you are actually interested in truth then you will find this website helpful and educational.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

Evidence requires interpretation. I would argue that presuppostion can and does influence both sides. Your side does not want a God and so they interpret it in a way that will support their own presupposition.

You are completely wrong here. "My side" does not decide what they want. We look at the evidence. As an atheist, I tried very hard to find a reason to believe which would be a bad way to go about it because it could cause subjectivity. The evidence for god is not there, so atheists decide the default position which is that we don't believe in gods.

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

[Nickman]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

Scientists don't think that there is a cure for aids before there is one. They fall back on the default position. Claiming that there is an aids cure or ever will be prior to there being evidence for one is dishonest. Same goes with god.

[Zetesis Apistia]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

Scientists don't think that there is a cure for aids before there is one. They fall back on the default position. Claiming that there is an aids cure or ever will be prior to there being evidence for one is dishonest. Same goes with god.

So why are they trying to discover something that doesn't exist?

[catalyst]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

Scientists don't think that there is a cure for aids before there is one. They fall back on the default position. Claiming that there is an aids cure or ever will be prior to there being evidence for one is dishonest. Same goes with god.

So why are they trying to discover something that doesn't exist?

Just saying something here. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus Zetesis Apistia.

HIV however is a virus and said virus can lead to AIDS. Just as one of many flu viruses can lead to pneumonia and just as many viruses can lead to cancer.

One thing though, science can measure the virus that clearly exists in the first place and then they can work on ways to determine what may or may not cure said virus. At least they have something tangible to work with, that physically exists and is objectively evident.

The same however cannot be said about your personally preferred god model nor god models of other religions/faiths.

I suppose that is the difference.


Catalyst.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Just saying something here. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus Zetesis Apistia.

HIV however is a virus and said virus can lead to AIDS. Just as one of many flu viruses can lead to pneumonia and just as many viruses can lead to cancer.

Forgive my political incorrectness. I have not bothered to thoroughly educate myself in this field. I was merely making a point. Thanks for the education nonetheless.

One thing though, science can measure the virus that clearly exists in the first place and then they can work on ways to determine what may or may not cure said virus. At least they have something tangible to work with, that physically exists and is objectively evident.

The same however cannot be said about your personally preferred god model nor god models of other religions/faiths.

I suppose that is the difference.


Catalyst.

1) You can provide nothing to support your claim of the non existence of God.

2) If you cannot prove the non existence of God then you can be agnostic at best.

3) Scientists are clueless as to where the first cell came from.

4) Therefore it is possible that a God exists, and if so he may well have created the first cell. Those are not facts they are merely possibilities.

5) There you go, now you have a motivating factor to search for the causer of the cause.

[catalyst]

Just saying something here. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus Zetesis Apistia.

HIV however is a virus and said virus can lead to AIDS. Just as one of many flu viruses can lead to pneumonia and just as many viruses can lead to cancer.

Forgive my political incorrectness. I have not bothered to thoroughly educate myself in this field. I was merely making a point. Thanks for the education nonetheless.

You are welcome. It's said that we all learn something new every day, so I suppose that may have fulfilled in part your quota.lol

One thing though, science can measure the virus that clearly exists in the first place and then they can work on ways to determine what may or may not cure said virus. At least they have something tangible to work with, that physically exists and is objectively evident.

The same however cannot be said about your personally preferred god model nor god models of other religions/faiths.

I suppose that is the difference.


Catalyst.

ZA wrote

1) You can provide nothing to support your claim of the non existence of God.

Oh I have no issue with agreeing with you that god concepts exist. My favourite capital G god model is actually Nummoh. Which one are you referring to?

2) If you cannot prove the non existence of God then you can be agnostic at best.

Oh I can be an atheist and still appreciate that god concepts exist. The fact the concept exists though does not by default mean that one or any god is REAL.

3) Scientists are clueless as to where the first cell came from.

Something you would have to take up with the scientists working in the realms of abiogenesis I suppose.

4) Therefore it is possible that a God exists, and if so he may well have created the first cell. Those are not facts they are merely possibilities.

Again though, which god might that be?

5) There you go, now you have a motivating factor to search for the causer of the cause.

But who or what caused this god "causer" you apparently believe is REAL? Do you know? If so, please feel free to enlighten us but if you don't then should you follow your own "call" and be agnostic? Thank you.

Catalyst

[Zetesis Apistia]

Just saying something here. There is no such thing as an AIDS virus Zetesis Apistia.

HIV however is a virus and said virus can lead to AIDS. Just as one of many flu viruses can lead to pneumonia and just as many viruses can lead to cancer.

Forgive my political incorrectness. I have not bothered to thoroughly educate myself in this field. I was merely making a point. Thanks for the education nonetheless.

You are welcome. It's said that we all learn something new every day, so I suppose that may have fulfilled in part your quota.lol

Knowledge is power....thanks for the assist.

One thing though, science can measure the virus that clearly exists in the first place and then they can work on ways to determine what may or may not cure said virus. At least they have something tangible to work with, that physically exists and is objectively evident.

The same however cannot be said about your personally preferred god model nor god models of other religions/faiths.

I suppose that is the difference.

Science is beginning to branch out into fields like M theory. Why would you discount possibilities due to a lack of technology? Science is all about delving into the unknown.

1) You can provide nothing to support your claim of the non existence of God.

Oh I have no issue with agreeing with you that god concepts exist. My favourite capital G god model is actually Nummoh. Which one are you referring to?

The only one there can be. The self existing one.

2) If you cannot prove the non existence of God then you can be agnostic at best.

Oh I can be an atheist and still appreciate that god concepts exist. The fact the concept exists though does not by default mean that one or any god is REAL.

I cannot argue against your own reality. But your reality is different than mine. You can only define your beliefs by your personal experiences. But then much is hidden from your reality as well as mine.

3) Scientists are clueless as to where the first cell came from.

Something you would have to take up with the scientists working in the realms of abiogenesis I suppose.

I would but they have these crazy ideas about abiogenesis resulting from life on other planets

5) There you go, now you have a motivating factor to search for the causer of the cause.

But who or what caused this god "causer" you apparently believe is REAL? Do you know? If so, please feel free to enlighten us but if you don't then should you follow your own "call" and be agnostic? Thank you.

Catalyst

Our personal experiences and learning has shaped our beliefs.. Our beliefs are the offspring of our subjective interpretation of life. Your reality is different than mine. You cannot know my truth because you haven't had my experiences. How can you rule things out based on your own reality when it is only a fraction of the combined reality of us all?

[Danmark]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

I believe you have misstated the position of most atheists an I know your description does not apply to me. I define an atheist as one who simply believes that the orthodox god of traditional theism, that is, a god with a personality who is represented by the mythology of the Bible, and Genesis in particular, is unlikely to exist.

Scientists no longer waste their time searching for a theory of a flat Earth, or that disease is caused by the 'ether' or evil spirits. Scientists do not take seriously astrology or the notion the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days by a god who was created in our image.

In short, when a silly idea, that has either already been refuted, or is not falsifiable is proposed a scientist does not "...continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search."
______________
BTW, I would appreciate it if you would not make blanket statements about any group, using words like "you atheists."
It is not only against the rules of this forum, it is as likely to be as inaccurate as saying, 'You Christians like to kill doctors who perform abortions.'

[Zetesis Apistia]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

I believe you have misstated the position of most atheists an I know your description does not apply to me.

Do all atheists believe like you? How then can you answer for them?

I define an atheist as one who simply believes that the orthodox god of traditional theism, that is, a god with a personality who is represented by the mythology of the Bible, and Genesis in particular, is unlikely to exist.

Since atheists fall under different categories like, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist,broad atheist, narrow atheist, weak atheist and about 12 more that I haven't mentioned, I don't think it would be proper for you to represent all 17 groups since you must surely only represent one group.

Scientists no longer waste their time searching for a theory of a flat Earth, or that disease is caused by the 'ether' or evil spirits. Scientists do not take seriously astrology or the notion the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days by a god who was created in our image.

In short, when a silly idea, that has either already been refuted, or is not falsifiable is proposed a scientist does not "...continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search."

Well they consider the notion that the first cell rode in on an asteroid from an alien planet. Whats wrong with one more silly hypothesis?

BTW, I would appreciate it if you would not make blanket statements about any group, using words like "you atheists.
It is not only against the rules of this forum, it is as likely to be as inaccurate as saying, 'You Christians like to kill doctors who perform abortions.'

My apologies. I should have given more thought to my phraseology. BTW. Why do you scold me for making blanket statements about atheists, and then turn around and make a blanket statement by speaking for most atheists?