Crisis of faith and the reality of the Holy Spirit

[Yahshua]

i see your point. the thing is that i'm not questioning love or the feeling or the belief itself, i'm questioning the objective reality of the Holy Spirit. in your example there is usually no issue about the objective reality of the person you love, the objective reality of your wife or pet is fact.


In the case of the Holy Spirit, i'm suggesting the objective reality of it is not established and that we need to establish it before we affirm it is objective and analyse our relationship with it. the love in me is a subjective feeling. people can love things that do not exist, a character in a book for example, or an imaginary friend. my love, or any other subjective emotion or feeling is no garantee that the object of the love or feeling is real. do you agree with that?

True the object of one's love can be subjective, yes I completely agree...that's why I specific used "love" as the example, not the *object* of one's love. Love isn't what's subjective, because it's a real emotion that acts upon you. Feelings are real (unless you're questioning human feelings as well?).

In my reply I asked you to prove to my satisfaction that the *love* you have for the object (real or imaginary), is real. My point is love (itself) can't be directly proven but can be indirectly proven from those affected by it. Just like gravity. Gravity is an intangible force that can't be directly proven of itself, but is indirectly proven from the object(s) it acts upon. Other weaker forces in physics are measured the same way. Scientifically, this is a widely accepted method of proving intangible forces in our world as objectively real: by noting their effects on objects they act upon/against.

Gravity can't be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled...but you can feel it. It moves upon objects with the potential to be moved. Love can't be seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled...but you can feel it. It moves people with the potential to love. So likewise the Holy Spirit isn't described as something you can see, touch, taste, hear or smell...but is described to being felt and moving people with the potential to do the will of God.

So I pose these questions:

- Are there intangible forces in our world that are indirectly proven as objectively real by the things they act upon - that have the potential to be acted upon - by those intangible forces?

- Are love and gravity such intangible forces accepted as objective reality?

- Is the Holy Spirit *described* as an intangible force that acts upon people as objects of its force?

- Similarly as any other intangible force, can't The Holy Spirit be indirectly proven as objective reality by studying the objects it is described to act upon (i.e. those with the potential to be acted upon)?

sure it was a statement. i'm not completely clueless, I do know a thing or two and i try to convey them. i make statements about the things i think are true to support why i'm asing the questions i ask and why the answers i'm given are not satisfying to me. my questions do not come out of thin air, they are based on things i have established to my satisfaction were true, and they are the next step.

are you contesting my statement and conclusion above? i would be curious for you to explain on what ground.

My apologies if you felt I was implying you were clueless. That wasn't what I was getting at. I only mean, in a search for truth we have to start over and can't be too quick to make conclusions, else it says we don't really intend to seek answers but instead to defend what we already firmly believe is true.

Since you'd mentioned several times that you're seeking truth, the act of making statements (which I have no problem with you making) is counter-productive to that effort. For instance from the language of your last question here it would seem that you actually seek for me (or someone) to *disprove* what you already believe is the truth. Do you see the difference I'm pointing out? I tend to avoid that exercise with this topic because no one can convince someone who's already made up their mind (as I'm sure you've run into).

 

[Simeon]

True the object of one's love can be subjective, yes I completely agree...that's why I specific used "love" as the example, not the *object* of one's love. Love isn't what's subjective, because it's a real emotion that acts upon you. Feelings are real (unless you're questioning human feelings as well?).

In my reply I asked you to prove to my satisfaction that the *love* you have for the object (real or imaginary), is real. My point is love (itself) can't be directly proven but can be indirectly proven from those affected by it. Just like gravity. Gravity is an intangible force that can't be directly proven of itself, but is indirectly proven from the object(s) it acts upon. Other weaker forces in physics are measured the same way. Scientifically, this is a widely accepted method of proving intangible forces in our world as objectively real: by noting their effects on objects they act upon/against.

Gravity can't be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled...but you can feel it. It moves upon objects with the potential to be moved. Love can't be seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled...but you can feel it. It moves people with the potential to love. So likewise the Holy Spirit isn't described as something you can see, touch, taste, hear or smell...but is described to being felt and moving people with the potential to do the will of God.

So I pose these questions:

- Are there intangible forces in our world that are indirectly proven as objectively real by the things they act upon - that have the potential to be acted upon - by those intangible forces?

- Are love and gravity such intangible forces accepted as objective reality?

- Is the Holy Spirit *described* as an intangible force that acts upon people as objects of its force?

- Similarly as any other intangible force, can't The Holy Spirit be indirectly proven as objective reality by studying the objects it is described to act upon (i.e. those with the potential to be acted upon)?






My apologies if you felt I was implying you were clueless. That wasn't what I was getting at. I only mean, in a search for truth we have to start over and can't be too quick to make conclusions, else it says we don't really intend to seek answers but instead to defend what we already firmly believe is true.

Since you'd mentioned several times that you're seeking truth, the act of making statements (which I have no problem with you making) is counter-productive to that effort. For instance from the language of your last question here it would seem that you actually seek for me (or someone) to *disprove* what you already believe is the truth. Do you see the difference I'm pointing out? I tend to avoid that exercise with this topic because no one can convince someone who's already made up their mind (as I'm sure you've run into).

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Two things before I answer your questions : [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I appreciate your input a lot but please don't assume I'm saying things without having checked and double checked so that I have to be humble and not assume I know anything. It almost comes across as if you think you hold the Truth and that there is nothing you can learn from me. I find that attitude a bit odd, especially in light of what you are telling me. I've been seeking the Truth for a long while now. I make statements about what I have already found out was true or at least very likely to be true. I'm ready to defend my statements. That doesn't mean I have made up my mind about everything or can't be wrong. I still have unanswered questions and so I'm still seeking answers. I'm just digging deeper. Seeking truth is a process, we learn little by little, Truth doesn't fall on your lap just like that. All claims and hypothesis need to be tested before being accepted. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Testing an hypothesis is better done by trying to disprove it. Trying to prove something true is too easy, too prone to bias, it is not conclusive. At school they teach this concept with the black swan analogy. If your hypothesis is that all swans are white, you don't go around looking for white swans to prove your hypothesis correct, that's pointless. You look around for black swans, and if you don't find any, then the probability that all swans are white is high. We can never prove anything with 100% accuracy, there is always the probability that a black swan will land in the pond tomorrow. That's science in a nutshell. See what I mean ? I'm not trying to disprove something I think is true, I'm using the best technique I know to test an hypothesis to see if the hypothesis is correct. I'm trying to account for confirmation bias.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The hypothesis here is « The Holy Spirit is not objective». I'm looking for ways to disprove that, arguments or facts or anything that show it is incorrect. At the same time I'm also trying to disprove the hypothesis : « the Holy Spirit is objective». I figure I'll be able to tell Truth by finding out which hypothesis is more likely to be true, which resists better under scrutiny.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So now to your questions. I see a major problem of definition in what you say. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You seem confused about the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective and it invalidates your argument. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The adjective « objective » means dealing with external facts and not with individual thoughts or feelings. Something objective IS, it exists or it happens for everything and for everyone. Something objective is physical.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The adjective « subjective » means pertaining to the thinking subject, or more simply, what is not objective, what is not physical. Something subjective happens solely in the mind of the individual concerned, it is an abstraction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So love, and feelings in general, are by definition subjective. They are real, we feel love and anger and such, but they are not objects or forces, they don't exist out there, physically, they can't be measured or anything. They are subjective. Subjective doesn't mean invented or made up, it doesn't mean « not real ». [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Love is not at all like gravity. Gravity is objective. It is out there, independent of whether anybody feels it or study it, it is measurable, predictable, testable even, you can write down the formula. It is a force that affects everything in the universe and as such it is physical. Love is not a force like gravity, it is a subjective emotion that make us do thing, yes, but it doesn't act uniformly in the universe at large, it acts as part of our mind, in our brains, and our brains then make us do things because of it. Love is not the physical brain itself, love is what the brain does. A bit like a smile is not your face, it is what your face does. There is no object called a smile, there are only teeth and lips and sparkly eyes. The smile is real, but subjective, it is interpreted, created in the mind of the people who see your face taking a certain position. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Love is just like a smile. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So your analogy doesn't work because it seems to ignore the difference between objective and subjective, which is crucial. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What I am trying to find out really, is whether the Holy Spirit is like gravity, objective, or like love, subjective.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If it is subjective like you seem to imply, then it doesn't exists outside of our heads, it is a product of our brains. It is not out there. It doesn't exists if we are not here to feel it. It is only real in a subjective sense.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And that means christianity is wrong. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I hope that answers your questions. It doesn't answer mine.[/FONT]

 

[pottersclay]

Seeing is believing....believing is seeing.....think about it.

 

[Simeon]

Seeing is believing....believing is seeing.....think about it.

God is Love
Love is Blind
is God blind?

Think about it.

 

[fredoheaven]

Hi how would you believe on this one? Is this true to you?

(1) First take major premise the proposition,

"Christ died for all human beings."

(2) Then supply the minor premise,

"I am a human being."

(3) Then draw the conclusion,

"Christ died for me."

(4) Then on the basis of this conclusion

Receive Christ as Saviour

Thanks

 

[Yahshua]

Two things before I answer your questions :

I appreciate your input a lot but please don't assume I'm saying things without having checked and double checked so that I have to be humble and not assume I know anything. It almost comes across as if you think you hold the Truth and that there is nothing you can learn from me. I find that attitude a bit odd, especially in light of what you are telling me. I've been seeking the Truth for a long while now. I make statements about what I have already found out was true or at least very likely to be true. I'm ready to defend my statements. That doesn't mean I have made up my mind about everything or can't be wrong. I still have unanswered questions and so I'm still seeking answers. I'm just digging deeper. Seeking truth is a process, we learn little by little, Truth doesn't fall on your lap just like that. All claims and hypothesis need to be tested before being accepted.

Testing an hypothesis is better done by trying to disprove it. Trying to prove something true is too easy, too prone to bias, it is not conclusive. At school they teach this concept with the black swan analogy. If your hypothesis is that all swans are white, you don't go around looking for white swans to prove your hypothesis correct, that's pointless. You look around for black swans, and if you don't find any, then the probability that all swans are white is high. We can never prove anything with 100% accuracy, there is always the probability that a black swan will land in the pond tomorrow. That's science in a nutshell. See what I mean ? I'm not trying to disprove something I think is true, I'm using the best technique I know to test an hypothesis to see if the hypothesis is correct. I'm trying to account for confirmation bias.

The hypothesis here is « The Holy Spirit is not objective». I'm looking for ways to disprove that, arguments or facts or anything that show it is incorrect. At the same time I'm also trying to disprove the hypothesis : « the Holy Spirit is objective». I figure I'll be able to tell Truth by finding out which hypothesis is more likely to be true, which resists better under scrutiny.

So now to your questions. I see a major problem of definition in what you say.

You seem confused about the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective and it invalidates your argument.

The adjective « objective » means dealing with external facts and not with individual thoughts or feelings. Something objective IS, it exists or it happens for everything and for everyone. Something objective is physical.



The adjective « subjective » means pertaining to the thinking subject, or more simply, what is not objective, what is not physical. Something subjective happens solely in the mind of the individual concerned, it is an abstraction.

So love, and feelings in general, are by definition subjective. They are real, we feel love and anger and such, but they are not objects or forces, they don't exist out there, physically, they can't be measured or anything. They are subjective. Subjective doesn't mean invented or made up, it doesn't mean « not real ».

Love is not at all like gravity. Gravity is objective. It is out there, independent of whether anybody feels it or study it, it is measurable, predictable, testable even, you can write down the formula. It is a force that affects everything in the universe and as such it is physical. Love is not a force like gravity, it is a subjective emotion that make us do thing, yes, but it doesn't act uniformly in the universe at large, it acts as part of our mind, in our brains, and our brains then make us do things because of it. Love is not the physical brain itself, love is what the brain does. A bit like a smile is not your face, it is what your face does. There is no object called a smile, there are only teeth and lips and sparkly eyes. The smile is real, but subjective, it is interpreted, created in the mind of the people who see your face taking a certain position.

Love is just like a smile.

So your analogy doesn't work because it seems to ignore the difference between objective and subjective, which is crucial.

What I am trying to find out really, is whether the Holy Spirit is like gravity, objective, or like love, subjective.

If it is subjective like you seem to imply, then it doesn't exists outside of our heads, it is a product of our brains. It is not out there. It doesn't exists if we are not here to feel it. It is only real in a subjective sense.

And that means christianity is wrong.

I hope that answers your questions. It doesn't answer mine.

Well not really..(and how did we jump to the statement that Christianity is wrong?? We're just talking about the Holy Spirit lol).

Regarding learning from you; with respect I didn't know you were trying to teach me Like I said, you mentioned several times that you were seeking truth and at the beginning of this thread you asked for help. That means you put yourself in a position of learning; to ask questions and not make statements...unless you actually mean to teach? And if I didn't think I held the truth you seek why would I try to help you? It's illogical. Or a better question; if you don't think anyone here holds the truth why ask us for help at all? The effort seems self-defeating (if that's the correct word for it) unless there's another motive. So shouldn't I come across as if I know the truth? Can one hold the truth another doesn't yet have? Surely, just like Sir Issac Newton with gravity. I think maybe you've incorrectly assumed we're both (or all) in a crisis of trying to prove the Holy Spirit, but no I'm merely trying to help you with yours.

Learning is indeed an exercise in humility. It requires a specific dynamic where the one learning submits to the authority of another's tutelage else there can be no learning.

I don't know if you realize it, but you're trying to prove something is truth by your own admission: that the Holy Spirit isn't objective...which is actually what I was (gently) implying you were doing at the end of in my last post. So to make sure there isn't any bias in either direction, I suggest a better position would be to start over in a neutral one, like "what is the Holy Spirit?" (i.e. "what color are swans" per your example), and then we reason through it.

I say this humbly. If you've already built a case for the Holy Spirit being subjective you'll remain bias to your truth just like your swan example (as truth is a double-edged sword), and so you must start over if you want anyone's help here, because our case is built in the opposite direction. I'm willing to start over with you because I was where you are, but if you're not, you're just here to defend your truth. You're just here to argue.

For instance, I was very specific to differentiate love itself vs. the subject of love vs. the object of love...but notwithstanding, if you weren't trying to prove your truth wouldn't you have just ignored love and addressed everything else I shared for proving gravity and weaker forces in physics? But you avoided gravity and latched onto love, avoiding my questions. So I think there's a little bias there.

But if we remove love everything I wrote regarding gravity still provides us with a great starting point for proving the Holy Spirit one way or another, doesn't it?

Like this...

----

Gravity is an intangible force that can't be directly proven of itself, but is indirectly proven from the object(s) it acts upon. Other weaker forces in physics are measured the same way. Scientifically, this is a widely accepted method of proving intangible forces in our world as objectively real: by noting their effects on objects they act upon/against.


Gravity can't be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled...but you can feel it. It moves upon objects with the potential to be moved. So likewise the Holy Spirit isn't described as something you can see, touch, taste, hear (with your ears) or smell...but is described to being felt and moving people with the potential to do the will of God.


So I pose these questions:


- Are there intangible forces in our world that are indirectly proven as objectively real by the things they act upon - that have the potential to be acted upon - by those intangible forces?


- Is gravity such an intangible forces accepted as objective reality?


- Is the Holy Spirit *described* as an intangible force that acts upon people as objects of its force?


- Similarly as with any other intangible force, shouldn't we be able to prove The Holy Spirit be indirectly as objective reality by studying the objects it is described to act upon (i.e. those with the potential to be acted upon)?

---

So what about my questions now?

 

[Simeon]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Okay. My bad, let's not get confrontational here, but please stop misrepresenting what I say. I'm not trying to teach anybody but when I engage in a discussion about a question without an answer, I expect to learn things from other people, and i expect other people to learn some of the things i can bring to the table, and if we find an answer, we all learned something. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I asked for help here, specifically asking for people's answer to my questions, figuring that the assurance and lack of doubt they express must have meant they had obvious answers I didn't have. When I realized answers where not coming, that the answer people brought up were nothing but, this thread moved on from me asking for people to give me answers to a discussion about what the answers could be and couldn't be. I had to explain why the answer provided were not good answers, why the confidence based upon them was not warranted. I also started to wonder why people, you included, can be so confident they have an answer, enough to actually try to convey it to me, without actually giving me a satisfying answer. It sounds a bit like : « I just know, trust me. ». [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If the Holy Spirit is so obvious, if it has such obvious effects upon this world, why is nobody coming up with proof ? If it is objective, then yes, we should be able to prove it, just like with gravity. Or if not like gravity, like dark energy at least, we should be able to get something, anything, to warrant our claim that the Holy Spirit acts upon the world in an objective way. It could become a scientific field. We could devise hypothesis and experiments and test if the Holy Spirit is indeed objective, write papers about it and get the nobel prize of all nobel prizes. If there is objective proof, then there would be no denying it, it would be fact, and the whole world should be christian.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am going to make a new statement : I have not found any such proof, nor has science, nor has the world. This is extremely suspicious to me.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Only some believers claim to have such proofs and they are not telling what it is. That's why I'm asking here on a fundamentalist forum where presumably the majority of members have claimed to have such proofs, what are those proofs. The longer I wait to get those proofs, the more I think there is no such proofs, that it is BS. Why would people withhold them from me otherwise ? Why would those proofs be so elusive, so hard to convey ? It is extremely suspicious to say the least.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Also, when did I say that I was trying to prove that The Holy Spirit wasn't objective, that it was my accepted truth ? I said that was an hypothesis I was contemplating, in paralel to its opposite, that the Holy Spirit is objective. But I stated specificaly that i wasn't trying to prove either of them but to disprove them both, to see which one survives scrutiny. I don't see how I can be more neutral and unbiased about it. Objective/subjective are opposites, it is either/or, like possible/impossible. The Holy Spirit is objective or it is not, that is the most basic thing I can imagine knowing about the Holy Spirit, once I assume it is real. The most neutral position is to consider them both equally probable and put them both to the test. I really don't understand how you can accuse me of bias for doing that.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Going back to the very begining of this thread, i have stated, based upon previous research and thought, my conviction that faith itself requires an objective Holy Spirit to warrant knowledge about God and that without faith and revelation, we have nothing to support christianity. Without the warrant of an objective Holy Spirit, faith is circular wishfull thinking affected by confirmation, and nothing about christianity can be affirmed with certitude. Since I don't have that warrant, those proofs, I have doubts.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An objective Holy Spirit is the bedrock of christianity. Make that bedrock subjective, and the house of christianity colapses, foundationless. Another thing that baffles me is that nobody seem quite worried about the fact that the bedrock of our faith may be a subjective Holy Spirit, a concept that is as good as saying we have no reason to believe anything we believe and that christianity is wrong, simply because a subjective Holy Spirit is not what it is talking about. The proofs that it is not so should by all rights be made as widely available as possible, if they exist. They would be actual undeniable proofs christianity is correct. Why don't I know about those proofs ? Why don't everybody ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So now you have removed subjective love from your questions, an amalgam that rendered your questions senseless since you didn't differenciate between subjective and objective, which happens to be what I'm trying to find out regarding the holy spirit. So with this out of the way, we're back on track. We're looking for proofs, in this world, that the Holy Spirit is an objective force that acts upon people. Such proofs would disprove the hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is subjective and reinforce the hypothesis that the holy Spirit is objective. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I do not have such proofs. You claim you do. Bring it on.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What do we have ? That's what I asked a while ago, and that you were the only one to answer, remember. I don't think what you brought up was conclusive proof that the Holy Spirit is an objective force, what you said could also support the concept of a subjective Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not subjective like love, what do we have to show for it ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That's been my question all along. I'm still waiting for an answer.[/FONT]

 

[eph610]

What assurance do we have beside our faith itself that the Holy Spirit is really guiding us ?
We then need to answer those two questions, they are crucial for our faith :
How do we make sure we're filled with the holy Spirit, and not an evil lying demon pretending to be the Holy Spirit?
How do we separate the influence of the Holy Spirit from the cognitive falacy of confirmation bias?

First off, our assurances our found in the Word of God. If you meditate in the Word and know the word, Your questions become answered and you will find peace.

Question 1, how do we know the Holy Spirit guides us an not an evil spirit pretending to be the Holy Spirit
Answer: 1 Cor 12.3

Question 2,How do we separate the influence of the Holy Spirit from the cognitive falacy of confirmation bias?
Answer: Read 1 Corinthians 2, Romans 8 and all of 1 John

Last comment,
Romans 10.17 says....So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

We don't live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from God.

You my friend need to get into the Word and meditate on it day and night and by doing so, you will be prospered and then have good success against FUD[fear uncertainty and doubt]

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

the problem is in determining you are not wrong about having actually met God. if all you have is the subjective feeling that god has revealed himself to you, there is no way to conclusively determine if you actually met God or if you made it up. we have to accept that. people get deluded all the time. before we can affirm something as extraordinary as having met God , we need to eliminate the possibility that it was a made up ilusion. People are deluded into believing the strangest things all the time. Ever heard of cottard's delusion? pretty far out stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

if people can be deluded into thinking they are actually dead, it makes me think people can be deluded into thinking they met God too. That's why i'm actively looking around for conclusive evidence, or proof, or indication or logical argument that the Holy spirit is real. If all we have is that people say they have met God, then we haven't moved very far from wishing it is true.

I could not prove to you I've met Him and that He speaks to me because it is inward. It's proof for me but I can think of no way to convince you. And even if I was so eloquent that I convinced you, how would that be enough? You would just be going on what I said rather than meeting Him for yourself. And when something awful came into your life, it wouldn't be enough.

 

[Yahshua]

Okay. My bad, let's not get confrontational here, but please stop misrepresenting what I say. I'm not trying to teach anybody but when I engage in a discussion about a question without an answer, I expect to learn things from other people, and i expect other people to learn some of the things i can bring to the table, and if we find an answer, we all learned something.

There's no confrontation from me you seem to be getting frustrated...even the size of your text has changed from what it was.

I asked for help here, specifically asking for people's answer to my questions, figuring that the assurance and lack of doubt they express must have meant they had obvious answers I didn't have. When I realized answers where not coming, that the answer people brought up were nothing but, this thread moved on from me asking for people to give me answers to a discussion about what the answers could be and couldn't be. I had to explain why the answer provided were not good answers, why the confidence based upon them was not warranted. I also started to wonder why people, you included, can be so confident they have an answer, enough to actually try to convey it to me, without actually giving me a satisfying answer. It sounds a bit like : « I just know, trust me. ».

Surely you've gotten many answers. But like you said they're not to your satisfaction *shrugs*. The discussion moved to discussing about what the answers could and couldn't be to try to begin walking down a logical path with zero preconceived notions.

But the reason I (and others) can be so confident is because we're not suffering through your crisis.

If the Holy Spirit is so obvious, if it has such obvious effects upon this world, why is nobody coming up with proof ? If it is objective, then yes, we should be able to prove it, just like with gravity. Or if not like gravity, like dark energy at least, we should be able to get something, anything, to warrant our claim that the Holy Spirit acts upon the world in an objective way. It could become a scientific field. We could devise hypothesis and experiments and test if the Holy Spirit is indeed objective, write papers about it and get the nobel prize of all nobel prizes. If there is objective proof, then there would be no denying it, it would be fact, and the whole world should be christian.

They have, you just don't accept it. But "yes!" thank you, that's all I was looking for you to acknowledge. If The HS is objective then we should be able to prove the HS just like gravity. This is the starting point for your quest. The Holy Spirit is *described* as an intangible force so then we should be able to prove the Holy Spirit the same way gravity is proven: indirectly. The next step is to determine the objects upon which the Holy Spirit is detailed to act, because just like gravity *only* moves objects with the "potential" to be moved *by gravity* (i.e. PE = Potential energy to KE = Kinetic Energy) we establish the same parameters for understanding the Holy Spirit (until it's proven otherwise).

"For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divine nature; so that mankind has no excuse." (Romans 1:20)..That being said, I'm not sure the whole world would be Christian even if the Holy Spirit is proven to their satisfaction because people still have the freedom to choose what to believe in. For example, people don't have to believe in gravity even with proof it exists.

I am going to make a new statement : I have not found any such proof, nor has science, nor has the world. This is extremely suspicious to me.

Why would science or the world seek proof? If proof was found such would then necessitate them being obedient to the scriptures, which is in conflict with the way they want to live, else the whole world would already be Christian wouldn't you agree? So there isn't an incentive for science or the world to find proof. But regarding you finding proof; yes that's why you're here and that's why I needed you to allow for the possibility that the HS can be proven following the same method used to prove gravity.

Only some believers claim to have such proofs and they are not telling what it is. That's why I'm asking here on a fundamentalist forum where presumably the majority of members have claimed to have such proofs, what are those proofs. The longer I wait to get those proofs, the more I think there is no such proofs, that it is BS. Why would people withhold them from me otherwise ? Why would those proofs be so elusive, so hard to convey ? It is extremely suspicious to say the least.

idk I can't help you there.

you - "give me proof"
many - "here ya go"
you - "none of this is good enough. give me proof...No one's giving me proof."

^This is why I backtracked to the basic possibility; to get a "yes"...to find common ground on which to build.

Going back to the very begining of this thread, i have stated, based upon previous research and thought, my conviction that faith itself requires an objective Holy Spirit to warrant knowledge about God and that without faith and revelation, we have nothing to support christianity. Without the warrant of an objective Holy Spirit, faith is circular wishfull thinking affected by confirmation, and nothing about christianity can be affirmed with certitude. Since I don't have that warrant, those proofs, I have doubts.

And I've only now been able to get you to acknowledge that IFF the HS is described as having similar characteristics as other intangible forces (like gravity), then one should be able to prove the HS using a widely accepted scientific method (i.e. indirectly through the only objects the HS is *described* to act upon)...which ties back to post #81 a few days ago regarding the testimony of the *many different accounts*, satisfying both (a) "proximity" and (b) "congruence" rules for confirming a truth...which is how many advancements in science and technology are made.

Hopefully you now notice the path I'm carving in these woods?

An objective Holy Spirit is the bedrock of christianity. Make that bedrock subjective, and the house of christianity colapses, foundationless. Another thing that baffles me is that nobody seem quite worried about the fact that the bedrock of our faith may be a subjective Holy Spirit, a concept that is as good as saying we have no reason to believe anything we believe and that christianity is wrong, simply because a subjective Holy Spirit is not what it is talking about. The proofs that it is not so should by all rights be made as widely available as possible, if they exist. They would be actual undeniable proofs christianity is correct. Why don't I know about those proofs ? Why don't everybody ?

Again, no one is as worried as you are because they have proof. And surely you know about the proofs. Everyone does because the proofs are indeed widely available. They're the many different written accounts of those who experienced it. Unfortunately, while recorded testimony from many different individuals would be enough to prove a truth for many other subjects and topics, for this subject (strangely) such isn't accepted.

This is why I suggested you suspend the notion for a moment that the scriptures are inspired of the HS and just study the accounts in their original form. To prove a truth one can't start at the conclusion because that would indeed cause circular reasoning.

Take Moses' first experience for instance. The Spirit of God was recorded as visiting him in the burning bush. Moses didn't first need to have faith in God for him to visit because Moses didn't know God existed just yet. So God visited through a suspension of the natural laws, because fire is supposed to burn wood.

I know you would've hoped that the wood could've been kept and studied today...or even that the Spirit of God would visit us again through another visual display. You're like Thomas of the twelve in that way, who needed to put his fingers in the wrist and side of Christ to believe he had risen. That's not a bad thing, but if you don't accept multiple independent testimony as proof you'll have to wait until later.

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

So now you have removed subjective love from your questions, an amalgam that rendered your questions senseless since you didn't differenciate between subjective and objective, which happens to be what I'm trying to find out regarding the holy spirit. So with this out of the way, we're back on track. We're looking for proofs, in this world, that the Holy Spirit is an objective force that acts upon people. Such proofs would disprove the hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is subjective and reinforce the hypothesis that the holy Spirit is objective.

I do not have such proofs. You claim you do. Bring it on.

Yes I have removed the obective feeling that can be elicited for subjective reasons because you didn't seem to understand the difference I was detailing, but the devil's in the details so I might not have expalined it well enough . But GREAT! Hopefully you now notice the path I've carved back to the different written accounts? Just separate the bible into its original accounts, and then into its original languages (or as close as possible) and there you go. Brought! lol

What do we have ? That's what I asked a while ago, and that you were the only one to answer, remember. I don't think what you brought up was conclusive proof that the Holy Spirit is an objective force, what you said could also support the concept of a subjective Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not subjective like love, what do we have to show for it ?

That's been my question all along. I'm still waiting for an answer.

You're right. I hadn't. I was first building a reasonable foundation for then accepting the proof already given and then confirming that proof through real world objects...just took a while to get there.

 

[Simeon]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Okay. I'm getting a bit frustrated, you are right. Let me try to explain to you why, step by step.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Let me get this straight. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Your indeniable, potentialy scientific proof that the Holy Spirit is objective is the cumulated testimonies of people claiming to have had a subjective experience they believe to have been a direct link to the Holy Spirit. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You consider that recorded testimony of subjective experiences from many different individuals is enough to prove the Holy Spirit is objective.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Is that it ?[/FONT]

 

[Simeon]

Hi how would you believe on this one? Is this true to you?

(1) First take major premise the proposition,

"Christ died for all human beings."

(2) Then supply the minor premise,

"I am a human being."

(3) Then draw the conclusion,

"Christ died for me."

(4) Then on the basis of this conclusion

Receive Christ as Saviour

Thanks

Your argument is sound logic. but what about premise 1? if you accept premise one already, then why develop this argument? you might not understand that but your premise 1 needs to be justified too. you can't just take it for granted. how did you reach the conclusion that Christ died for all human being?

 

[Simeon]

I could not prove to you I've met Him and that He speaks to me because it is inward. It's proof for me but I can think of no way to convince you. And even if I was so eloquent that I convinced you, how would that be enough? You would just be going on what I said rather than meeting Him for yourself. And when something awful came into your life, it wouldn't be enough.

Thanks for trying but isn't what you are telling me, in essence: "I just know"?

I am glad you understand that is far from convincing. I agree, I do not think either that anybody could be eloquent enough to convince somebody else that what one believes in without proof is true and not something they just made up or are deluded about. What I don't understand is how you can trust yourself to be correct. People often are mistaken about believing in something that is not so, it happens, yes?

Have you considered the possibility that you are mistaken about having met Him?

How have you made sure you are not?

 

[Simeon]

First off, our assurances our found in the Word of God. If you meditate in the Word and know the word, Your questions become answered and you will find peace.

Question 1, how do we know the Holy Spirit guides us an not an evil spirit pretending to be the Holy Spirit
Answer: 1 Cor 12.3

Question 2,How do we separate the influence of the Holy Spirit from the cognitive falacy of confirmation bias?
Answer: Read 1 Corinthians 2, Romans 8 and all of 1 John

Last comment,
Romans 10.17 says....So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

We don't live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from God.

You my friend need to get into the Word and meditate on it day and night and by doing so, you will be prospered and then have good success against FUD[fear uncertainty and doubt]

Thanks for trying to help. the conversation has now moved to quite a different level. if you are interested you can read the last few posts between yahshua and me on this last page of the thread to see where we are at. the main question i have now is:

What do we have to show that the Holy Spirit is objective?

A way to respond to that would be to give me the top 3 reasons why you are convinced the Holy Spirit is actually an objective outside influence, not something subjective concocted in the minds of people, including the minds of the apostles Paul and John.

My doubts stem from the fact that I do not personally have valid reasons to believe the Holy Spirit is objective. The consequences of a subjective holy Spirit is fatal for faith, scripture and thus christianity as a whole.

 

[fredoheaven]

Your argument is sound logic. but what about premise 1? if you accept premise one already, then why develop this argument? you might not understand that but your premise 1 needs to be justified too. you can't just take it for granted. how did you reach the conclusion that Christ died for all human being?

Hi

Seems logically sound yet illogical! And that's true, and why I am asking it if this is true to you because, I just don't know that discussion like this, that something you know makes things you don't know. Do I sound Illogical? Maybe yes. maybe no.

Thanks for responding anyway..

 

[RobbyEarl]

God has nothing to do with logic. Logic is a carnal term that deals with the carnal mind. God can do anything and defy logic. Amen

 

[Simeon]

Hi

Seems logically sound yet illogical! And that's true, and why I am asking it if this is true to you because, I just don't know that discussion like this, that something you know makes things you don't know. Do I sound Illogical? Maybe yes. maybe no.

Thanks for responding anyway..

are you on drugs? i didn't understand a thing you just said.

 

[Simeon]

God has nothing to do with logic. Logic is a carnal term that deals with the carnal mind. God can do anything and defy logic. Amen

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If God defies logic then belief in God is irrational.
One cannot say anything about God, or conversely, everything one can possibly imagine God to be, is true. There is just no way to tell the difference. At least, no rational way. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]With this concept, any attempt to even use the word ‘God’ fails because normal rules of language and definition fail. If God is beyond logic, then humans can’t define God, and so use of the term has no meaning. It means that the term ‘God’ is just noises; sounds empty of content, it could mean nothing or anything.

I don't think you want to go that way.[/FONT]

 

[fredoheaven]

are you on drugs? i didn't understand a thing you just said.

Umm, oops...Is this the futility of erroneous human logic?

 

[RobbyEarl]

If God defies logic then belief in God is irrational.
One cannot say anything about God, or conversely, everything one can possibly imagine God to be, is true. There is just no way to tell the difference. At least, no rational way.

With this concept, any attempt to even use the word ‘God’ fails because normal rules of language and definition fail. If God is beyond logic, then humans can’t define God, and so use of the term has no meaning. It means that the term ‘God’ is just noises; sounds empty of content, it could mean nothing or anything.

I don't think you want to go that way.

Was it logical for the Red sea to split and the children of Israel walk across on dry ground?