An open challenge to evolutionists.

[Subduction Zone]

In the accounts of his sayings, the 4 gospels, Jesus gives a number of instructions for living life, here and now.

That was very interesting to me, as that was exactly the kind of thing I searched for from a range of famous thinkers/teachers: actual instructions to put into action and find out how they work out.

For example: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Here the meaning (from context you learn) is not to just pick a few people and love them, and ignore the other neighbors, acting as if you can't notice them, or don't notice them, but instead to love each and all, as you encounter them. It's not a small thing.

So, my way before testing Jesus's instruction was that I had a few carefully chosen friends, whom I focused on, for my own natural enjoyment, and I kept my distance from everyone else.
I ignored my literal next door neighbors except for an arms length politeness. I tried to give them room, and not look at them. Normal American way.

So, to test the way that Jesus said, instead of my old way, I literally tried to love the neighbors on each side, one side and then the other.

The outcomes were truly surprising to me. It was as if I had brought exactly and only just 2 lottery tickets and both were winners, where one paid $500, and the other $50,000. I thought perhaps I was just extremely lucky. So I tested this one again and again, in new ways and new locations. It continued to work in ways that I just didn't think possible. My life was very sharply improved with unexpected windfalls and gains and enrichment.

I do not see anything that counts as "evidence" there. Perhaps this will help. You will find that other religions have similar beliefs in their holy books. What would it take to convince you that they are right? Now apply the same standards to your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Objective evidence is not available to any individual I think except that God allows them to have it. This is because He doesn't allow Himself to be found except by those that meet the requirements He has clearly stated in plain wording.

Let me give you an example of the requirements (there are more than these).

"Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor."

Here you can learn ( if willing) that God won't be available, won't allow Himself to be found, by those who are scornful.
2nd, He requires us to be humble.

It's kinda of a choice though.... You get to choose whether or not you want to live as a scornful person. It's under your own volition. The same with humbleness. One can choose to do that. It's a profound choice though.

By definition that is not "objective evidence". With objective evidence it does not matter who sees it. All of your evidence is subjective and as a result not very convincing.

 

[halbhh]

By definition that is not "objective evidence". With objective evidence it does not matter who sees it. All of your evidence is subjective and as a result not very convincing.

Right. God isn't an object or phenomena you can examine at will. He isn't subject to you (or any of us) as it were.

As a being with agency, He can choose whether or not to allow you to find Him.

Just like you can choose whether to answer the door when someone rings the bell. You can choose. So can He.

But He did send prophets and then a great teacher, to tell us the way to meet his requirements. He clearly doesn't intend that all can demand His presence regardless of whether they meet His requirements.

Sort of just like you I bet. Just because some random stranger tries to accost you on the street doesn't always mean you'd necessarily help/allow them to accost you. You might evaluate what you see and choose....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. God isn't an object or phenomena you can examine at will. He isn't subject to you (or any of us) as it were.

As a being with agency, He can choose whether or not to allow you to find Him.

Just like you can choose whether to answer the door when someone rings the bell. You can choose. So can He.

Now it appears that you are claiming that God is evil. Why would he withhold evidence from anyone if their salvation depends upon it. Your version of God appears to be self refuting.

 

[halbhh]

Now it appears that you are claiming that God is evil. Why would he withhold evidence from anyone if their salvation depends upon it. Your version of God appears to be self refuting.

Why, quite to the contrary.

He did send prophets who spoke messages that can speak to a person...if they listen...many prophets over time, and even came here in person in a way to encounter us as the human race, where He was willing to suffer our evils to show us that we can be in the wrong even where we felt we were so justified in our prejudices or power, that we might see that there is something more perfect, and there is a way to live better.

No one can force you to find out. It's humble to seek God I think.

In a way, we are the ones who do the choosing. We choose whether to be humble and whether to seek. We choose our own fate, really, in the end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why, quite to the contrary.

He did send prophets who spoke messages that can speak to a person...if they listen...many prophets over time, and even came here in person in a way to encounter us as the human race, where He was willing to suffer our evils to show us that we can be in the wrong even where we felt we were so justified in our prejudices or power, that we might see that there is something more perfect, and there is a way to live better.

No one can force you to find out. It's humble to seek God I think.

In a way, we are the ones who do the choosing. We choose whether to be humble and whether to seek. We choose our own fate, really, in the end.

All religions claim "prophets", and they all tend to fail. By the standards of the Bible most Biblical prophets are 'false prophets'. For example Ezekiel failed amazingly badly when it came to Tyre. In fact it was a "twofer". He made predictions about both Tyre and Egypt and neither came true.

 

[Tiberius]

In the accounts of his sayings, the 4 gospels, Jesus gives a number of instructions for living life, here and now.

That was very interesting to me, as that was exactly the kind of thing I searched for from a range of famous thinkers/teachers: actual instructions to put into action and find out how they work out.

For example: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Here the meaning (from context you learn) is not to just pick a few people and love them, and ignore the other neighbors, acting as if you can't notice them, or don't notice them, but instead to love each and all, as you encounter them. It's not a small thing.

So, my way before testing Jesus's instruction was that I had a few carefully chosen friends, whom I focused on, for my own natural enjoyment, and I kept my distance from everyone else.
I ignored my literal next door neighbors except for an arms length politeness. I tried to give them room, and not look at them. Normal American way.

So, to test the way that Jesus said, instead of my old way, I literally tried to love the neighbors on each side, one side and then the other.

The outcomes were truly surprising to me. It was as if I had brought exactly and only just 2 lottery tickets and both were winners, where one paid $500, and the other $50,000. I thought perhaps I was just extremely lucky. So I tested this one again and again, in new ways and new locations. It continued to work in ways that I just didn't think possible. My life was very sharply improved with unexpected windfalls and gains and enrichment.

Of course, those results, while good, can't be taken as evidence for Jesus unless you have shown that no other cause could be responsible. Sounds to me like you stopped isolating yourself, made some friends and reaped the benefits of having friends.

 

[Tiberius]

Objective evidence is not available to any individual I think except that God allows them to have it. This is because He doesn't allow Himself to be found except by those that meet the requirements He has clearly stated in plain wording.

Let me give you an example of the requirements (there are more than these).

"Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor."

Here you can learn ( if you choose) that God won't be available, won't allow Himself to be found, by those who are scornful.

2nd, He requires one be humble.

These are under personal choice though.... You get to choose whether or not you want to live as a scornful person. It's under your own volition. The same with humbleness. One can choose to do that. It's a profound choice though.

Then the evidence is not objective. It can't be objective if it works for some people but not for other people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By "objective test for God" I'm guessing you mean something like:
Is God available for your examination/observation in some way you can control or have on your demand?

The answer to that is "no." He has agency, and can refuse you, at His will. He can be unfindable by you, if you don't meet His requirements.

This doesn't fly in my head.
Humans have agency as well. That doesn't stop us from objectively testing if any particular human exists.
To take your analogy of someone ringing the doorbell and you then deciding not to answer the door - you opening the door is NOT AT ALL the "only" way for the person at the door to find out if you actually exist.

For starters, he's standing in front of your house. That, in and of itself, is already sufficient evidence to justify believing a human inhabits said house, or has commissioned building said house.

But if in contrast you mean a different question:
Is it possible to personally find out that God exists as objective fact?
Then at least some people will tell you the answer to that is "yes". (while others might say they are not sure, and some might say 'no')

You cannot have objective facts if you don't have objective means available to uncover those facts. By definition. Objective facts are the result of objective inquiry / testing.

If there are no means of objective inquiry, then whatever you come up with, will not be an objective fact.

So what you just said is a contradiction in terms.


People can surely claim to have "objective" facts... But it's entirely meaningless (not to mention "wrong") to say such a thing, if there are no objective means to uncover and evaluate said "facts".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the accounts of his sayings, the 4 gospels, Jesus gives a number of instructions for living life, here and now.

That was very interesting to me, as that was exactly the kind of thing I searched for from a range of famous thinkers/teachers: actual instructions to put into action and find out how they work out.

For example: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Here the meaning (from context you learn) is not to just pick a few people and love them, and ignore the other neighbors, acting as if you can't notice them, or don't notice them, but instead to love each and all, as you encounter them. It's not a small thing.

So, my way before testing Jesus's instruction was that I had a few carefully chosen friends, whom I focused on, for my own natural enjoyment, and I kept my distance from everyone else.
I ignored my literal next door neighbors except for an arms length politeness. I tried to give them room, and not look at them. Normal American way.

So, to test the way that Jesus said, instead of my old way, I literally tried to love the neighbors on each side, one side and then the other.

The outcomes were truly surprising to me. It was as if I had brought exactly and only just 2 lottery tickets and both were winners, where one paid $500, and the other $50,000. I thought perhaps I was just extremely lucky. So I tested this one again and again, in new ways and new locations. It continued to work in ways that I just didn't think possible. My life was very sharply improved with unexpected windfalls and gains and enrichment.

Sounds like a rather elaborate way to say that if you are nice to people, they'll treat you nice in return. I didn't really need a bible to learn that. Neither did just about every single culture in world history that isn't christian.


That is, until you are nice to the wrong person and kindness is rewarded with backstabbing and abuse of your goodwill.

 

[halbhh]

they all tend to fail.

Too far reaching a generalization. It's like saying, "I've not actually seen an element heavier than plutonium myself, therefore such must not exist." or similar overgeneralization. Overgeneralization is a natural human tendency, but it's one we overcome to make progress.

 

[halbhh]

Of course, those results, while good, can't be taken as evidence for Jesus unless you have shown that no other cause could be responsible. Sounds to me like you stopped isolating yourself, made some friends and reaped the benefits of having friends.

Of course! Finding out a principle on how to live works better than other competing ideas is simply an immediate gain, to one's own benefit, here and now.

To live life more fully.

Now, it's factually true that some of the famous thinkers, such as Lao Tzu or Jesus, have said more than one helpful thing -- things that are so helpful to so many people, so broadly, across time and space and culture -- that they have become immortal wisdom, continuing to be read through the centuries. Or longer, millennia now.

Instead of fading into oblivion the way falsehoods fade out.

You could say, accurately, that I wanted the gains and invisible riches of living a life well lived in the best known ways.

Call if self interest. Or rational self interest, if you like.

 

[halbhh]

Then the evidence is not objective. It can't be objective if it works for some people but not for other people.

Yes, that's right -- there is no evidence you can have on demand. Instead, God is able to prevent you from ever having any evidence unless He chooses to allow you to have some according to whether or not you are humble and other precise things He has specified are His standards of relationship.

It's like how you can choose whether or not to answer the doorbell on your own house.

Instead of you being able to barge in, it turns out He is quite able to choose whether or not you can come in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too far reaching a generalization. It's like saying, "I've not actually seen an element heavier than plutonium myself, therefore such must not exist." or similar overgeneralization. Overgeneralization is a natural human tendency, but it's one we overcome to make progress.

Not really. Discovering new elements was always a possibility. The Bible is written and its prophecies fail. Christians can see how the prophecies of other religions fail, but they do not apply the same standards to their beliefs. The following list applies to all religions and not just Christianity:

For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

Can you find a prophecy in the Bible that meets these reasonable criteria?

 

[halbhh]

Humans have agency as well. That doesn't stop us from objectively testing if any particular human exists.

Ah, not quite.

If some human were capable of preventing you from finding him, having the resources and ability, competence, extraordinary, to choose whether or not you can find him, which is very plausible someone could do, then, well...you'd not find him unless he choose to allow it.

...
You cannot have objective facts if you don't have objective means available to uncover those facts. By definition. Objective facts are the result of objective inquiry / testing.

If there are no means of objective inquiry, then whatever you come up with, will not be an objective fact.

Yes, there is no objective evidence for God that you can have on demand, by your own willpower or insistence. Rather, He is able to choose whether or not you can encounter Him, and chooses we read by whether a person meets His criteria He specifies.

You can't overrule Him on it basically. He isn't less able than you. You can't force Him, basically, can't bend Him to your will.

Ok, gotta go, but will be back later.

 

[halbhh]

Not really. Discovering new elements was always a possibility. The Bible is written and its prophecies fail. Christians can see how the prophecies of other religions fail, but they do not apply the same standards to their beliefs. The following list applies to all religions and not just Christianity:

For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

Can you find a prophecy in the Bible that meets these reasonable criteria?

If you see some of my posts lately in this thread, you'll see me pointing out that people cannot get objective evidence for God on their own demand. He doesn't allow that, but is more like a homeowner who can choose whether to answer the door, and you can't break the door down, as He is having superior tech or such, etc.

So, no, I think, in theory, you wouldn't be able to ever find objective evidence on your own demand, against His choice.

I'm pretty busy today and tomorrow, in case I don't get back for a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you see some of my posts lately in this thread, you'll see me pointing out that people cannot get objective evidence for God on their own demand. He doesn't allow that, but is more like a homeowner who can choose whether to answer the door, and you can't break the door down, as He is having superior tech or such, etc.

So, no, I think, in theory, you wouldn't be able to ever find objective evidence on your own demand, against His choice.

I'm pretty busy today and tomorrow, in case I don't get back for a while.

And that means that there is no objective evidence for God. A person might claim to have evidence for God, but it appears to be rather weak. By definition if one has objective evidence then it is visible to everyone.

By the way, why are you claiming that your God is evil?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, not quite.

If some human were capable of preventing you from finding him, having the resources and ability, competence, extraordinary, to choose whether or not you can find him, which is very plausible someone could do, then, well...you'd not find him unless he choose to allow it.

Yes, yes. If I had an invisibility cloak like Harry Potter, then I would be invisible.

Yes, there is no objective evidence for God that you can have on demand, by your own willpower or insistence.

Not just "on demand". On anything.

As I said... if you don't have objective means of inquiry, then you won't have any objective facts.
Can't have one without the other.

Rather, He is able to choose whether or not you can encounter Him, and chooses we read by whether a person meets His criteria He specifies.

You can't overrule Him on it basically. He isn't less able than you. You can't force Him, basically, can't bend Him to your will.

I can say the exact same about extra-dimensional unicorns.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course! Finding out a principle on how to live works better than other competing ideas is simply an immediate gain, to one's own benefit, here and now.

To live life more fully.

Now, it's factually true that some of the famous thinkers, such as Lao Tzu or Jesus, have said more than one helpful thing -- things that are so helpful to so many people, so broadly, across time and space and culture -- that they have become immortal wisdom, continuing to be read through the centuries. Or longer, millennia now.

Instead of fading into oblivion the way falsehoods fade out.

You could say, accurately, that I wanted the gains and invisible riches of living a life well lived in the best known ways.

Call if self interest. Or rational self interest, if you like.

So it hardly counts as you testing Jesus, does it? Because you could get those exact same results even if there was no Jesus.

So I shall repeat the question I asked in post 591:

How you were able to objectively test for God?

 

[night912]

Yes, that's right -- there is no evidence you can have on demand. Instead, God is able to prevent you from ever having any evidence unless He chooses to allow you to have some according to whether or not you are humble and other precise things He has specified are His standards of relationship.

It's like how you can choose whether or not to answer the doorbell on your own house.

Instead of you being able to barge in, it turns out He is quite able to choose whether or not you can come in.

So let's take the same analogy about the house and the door. Only this time we make it relevant and consistent to what is being discussed, which it's about "evidence."

So I am the one inside the house and you're outside. The reason for being here is because you wanted to talk to me face to face. If you walked up to the door and rings the door bell, nothing happens. You do it, still nothing happens. Then you decide to knock 5 times, suddenly the door opens but I am no where to seen.

My questions are as follows....

1. Did I opened the door for you(me being the reason the door opened)?

2. Did it opened byself(I had no involvement with the door opening)?

What did you think happened by providing evidence and/or reasons for thinking that way. There's really no right or wrong answers here, only valid/invalid ones. Choose one or the other or both, don't matter. I'm interested in how people perceive events and how they come to their conclusion.