If God existed would there be proof?

[Wildswanderer]

What?
That's the reality of the situation.

Why? And which creator? How did you determine that it's more logical that a creator exists and created the universe than some naturalistic explanation that doesn't require such an assumption?

Because there is no naturalistic explanation. Everything has a first cause but you want to assume that the universe didn't? You must have a magic universe, which is harder to accept then a creator by far. You have to have just as much faith for your explanation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You said something different like a page ago. When you decide on your position, let me know.

No, you obviously misunderstood what I meant.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So "didn't come from anything" rather than "came from nothing." Do you find some sort of solace in this hair-splitting?

Hair splitting? The difference between no first cause and a first cause is astronomical.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The BBT doesn't posit that.

It has no explanation for why something existed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because there is no naturalistic explanation. Everything has a first cause but you want to assume that the universe didn't? You must have a magic universe, which is harder to accept then a creator by far.

When you are honest enough to address your special pleading fallacy, let me know. Your attempt to turn it around on me is noted.

You have to have just as much faith for your explanation.

Really? If you'll recall, my "explanation" was, "I don't know." What faith do I need to hold that position?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hair splitting? The difference between no first cause and a first cause is astronomical.

You're saying there was no first cause; that God just managed to exist uncaused.

 

[metis]

It has no explanation for why something existed.

Exactly, but it doesn't negate Divine creation. Science can only deal with that which is observable one way or another and/or testable, thus there's no way to determine whether a deity or deities created all.

Also, the reality is that it is impossible to objectively determine how many deities could hypothetically have been involved in creation. So, since you believe in one God as I also lean towards, please provide objectively derived evidence that only our one God created all and that there weren't more?

I'll save you the trouble because you can't-- neither can I. Thus, even us theists have serious limitations as well.

 

[setarcos]

I understand that you interpret it that way. I do not know what else to say there.

Hey again, thanks for the discussion.

The Christian bible is a collection of religious texts. As I'm sure you know. As such they should be read from a religious perspective. That is, like Revelations. Some verses give these Revelations a historical perspective, some are allegorical and some like the book of Revelations are Revelatory/prophetic books which must be interpreted in the context of the other books.

Though many of the events depicted may lend themselves to actual scientific validation, as in archeological finds, paleography, philology etc. Many of the verses are Revelations. That is they don't lend themselves well to scientific analysis. That is where faith comes in. That isn't to say that Revelatory statements cannot be invalidated scientifically. Scripture says your faith must be a rational faith. It must be internally coherent and not create contradiction and its analysis must take into consideration, context, syntaxes of the language used, cultural considerations, the literary devices being used to present it and the various texts should be cohesive with each other.

The Christian bible is a device of perpetual religious study. It is not a once and done and I know it all since it is about the unfolding of history itself. Past, present, and future.

My post was not an interpretation. It is a statement of how Christianity views the way Jesus communicated. I was presenting an explanatory statement to your post.

No, I address what people say.

Geeze....you address what some people say and specifically those people who got it wrong and are in the minority of Christian understanding. Those people are not simply thought to be implicitly wrong, they are shown to be explicitly wrong from scripture. That's not interpretation. That's even scientifically provable. Would you condemn all of science because some scientists are proven wrong?

when they tell me that the signs and prophecies are of great import and that they demonstrate the truth of the Bible

They are to the religious, dependent on why you say they are important and what you say they prove true biblically.

And that is what the majority of people advocating for the Bible tell me.

If the majority of the people that you interact with advocating for the bible are telling you that we can predict the time of the end and return of Christ then I would say to you to get out of that cherry tree and expand your views and studies of Christianity a bit further because they are wrong.

The Bible is slam full of incorrect things that the authors ignored. Here are a few:

• Jesus cannot have had a genealogy to David through Joseph
• Believers who drink deadly poisons die.(yes, I know. Later addition. Which only supports my point.)
• Jesus said anger is a sin. Jesus got angry. There fore Jesus sinned.
• The authors of Matthew and Luke knew that their Easter stories did not line up with Mark's, even though they cribbed from Mark.

Fair enough. All of those points have plausible solutions. The scriptures can be quite confusing to those who merely glance its way. However only a stupid person would think they know without making the effort to find out. I will assume you're not stupid so must have reasoned your way to a solid conclusion.

Like I said, the scriptures are books to be studied and contemplated with a sincerity for evolving understanding and the seeking of truth. As any endeavor should be.

I think it would be more productive for me to ask you why you believe those points above are irreconcilable with truth?

What makes you think Jesus couldn't have a genealogy traced to David through Joseph? There is more than one plausible answer to the apparent genealogical discrepancies given in the bible concerning Jesus. As far as I'm concerned plausibility renders impossibility a non sequitur.

Who do you think Jesus was talking to in Mark 16:14-18? I think you've jumped way too fast to your conclusions here.

Where in scripture did Jesus say anger is a sin? Where in the bible?

What makes you think the Easter stories are irreconcilable between the Gospels? They are conceptual reenactments not literal to every detail.

I could not understand how someone who grew up around goats could ever mistake goat hair for human hair. It is just not possible.

Really? This sticks out as bothersome to you about the bible? Isaac's time of death was nearing. He was old, frail, and blind. I've worked as a maintenance man in a nursing home and can attest to the fact that elderly people nearing death often have a change in sensory impressions. Including their interpretation of touch. You seem to be getting hung up on the details of the text and missed the meaning's couched in the story itself. The book needs to be read by the light of its religious connotations.

Like I said. Bible. Full of contradictions. You are merely citing one of them.

Yeah smack full of contradictions.

Now this is just my personal impression but its been my experience that those who point out these so called contradictions simply refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of the solutions given to such apparent contradictions. Whatever suits you. Again you must keep in mind, the bible is primarily and foremost a religious text. If you don't believe the Christian God exists then you certainly won't understand much of what the bible has to say because of lack of empirical evidence - the revelation part.

This quote might be familiar to you - it is apt here I think...

“For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe-that unless I believe I shall not understand.” St. Anselm

Faith and hope in the Christian religious revelations start there. It is a world view that begins

in ones nature and seeks to be sated in reality not contradict reality. As scripture says, we should supplement our faith with reason. It is this need in many people that has kept these kinds of discussions going strong for thousands of years. Why is it stronger in some? I can only offer - In a none believers language. - what science can...theoretical suppositions. Or I can offer what scripture offers as revelation - some were born for the day of destruction. The light has faded in them to the point of their own damnation.

I'm happy to discuss what can be rationalized to a plausible solution about the bible but don't expect absolute proof where none can be given due to a lack of evidential detail. As I shouldn't expect absolute disproof from you because you won't accept a plausible explanation.

And yet the hundreds of Christian prognosticators from the past 2000 years are hailed and followed by their fellow Christians. Often more than once. Harold Camping, Pat Robertson. Cotton Mather. Jerry Falwell, Pope Innocent III (the old goat), and Marten Luther fer gossakes!

If you would take the time to study the bible, you would see that scripture says we should expect to see false prophets, wolves among the sheep, and those that are led astray? Your listing people, not the essential Christian tenets.

Of course this begs the question...How do we know we're not being led astray? Short answer, we often don't. One can only study scripture, contemplate Gods revelations, and above all else be sincere in seeking the truth. Sincerity is more important than understanding but when/if you come to an understanding one shouldn't let ones fidelity to a belief trump ones sincerity for seeking truth.

Have as nice a day as you can.

 

[Sheldon]

Himself. Or at least he was the source of the energy involved.

Or not, maybe some evidence either way before I believe either position.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly, but it doesn't negate Divine creation. Science can only deal with that which is observable one way or another and/or testable, thus there's no way to determine whether a deity or deities created all.

Indeed, also science can't examine invisible unicorns, or flying invisible mermaids. Or a magic leprechaun wizard in the sky, that no one can see, unless it wants to be seem.

 

[ppp]

The Christian bible is a collection of religious texts. As I'm sure you know. As such they should be read from a religious perspective.

That depends on one's goal. If my goal is to understand the mindset, worldview, cultures, philosophies, priorities, hopes and concerns of the persons living at the time, then yes I should be reading it from their religious perspective. But certainly not from the perspective of anyone living now.

If my goal is to determine whether what someone, from now or then, believes to be literally true, then I only need to know how they are using the words to make their claim.

Though many of the events depicted may lend themselves to actual scientific validation, as in archeological finds, paleography, philology etc. Many of the verses are Revelations.

Are they?

That is where faith comes in. That isn't to say that Revelatory statements cannot be invalidated scientifically. Scripture says your faith must be a rational faith. It must be internally coherent and not create contradiction and its analysis must take into consideration, context, syntaxes of the language used, cultural considerations, the literary devices being used to present it and the various texts should be cohesive with each other.

This sounds like you are saying that if a statement that someone claims is revelatory is contradicted by observation, then that statement is not revelatory. Is that what you mean? Is the story of Noah's Ark literally true and revelatory? The discovery of Deuteronomy in the temple? The Exodus?

My post was not an interpretation. It is a statement of how Christianity views the way Jesus communicated. I was presenting an explanatory statement to your post.

That would be interpretation. If that is they way that you view it, then that is your interpretation. That fact that when one reads text that one is necessarily interpreting it is not a claim that the interpretation is false. It is a reminder that neither you, not the many groups of Christians with conflicting interpretations have any way to confirm their (or your) interpretations.

Geeze....you address what some people say and specifically those people who got it wrong and are in the minority of Christian understanding. Those people are not simply thought to be implicitly wrong, they are shown to be explicitly wrong from scripture. That's not interpretation.

Sure it is. I have listened to Calvinists and non-Calvinists go back and forth on free will vs predestination on several occasions. They all cite scripture which clearly supports their respective positions. Same thing with the nature of Christ. It is not my fault that the Bible makes conflicting assertions.

Fair enough. All of those points have plausible solutions.

In the same way that the physical discrepancies between original Klingons and Next Generation Klingons have plausible solutions. Or that there is a plausible solution for Han Solo using light-year as a measure of time. Nerd come up with solutions to conflicting discrepancies all the time. Some of the resolutions are brilliant and make the story so much richer. But they are still just stories.

Really? This sticks out as bothersome to you about the bible? Isaac's time of death was nearing. He was old, frail, and blind. I've worked as a maintenance man in a nursing home and can attest to the fact that elderly people nearing death often have a change in sensory impressions. Including their interpretation of touch. You seem to be getting hung up on the details of the text and missed the meaning's couched in the story itself. The book needs to be read by the light of its religious connotations.

Oh yeah. I know. I had this conversation with a Jewish woman about 10 years ago, and she said one Jewish take on it is that Isaac was never quite right after his daddy almost stick a knife into him. But the thing is you guys are just making up plausible scenarios. BTW, my grandmother grew up herding goats and cows. I got the APOE4 Alzheimer gene from her (yippee!). And yes, at 101 and blind she could still distinguish between my hair and goat hair. Yes, I was curious.

Like I said, the scriptures are books to be studied and contemplated with a sincerity for evolving understanding and the seeking of truth. As any endeavor should be.

Then the first step should be in determining whether or not it is rational to believe that any given human knows, or is capable of knowing that a God exists. Everything that that the hinges on that. I have seen no demonstration of rational belief on that subject.

What makes you think Jesus couldn't have a genealogy traced to David through Joseph?

I think it would be more productive for me to ask you why you believe those points above are irreconcilable with truth?

Joseph was not Jesus's father. Poison kills believers I won't insist on the anger, as I don't have a strong case. None of the Gospels agree on Resurrection Morning.

Who do you think Jesus was talking to in Mark 16:14-18? I think you've jumped way too fast to your conclusions here.

He was talking to his remaining disciples. He was talking about 'them that believe'.

Really? This sticks out as bothersome to you about the bible? Isaac's time of death was nearing.

I don't even think that it is supposed to be a real event. Not anymore. Just a popular story that people liked. Like, 'How the Tiger Got its Spots' Or Jonah.

Now this is just my personal impression but its been my experience that those who point out these so called contradictions simply refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of the solutions given to such apparent contradictions.

The Gospels were not even written by eye witnesses or the people whose names are on them. Not even according to the most prominent Christian Bible Scholars. Like I said before, Bible nerds.

u. Again you must keep in mind, the bible is primarily and foremost a religious text. If you don't believe the Christian God exists then you certainly won't understand much of what the bible has to say because of lack of empirical evidence - the revelation part.

You think that just because you believe in the Christian god that you understand much of what the Bible has to say? How adorable.

Any first century Christian would call you a heretic. And probably kill you.

If you would take time to study the Bible you would see that the OT is immature bronze age morality, and that the NT was constructed politically from the Hebrew Bible, some of Paul's letters and a collection of monographs by people who (like Paul) were not eyewitness to the Resurrection.

 

[ppp]

Hey again, thanks for the discussion.

The Christian bible is a collection of religious texts. As I'm sure you know. As such they should be read from a religious perspective. That is, like Revelations. Some verses give these Revelations a historical perspective, some are allegorical and some like the book of Revelations are Revelatory/prophetic books which must be interpreted in the context of the other books.

Though many of the events depicted may lend themselves to actual scientific validation, as in archeological finds, paleography, philology etc. Many of the verses are Revelations. That is they don't lend themselves well to scientific analysis. That is where faith comes in. That isn't to say that Revelatory statements cannot be invalidated scientifically. Scripture says your faith must be a rational faith. It must be internally coherent and not create contradiction and its analysis must take into consideration, context, syntaxes of the language used, cultural considerations, the literary devices being used to present it and the various texts should be cohesive with each other.

The Christian bible is a device of perpetual religious study. It is not a once and done and I know it all since it is about the unfolding of history itself. Past, present, and future.

My post was not an interpretation. It is a statement of how Christianity views the way Jesus communicated. I was presenting an explanatory statement to your post.




Geeze....you address what some people say and specifically those people who got it wrong and are in the minority of Christian understanding. Those people are not simply thought to be implicitly wrong, they are shown to be explicitly wrong from scripture. That's not interpretation. That's even scientifically provable. Would you condemn all of science because some scientists are proven wrong?



They are to the religious, dependent on why you say they are important and what you say they prove true biblically.




If the majority of the people that you interact with advocating for the bible are telling you that we can predict the time of the end and return of Christ then I would say to you to get out of that cherry tree and expand your views and studies of Christianity a bit further because they are wrong.





Fair enough. All of those points have plausible solutions. The scriptures can be quite confusing to those who merely glance its way. However only a stupid person would think they know without making the effort to find out. I will assume you're not stupid so must have reasoned your way to a solid conclusion.

Like I said, the scriptures are books to be studied and contemplated with a sincerity for evolving understanding and the seeking of truth. As any endeavor should be.

I think it would be more productive for me to ask you why you believe those points above are irreconcilable with truth?

What makes you think Jesus couldn't have a genealogy traced to David through Joseph? There is more than one plausible answer to the apparent genealogical discrepancies given in the bible concerning Jesus. As far as I'm concerned plausibility renders impossibility a non sequitur.

Who do you think Jesus was talking to in Mark 16:14-18? I think you've jumped way too fast to your conclusions here.

Where in scripture did Jesus say anger is a sin? Where in the bible?

What makes you think the Easter stories are irreconcilable between the Gospels? They are conceptual reenactments not literal to every detail.




Really? This sticks out as bothersome to you about the bible? Isaac's time of death was nearing. He was old, frail, and blind. I've worked as a maintenance man in a nursing home and can attest to the fact that elderly people nearing death often have a change in sensory impressions. Including their interpretation of touch. You seem to be getting hung up on the details of the text and missed the meaning's couched in the story itself. The book needs to be read by the light of its religious connotations.




Yeah smack full of contradictions.

Now this is just my personal impression but its been my experience that those who point out these so called contradictions simply refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of the solutions given to such apparent contradictions. Whatever suits you. Again you must keep in mind, the bible is primarily and foremost a religious text. If you don't believe the Christian God exists then you certainly won't understand much of what the bible has to say because of lack of empirical evidence - the revelation part.

This quote might be familiar to you - it is apt here I think...

“For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe-that unless I believe I shall not understand.” St. Anselm

Faith and hope in the Christian religious revelations start there. It is a world view that begins

in ones nature and seeks to be sated in reality not contradict reality. As scripture says, we should supplement our faith with reason. It is this need in many people that has kept these kinds of discussions going strong for thousands of years. Why is it stronger in some? I can only offer - In a none believers language. - what science can...theoretical suppositions. Or I can offer what scripture offers as revelation - some were born for the day of destruction. The light has faded in them to the point of their own damnation.

I'm happy to discuss what can be rationalized to a plausible solution about the bible but don't expect absolute proof where none can be given due to a lack of evidential detail. As I shouldn't expect absolute disproof from you because you won't accept a plausible explanation.




If you would take the time to study the bible, you would see that scripture says we should expect to see false prophets, wolves among the sheep, and those that are led astray? Your listing people, not the essential Christian tenets.

Of course this begs the question...How do we know we're not being led astray? Short answer, we often don't. One can only study scripture, contemplate Gods revelations, and above all else be sincere in seeking the truth. Sincerity is more important than understanding but when/if you come to an understanding one shouldn't let ones fidelity to a belief trump ones sincerity for seeking truth.

Have as nice a day as you can.

While yours was a long post.. I should thank you for the coherence and thoughtfulness therein. And I do. It was far, far more coherent than many of the 5 sentence posts I see here.

I only hit the points that caught mi attention. If I missed something that was especially near and dear to your heart, just highlight it in its own post.

 

[setarcos]

If my goal is to understand the mindset, worldview, cultures, philosophies, priorities, hopes and concerns of the persons living at the time, then yes I should be reading it from their religious perspective. But certainly not from the perspective of anyone living now.

The "goal" is of a religious nature, not a scientific one. While science may help us understand the setting in which the things took place, the cultures, concerns, etc. of the people at the time the goal is religious revelation concerning the timeless dispositions all humans are heir to. That concern is not specific to any particular point in history, though how its effects are reacted to may be.

If my goal is to determine whether what someone, from now or then, believes to be literally true, then I only need to know how they are using the words to make their claim.

Okay, and? This is why Christianity calls to me. Its scriptures aren't neatly crafted stories who's goal is to merely present some moral or adage to follow. The scriptures tell the story of real people in real places in all their realistic messiness. They demand to be studied and analyzed, debated and discussed. Why did they do this? Why did he say that? It doesn't make sense that this was said or that was done in this time and place etc. Until it does. Then one begins to see a certain coherent unfolding of history throughout the bible. Its a fascinating and invigorating journey.

Are they?

Revelations? That is the question now isn't it? As I've said, If your looking for absolute proof now you won't find it. Unless God wills it - if the revelatory God exists that is. Revelations are not scientifically analyzable until they are fulfilled. Even then science only has the experience of the thing to work with and how does science go about analyzing a revelation not personally experienced?
A guy is asked..."How did you know to stop your car and run to the lake on the other side of the woods to save the drowning child?
The guy says..."I had a revelation from God."
Now what's science supposed to do with that? The scientific default position is to dismiss it as an unknown natural phenomena. It can do nothing else. And yet, these things happen all the time and the unknown remains just that. Except to the experiencer.

This sounds like you are saying that if a statement that someone claims is revelatory is contradicted by observation, then that statement is not revelatory.

How can it be revelatory if it creates contradiction? Barring the fact that the observation was mistakenly interpreted, revelation cannot create contradiction.

Is the story of Noah's Ark literally true and revelatory? The discovery of Deuteronomy in the temple? The Exodus?

The story of the Ark seems pretty specific in areas and yet pretty fantastical in others. Should you read it literally to every detail? Not sure. However we've set the tempo from the beginning by placing the whole scenario into a supernatural setting of a man's interaction with God to begin with. Why go from the supernatural to insistence on purely natural processes? Anyways if that God exists; its God! I think it could make it happen with what it had to work with don't you? Was the animals that entered the Ark merely of sufficient variety to ensure enough genetic diversification to build upon? Could the entirety of the earth flood at once? I read a scientific study on earths water reserves and it could be plausible. And then of course, there is meaning in the story itself apart from its specifics.
Deuteronomy, I'm not sure what your getting at.
The Exodus is gaining some scientific ground through archeological discoveries. I believe it happened.

That would be interpretation. If that is they way that you view it, then that is your interpretation.

Yes, that is my interpretation. Not my personal interpretation in that I interpreted it thus and then sought to convince others. At the risk of splitting hairs here, lets just leave it at - that is the interpretation I was convinced is true by the evidence presented.

It is a reminder that neither you, not the many groups of Christians with conflicting interpretations have any way to confirm their (or your) interpretations.

Alas, pride goeth before the fall as the saying goes. Many won't accept proof because it is not their proof. Or evidence because it doesn't fit their scenario. Discord among Christians does not mean Christianity is wrong. It was expected. Scripture anticipated these things. Its axiomatic to Christianity to believe in an existent God so scripture says one must be led by God through prayer and sincerity to truth. One must not nor can lead God to oneself because one simply "thinks" they are right and insists on it. A person who cannot get out of their own way and swallow their pride is doomed to failure in finding truth.
In this particular case it is not only the most plausible answer it is the unambiguously interpreted explicit statement of Christ. Never the less it is the sincerity of the journey you take that's most important.

I'm out of time...I shall reply to the rest of your post later.

 

[ppp]

The "goal" is of a religious nature, not a scientific one.

I don't know what goal of a "religious nature" is supposed to be. If that means that one's goal is to simply believe whatever one's religion says, that is a terrible goal.

Okay, and? This is why Christianity calls to me. Its scriptures aren't neatly crafted stories who's goal is to merely present some moral or adage to follow. The scriptures tell the story of real people in real places in all their realistic messiness. They demand to be studied and analyzed, debated and discussed. Why did they do this? Why did he say that? It doesn't make sense that this was said or that was done in this time and place etc. Until it does. Then one begins to see a certain coherent unfolding of history throughout the bible. Its a fascinating and invigorating journey.

It is fascinating, and invigorating. But I found that to be true of all of the ancient texts of a people that I have read.

Revelations? That is the question now isn't it? As I've said, If your looking for absolute proof now you won't find it.

I am looking for rational justification for claims. I don't know why believers always head straight for absolute proof or absolute certainty. It's so hyperbolic. I am unaware of anything where absolute certainty is achievable, let alone a concern.

Can you demonstrate that you know, or are even capable of knowing that your god exists?

Unless God wills it - if the revelatory God exists that is. Revelations are not scientifically analyzable until they are fulfilled. Even then science only has the experience of the thing to work with and how does science go about analyzing a revelation not personally experienced?
A guy is asked..."How did you know to stop your car and run to the lake on the other side of the woods to save the drowning child?
The guy says..."I had a revelation from God."
Now what's science supposed to do with that? The scientific default position is to dismiss it as an unknown natural phenomena. It can do nothing else. And yet, these things happen all the time and the unknown remains just that. Except to the experiencer.

These are all excuses for a lack of justification for your claims.

The story of the Ark seems pretty specific in areas and yet pretty fantastical in others. Should you read it literally to every detail? Not sure. However we've set the tempo from the beginning by placing the whole scenario into a supernatural setting of a man's interaction with God to begin with. Why go from the supernatural to insistence on purely natural processes?

This is all beside the point. You cannot even demonstrate that it could happen, let alone that it did. You believe it, but so what?

I read a scientific study on earths water reserves and it could be plausible.

You did not. At most you read a religious paper pretending to be science.

The Exodus is gaining some scientific ground through archeological discoveries.

Again. No, it isn't. Again, religious people donning lab coats and goggles to play at the trapping of science without the substance.

Alas, pride goeth before the fall as the saying goes.

It is a saying of the prideful. Look back at the rest of that paragraph. All you are saying is that they are self-centered, incorrect, and prideful because you are right with God and they are not. Funny how everyone thinks that they cannot be wrong be cause the Bible says that God agrees with them.

I'm out of time...I shall reply to the rest of your post later.

If all you have is testimony, don't bother.

.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is a saying of the prideful. Look back at the rest of that paragraph. All you are saying is that they are self-centered, incorrect, and prideful because you are right with God and they are not. Funny how everyone thinks that they cannot be wrong be cause the Bible says that God agrees with them.

There's nothing "funny" about it..
What is the reward of goodness except goodness?

 

[ppp]

There's nothing "funny" about it..
What is the reward of goodness except goodness?

I am not following. What do you mean?

 

[setarcos]

I don't know what goal of a "religious nature" is supposed to be. If that means that one's goal is to simply believe whatever one's religion says, that is a terrible goal.

I think the goal of Religion is that you fulfill your purpose in reality. Human nature is such that if your purpose in reality does not line up with your religious beliefs there is conflict and discomfort within the person. It takes less effort to blindly believe whatever than to seek the truth but like junk food, eating only that renders one unhealthy and could be fatal. I believe the various differing religions reflect an attempt to fulfill the goal of Religion - that is a unified understanding of our collective purpose in reality. This is why we discuss, debate, argue, defend, and insist on the particular religions we adhere to. It is a yearning for a unified understanding of our purpose in reality, one that everyone agrees upon.
Most people want others to agree with them, myself included. It is very taxing on the human psyche to have to change ones belief in order to align more with reality. Even science exhibits this yearning. And even science must rely upon certain unprovable axiomatic assumptions which render its scientists religious at their core.

It is fascinating, and invigorating. But I found that to be true of all of the ancient texts of a people that I have read.

Fascinating yes. But for me so far, I haven't found anything as holistically coherent, historically validated or emotionally relatable as Christianity.

I am looking for rational justification for claims.

I think that its rational to extrapolate from existing gradations of intelligence and ability in the perceptible universe that it isn't impossible that a God may exist.
Is it rational to simply assume that a supernatural "realm" doesn't exist because of a lack of repeatable experience? My dead son spoke to me yesterday. Do I have to be able to repeat the experience to another, of which I know of no way to control, in order to validate its truth? Is that a rational expectation? Is it rational to dismiss me as simply delusional because some Scientists insist it can't be true because the phenomena can't be made readily available for analysis in a lab? That seems like the pinnacle of human hubris to me.

Can you demonstrate that you know, or are even capable of knowing that your god exists?

Just before this you said..."I am unaware of anything where absolute certainty is achievable, let alone a concern."
So what are you really looking for? Seems you're unfairly raising the standard of proof here.
Are there potential indicators. Yes. Information theory applied to the DNA molecule. The apparent evidence of designed organisms in nature. The statistically improbable fine tuning of so many features of the universe. The testimony of supernatural experiences of millions of people around the world, including people from every class, occupation, race, leadership role and country on the planet. Proof? No. Data points to hypothesize about? Yes.

These are all excuses for a lack of justification for your claims.

Excuses? Hardly. That's like saying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is only an excuse. It is what it is. How do you think one could justify the claims of a Revelation from God before it happens, let alone is capable of being understood?

You cannot even demonstrate that it could happen, let alone that it did. You believe it, but so what?

? Man builds boat. God fills boat with animals. God sends rains and floods. Man floats around until water recedes. Man plants seeds and starts over again.
I don't know what you mean by demonstrate? I'm not God either so the supernatural influences in this story are beyond anyone's ability to demonstrate.
I believe something happened concerning Noah, his ark, animals, a flood, and God. That is my choice and my course of study as far as its plausibility. I'm under no obligation to nor have the ability to make you believe in any of it. That is your personal journey. I would only hope you not stop thinking on these things because once we stop thinking on it we've come to an undeniable conclusion and that has caused many a persons downfall.

You did not. At most you read a religious paper pretending to be science.

I would at least expect you to ask for the reference. If anything this shows your unwarranted bias. Never the less I will look for the article for you. If your interested.

Again. No, it isn't. Again, religious people donning lab coats and goggles to play at the trapping of science without the substance.

Wow. Again unwarranted bias. I'm not sure your capable of impartial examination of any of our discussion. Anyways, many of those Archeologists are recognized world wide as experts in the field. You ask for evidence then play at Ad Hominem attacks.

All you are saying is that they are self-centered, incorrect, and prideful because you are right with God and they are not.

I'm sorry, perhaps I presented the case wrong. I'm not belittling anyone's beliefs. My point was that we all suffer from the same dispositions in our nature. It is to be expected that disagreements happen. However, the truth is the truth and when one belief contradicts another something must give. We all suffer from our biases and pride, myself included. From a Christian perspective the only way to truth is with Gods assistance. It is significantly easier with explicit statements such as the one in question. However if you would reread my statement, it is the sincerity of the journeyer to find the truth that is most important. Even if they are wrong. Scripture says, Jesus would rather we be hot or cold than luke warm.

Funny how everyone thinks that they cannot be wrong be cause the Bible says that God agrees with them.

Not everyone. If my belief don't agree with God's truth then I can only hope that God will rectify the situation. If I'm sincere.

If all you have is testimony, don't bother.

Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water but....

 

[ppp]

I think the goal of Religion is that you fulfill your purpose in reality. Human nature is such that if your purpose in reality does not line up with your religious beliefs there is conflict and discomfort within the person. It takes less effort to blindly believe whatever than to seek the truth but like junk food, eating only that renders one unhealthy and could be fatal. I believe the various differing religions reflect an attempt to fulfill the goal of Religion - that is a unified understanding of our collective purpose in reality. This is why we discuss, debate, argue, defend, and insist on the particular religions we adhere to. It is a yearning for a unified understanding of our purpose in reality, one that everyone agrees upon.

I agree with that in principle. Some of that even in detail.

Most people want others to agree with them, myself included. It is very taxing on the human psyche to have to change ones belief in order to align more with reality. Even science exhibits this yearning. And even science must rely upon certain unprovable axiomatic assumptions which render its scientists religious at their core.

That's fine. Except that the last sentence is drivel.

Fascinating yes. But for me so far, I haven't found anything as holistically coherent, historically validated or emotionally relatable as Christianity.

The Iliad, and Eri both come to mind.

I think that its rational to extrapolate from existing gradations of intelligence and ability in the perceptible universe that it isn't impossible that a God may exist.

It isn't.

Is it rational to simply assume that a supernatural "realm" doesn't exist because of a lack of repeatable experience?

Yes. The "supernatural" has no coherent definition. Until it does, the word "supernatural" is not a label for anything.

Do I have to be able to repeat the experience to another, of which I know of no way to control, in order to validate its truth? Is that a rational expectation?

In order to demonstrate that the cause of the experience is what you say it is. Yes. And yes.

Is it rational to dismiss me as simply delusional because some Scientists insist it can't be true because the phenomena can't be made readily available for analysis in a lab?

It is rational to dismiss you as delusional because there is plenty of evidence that humans have delusions, and there is no evidence of your claim.. Everyone does. It's not mental illness. It is just a feature of our biology. One that we have come up with ways to mitigate, but not excise.

My sympathies about your son.

That seems like the pinnacle of human hubris to me.

Conceiving a creator of the universe that places any sort of focus on us humans puts the hat on that pinnacle.

Just before this you said..."I am unaware of anything where absolute certainty is achievable, let alone a concern."
So what are you really looking for? Seems you're unfairly raising the standard of proof here.
Are there potential indicators.

When you can demonstrate that the indicators are more than potential, I will be more than happy to consider them.

? Man builds boat. God fills boat with animals. God sends rains and floods. Man floats around until water recedes. Man plants seeds and starts over again.
I don't know what you mean by demonstrate? I'm not God either so the supernatural influences in this story are beyond anyone's ability to demonstrate.

Which puts it into the realm of campfire story or fantasy novel.

I would only hope you not stop thinking on these things because once we stop thinking on it we've come to an undeniable conclusion and that has caused many a persons downfall.

Thank you so much for the condescending warning.

Wow. Again unwarranted bias.

You have no idea whether or not my position is warranted. You are simply making that assumption because it conflicts with your literal and limited view.

Anyways, many of those Archeologists are recognized world wide as experts in the field.

I note that you have cited neither the alleged archaeologist, nor any of their published peer reviewed papers on the subject.

You ask for evidence then play at Ad Hominem attacks.

Calling someone a liar is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be if I said that they were wrong because they are creationists. Or because they are from Iowa, ewww.

 

[ppp]

I'm sorry, perhaps I presented the case wrong. I'm not belittling anyone's beliefs. My point was that we all suffer from the same dispositions in our nature. It is to be expected that disagreements happen. However, the truth is the truth and when one belief contradicts another something must give. We all suffer from our biases and pride, myself included. From a Christian perspective the only way to truth is with Gods assistance. It is significantly easier with explicit statements such as the one in question. However if you would reread my statement, it is the sincerity of the journeyer to find the truth that is most important. Even if they are wrong. Scripture says, Jesus would rather we be hot or cold than luke warm.

Very well. While I do not accept all the details, I do agree with the sentiment.

Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water but....

Not everyone. If my belief don't agree with God's truth then I can only hope that God will rectify the situation. If I'm sincere.

While re-worded, that is functionally the same thing as what I said.

Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water but....

...but you are neither leading, nor do you have any water.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe the various differing religions reflect an attempt to fulfill the goal of Religion - that is a unified understanding of our collective purpose in reality. This is why we discuss, debate, argue, defend, and insist on the particular religions we adhere to. It is a yearning for a unified understanding of our purpose in reality, one that everyone agrees upon.

Fascinating yes. But for me so far, I haven't found anything as holistically coherent, historically validated or emotionally relatable as Christianity.

I understand why Christianity s emotionally appealing to Christians but how is it holistically coherent and historically validated?

Do you think that Christianity has the ability to unify humanity into one common fold such that we all have a unified understanding of our purpose in reality, one that everyone agrees upon? With all due respect, if that was going to happen humanity would already be united, given Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago. Yet to date only about one third of humans are Christians. What do you think is going to happen to the other two thirds of humanity?