Fundemental Question

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, faith isn't belief, thankfully. Belief don't mean too much. Even the demons believe.

So what is your answer based on now if not logic and reason?

And what is that based on? Logic and reason themselves require a leap of faith, seeing as how there's no philosophical justification for either. I'd argue faith and reason and inseparable, and I fully regard faith vs. reason to be a a myth. If by assuming the Bible through circular reasoning you negate it, then by assuming logic and reason do you not negate that as well?

"How could one go about explaining or discovering the nature of reason? It's not something you can see or touch, so you would have to arrive at it by rational arguments. But if we need to use rational arguments to prove the validity of Reason (aka rational argumentation) then we are clearly being circular because we assume the very conclusion at the outset that we wish to try to prove. So in effect, reason actually has no justification. Reason could be attempted to be justified atheistically but it runs into a pile of problems such as the necessity of them being universal, or the reduction of them to bio-chemical reactions in the brain. If reason is not universal then it does not behave how we know it should, and if logic and reasoning is reducible to reactions in the brain, then what's to say that people have the same types of reactions in their brains. Why use rational arguments? Why not just spray something in their eye that will upset their brain reactions to match your own. And also, how can bio-chemical reactions come to know bio-chemical reactions; They are non-intelligent."

One must not forget that there is in addition to logical and illogical, there is a-logical. I cannot logically explain why I find the sunset breathtakingly beautiful, or why I love my girlfriend in such a deep way, or why this song but not that song moves me, yet none of that is illogical. Life is bigger than logic.

What of minds and the nature of the mind? Neither of those can be proven empirically; I've yet to see a mind walking around, but it is quite rational to believe in them, since I have experienced the evidence of them being there by way of interacting with other people. But if you wish to negate any and all personal experience as any kind of evidence, which I think is quite foolish, then where will you be? At some point, someone experienced that a stove burner was hot, and learned the truth by experience.

 

[solarwave]

So what is your answer based on now if not logic and reason?

Commitment to goodness and morality being of high importance. A desire for meaning. Following the desires of ones heart. These may seem like bad reasons to you, but my beliefs are going through transition at the moment so firm reasons are hard to come by.

Btw, proving god exists is very different from proving the bible is true, and I didn't ask for proof of god but of proof of the bible.

Isn't the main reason for asking this though because it is to do with God?

I guess the reason I consider the New Testament believable because it was written not too long after the death of Jesus and it seems unlikely that the resurrection would be made up in that time.

I would flat out disagree but that is for another time and another place.

Fair enough. I'm not saying everything in the Bible is moral by the way.

How do you know this to be true?

I assume the bible, if so that leads us back to the same question, why do you believe the bible to be true?

Can I assume you think Jesus was cruxified? Well what happened after that that caused the Christian religions to start? I doubt that the disciples would have lied about seeing the risen Christ when they hadn't because this goes against Christs teachings by lying. If Jesus was in fact dead and gone what reason would there be to lie except to cause oneself to suffer.

Also I don't think they could have been mistaken, because you can't have group hallucinations. They could have thought Jesus was 'resurrected' into life in heaven and interpreted this into a myth of His life that never happened. Again it would seem rather strange that their leader would die and then for them to still have hope when the death of Jesus should have proved that He wasn't the Messiah. As well as this Paul stresses that the resurrection actually happened, and although He never saw Jesus alive, He did apparently seem Him in a vision and would have known the former disciples.

So it seems to me that all that is left is that a group of people who knew of Jesus and liked His teachings, but weren't moral enough not to lie, or clever enough to know this would cause them to be persecuted, made it up. But if this is the case why did Paul join the Christians and I would assume he would have tried to talk someone who knew Jesus in life and would have known if Jesus was resurrected or not.

Or, somehow in a short amount of time people started saying (like chinese whispers) that Jesus died and rose again, even though Jesus was nothing like what people expected the Messiah to be like. This continues even though Jesus body is in a grave and the authorities could go get it if they wanted to. People start to follow this made up story even though there are no leaders of the movement. Some people take on a leadership role, write down made up stories. These stories are an amazing leap forwards in theology and morality so it is likely that they are at least somewhat based on Jesus, or the people who made them up are some of the greatest religious thinkers who no one has ever heard of. These people also felt that they had to impersonate the disciples in their writings. Also Paul unknowingly joins a cult which has little basis in fact and for some reason never talks to someone who would know if Jesus rose from the dead.

Sounds to me like the biggest conspiracy ever and it is hard to see how it came about without someone speaking to someone who knew Jesus to find out His teachings (and so finding out the resurrection to be false) but still writing about a false story . Or someone made up Jesus' teachings (making Him a moral genius himself) and then being a hypocrite by making a false story.

There are probably more options, and if there are and I am wrong let me know. I wrote this all off the top of my head mostly from just my own thoughts on the subject so I could be wrong.

 

[Exial]

And what is that based on? Logic and reason themselves require a leap of faith, seeing as how there's no philosophical justification for either. I'd argue faith and reason and inseparable, and I fully regard faith vs. reason to be a a myth.

Why does logic and reason need philosophical justification?

Why do they require leaps of faith?

How are you defining faith?

 

[Exial]

Commitment to goodness and morality being of high importance. A desire for meaning. Following the desires of ones heart. These may seem like bad reasons to you, but my beliefs are going through transition at the moment so firm reasons are hard to come by.

So nothing objective or rational but driven by emotion.

Isn't the main reason for asking this though because it is to do with God?

The Christian god, but not any god.

I guess the reason I consider the New Testament believable because it was written not too long after the death of Jesus and it seems unlikely that the resurrection would be made up in that time.

You assume wrongly.

Would it surprise you to know that another mythological figure, Horus, who existed centuries before Jesus was also born of a virgin (witnessed by 3 shepherds), also raised the dead, also died in the company of two thieves and also resurrected from the dead after 3 days?

The Christian prophet is not a unique literary character.

 

[solarwave]

So nothing objective or rational but driven by emotion.

Nope, not at the moment. By the way I know how bad that probably sounds to you because I generally value rationality highly. As I said, my beliefs are in transition at the moment.

The Christian god, but not any god.

I assumed we were talking about that God anyway

You assume wrongly.

Would it surprise you to know that another mythological figure, Horus, who existed centuries before Jesus was also born of a virgin (witnessed by 3 shepherds), also raised the dead, also died in the company of two thieves and also resurrected from the dead after 3 days?

The Christian prophet is not a unique literary character.

I have heard of this before. I have also heard that this is a myth made up by atheists to use just like this. I could be wrong of course.

Either way this doesn't disprove what I said, because I said that it seems that it would be made up in that short a time. Most myths are of people a long time ago.

Anyway I gave a few ways the story of Jesus could have been made up. Can you tell me roughly how it could happened?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Why does logic and reason need philosophical justification?

Because they are philosophical concepts; they are not empirical objects or scientific theories. You cannot measure philosophical ideas using science, much like you cannot judge matters of belief with science.

Why do they require leaps of faith?

I answered that in the above post.

How are you defining faith?

Biblically, not in the Kierkregaardian way.

 

[aiki]

Over the past weeks I've been attempting to gain a better knowledge or religion and Christianity. After numerous debates with Christians I have only found one thing all Christians share..

You all interpret the Bible differently

This is an overstatement. Yes, there are doctrinal/theological issues over which Christians differ, but this doesn't mean that every point of view that is out there is valid. In fact, there are a great many viewpoints on Scripture which can be easily demonstrated from Scripture, from rules of good argument, and from pertinent extra-biblical sources to be completely in error. Everyone has an opinion, but this by no means requires that all opinions are equal - far from it! Some opinions are, frankly, quite ridiculous.

As one who has lived over forty years within the Christian community, I can tell you that I see at least as much agreement as disagreement on the central tenets of the faith (if not more). Really, it is a sign that the adherents of the faith are thinking about their faith, that there are various interpretations. Remember, though, not all interpretations are equal.

That would seem to me to involve contradictions, and it does in certain places.

Yes. But the existence of contradictory viewpoints on Scripture doesn't make Scripture itself faulty. Viewpoints on Scripture are not Scripture itself. You seem to be confusing the two.

If you're referring to scriptural contradictions, I would suggest to you that of the dozens of "contradictions" that I'm aware of held up by non-believers as proof of the errant character of the Bible, none of them are actual, real contradictions. In each case, a reasonable explanation reconciling the "contradiction" can be offered.

Even though all of you agree that your Bible is the truth and divinely inspired or written you still end up with differing opinions on what its message is.

Having some debate over the meaning of Scripture is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the presence of debate points to thoughtfulness among Christians, not confusion. As you note, there is nearly universal agreement upon the central tenets of the faith.

This leads me to believe that Bible is not divinely inspired, but written and invented by fallible men thus leading other fallible men to draw their own fallible interpretations from it.

This is a non-sequitur. I've seen people argue over a street map and the best route to take along the roads it lays out. Does this mean that the map itself is faulty? Not necessarily. The argument arises out of human nature, not the content of the map. One can say the very same thing about Scripture.

If god has truly sent us a divine message, and this represented by the bible then why do we see so many differing opinions on what the message actually is?

See above.

So my last question to this forum is:

What evidence do you have that your Bible is the word of God/divinely inspired/the truth?

1. The unity of Scripture given the nature of its writing. (Written over the span of approximately 1500 years, on three different continents, by over 40 different people, in widely varying walks of life, in three different languages).

2. The persistent popularity and powerful impact of Scripture through history on societies and cultures.

3. Fulfilled prophecy.

4. The proven historicity of Scripture.

5. Personal experience of the truth and power of Scripture.

(While this is not a knock-out punch in terms of evidence it is still legitimate to offer it as evidence. Advertisers use this kind of "evidence" all the time as a means of establishing the efficacy of their products. Courts of law allow personal testimony as well.)

6. The degree to which the contents of Scripture corresponds to reality.

(note: prophetic evidence must show the exact verse and prediction although these always end up being extremely vague. Anecdotal evidence such as personal experience is not valid, you cannot hope to convince any rational person of anything based on JUST YOUR personal experience. It may be a good enough reason for you to believe but not me.)

This is a convenient (though illegitimate) way to attempt to hamstring those who would answer you. Its a lot like telling someone to prove to you that their car is a good car without referring to their personal experience of the functioning of their car or how well it has lived up to the claims of the company that made the car. The fact is, the best evidence for whether or not the car is good is how well it has served those who drive it every day! Excluding such "evidence" is just unreasonable and silly. As a result, you'll note that I ignored your restrictions.

Selah.

 

[Sketcher]

Over the past weeks I've been attempting to gain a better knowledge or religion and Christianity. After numerous debates with Christians I have only found one thing all Christians share..

You all interpret the Bible differently

That would seem to me to involve contradictions, and it does in certain places. Even though all of you agree that your Bible is the truth and divinely inspired or written you still end up with differing opinions on what its message is. This leads me to believe that Bible is not divinely inspired, but written and invented by fallible men thus leading other fallible men to draw their own fallible interpretations from it. If god has truly sent us a divine message, and this represented by the bible then why do we see so many differing opinions on what the message actually is? Kinda destroys the value of a particular message if people only choose to believe some of it.

So my last question to this forum is:

What evidence do you have that your Bible is the word of God/divinely inspired/the truth?

The fact that Christians disagree on some matters doesn't mean the Bible itself is not divinely inspired. Rather, it just shows you that many imperfect people with imperfect understanding of it will come to different conclusions. Yet, on the core matters of Christianity, Christians will agree. I have the same basic faith that billions of Christians around the world have, and have had as long as the Gospel has been around: That I'm a sinner, yet Jesus, as the perfect Son of God became flesh, died in my place, and rose again so that I could go to Heaven even though he didn't have to. The Bible I have is a very popular translation, and millions of of English-speakers have found the Gospel and therefore, eternal life through the truth that is recorded in it - including me. The doctrines of Christianity have been faithfully preserved from translation to translation - we have these translations for people to compare them. Between that and the answered prayers, I'm pretty sure I'm reading the right book and worshiping the right God.

 

[Exial]

Because they are philosophical concepts; they are not empirical objects or scientific theories. You cannot measure philosophical ideas using science, much like you cannot judge matters of belief with science.

Logic is a formal system, used in math and computer science. How does this need philosopical justification when it can be proven with math?

What is its philosophical justification?

I think matters of belief should be judged by science, or at least using scientific principles. After all, science is just the methods we use to learn about the world in the form of testable predictions and observations. I think if God existed and affected the world as described by the Bible I don't think its unreasonable to assume he would have left some empirical evidence behind.

I think you have double standards however.

Do you believe in Unicorns?
What if told you I had met one once.
Would you believe then?
Or would you ask for some evidence?

Biblically, not in the Kierkregaardian way.

A simple definition would suffice.

 

[Exial]

The fact that Christians disagree on some matters doesn't mean the Bible itself is not divinely inspired. Rather, it just shows you that many imperfect people with imperfect understanding of it will come to different conclusions. Yet, on the core matters of Christianity, Christians will agree. I have the same basic faith that billions of Christians around the world have, and have had as long as the Gospel has been around: That I'm a sinner, yet Jesus, as the perfect Son of God became flesh, died in my place, and rose again so that I could go to Heaven even though he didn't have to. The Bible I have is a very popular translation, and millions of of English-speakers have found the Gospel and therefore, eternal life through the truth that is recorded in it - including me. The doctrines of Christianity have been faithfully preserved from translation to translation - we have these translations for people to compare them. Between that and the answered prayers, I'm pretty sure I'm reading the right book and worshiping the right God.[/quote]

How are you so sure that authors wrote the original translation down correctly?

 

[Exial]

I have heard of this before. I have also heard that this is a myth made up by atheists to use just like this. I could be wrong of course.

Instead of relying on what others have told you why don't you think for yourself?

A simple google search of Egyptian mythology/horus/similarities with jesus will give you all the information you would want on the subject. I personally think its incredibly strange how the son of god managed to share so many similarties with another figure invented centuries before he ever existed.

Lord' Raglan's Hero Pattern

^ that is an interesting look at many figures from different mythology including Jesus and Moses.

Either way this doesn't disprove what I said, because I said that it seems that it would be made up in that short a time. Most myths are of people a long time ago.

You said I guess the reason I consider the New Testament believable because it was written not too long after the death of Jesusand it seems unlikely that the resurrection would be made up in that time.

I have just shown you how likely it is that the concept of a resurrection, virgin birth, claimed son of god and all the other things we consider special about Jesus are in fact not because so many other characters share them, many invented before Jesus.

Anyway I gave a few ways the story of Jesus could have been made up. Can you tell me roughly how it could happened?

I don't think he was "made up". I think that Jesus did exist and that he did preach many things that appear in the Bible. This is what the Bible provides evidence for, Jesus existence in the same way the Quran evidences Muhammad's existence. Its highly improbable that the authors simply made up Jesus entirely.

It is very probable that the authors of the bible copied/made up elements about Jesus that are supernatural, impressive and worthy of worship. Why is it so probable? Because so many authors of so many other supposed trustworthy religious texts have been doing the same thing. They were doing it before Jesus existed and they continue after he is dead (Joseph Smith).

 

[Exial]

This is an overstatement. Yes, there are doctrinal/theological issues over which Christians differ, but this doesn't mean that every point of view that is out there is valid. In fact, there are a great many viewpoints on Scripture which can be easily demonstrated from Scripture, from rules of good argument, and from pertinent extra-biblical sources to be completely in error. Everyone has an opinion, but this by no means requires that all opinions are equal - far from it! Some opinions are, frankly, quite ridiculous.

Definitely agree there.

Remember, though, not all interpretations are equal.

So how do you decide who has the correct interpretation?

If you're referring to scriptural contradictions, I would suggest to you that of the dozens of "contradictions" that I'm aware of held up by non-believers as proof of the errant character of the Bible, none of them are actual, real contradictions. In each case, a reasonable explanation reconciling the "contradiction" can be offered.

Genesis 1:25-27
(humans were created after other animals)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.


Genesis 2:18-19
(humans were created before other animals)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Give me a reasonable explanation then.

1. The unity of Scripture given the nature of its writing. (Written over the span of approximately 1500 years, on three different continents, by over 40 different people, in widely varying walks of life, in three different languages).

I dispute the idea that scripture is "united". I think the very fact we have a old testament and a new testament attribute to that. Can you demonstrate how scripture is united.

2. The persistent popularity and powerful impact of Scripture through history on societies and cultures.

This proves nothing, a Muslim could give me the same argument about his holy scriptures which have had far more (if not negative) impact on society and cultures in my opinion.

3. Fulfilled prophecy.

Just give me one, your best.

4. The proven historicity of Scripture.

The proven historical claims of the Bible prove nothing about the supernatural claims it makes. Once again, a Muslim could give me the exact same argument as you are.

5. Personal experience of the truth and power of Scripture.

(While this is not a knock-out punch in terms of evidence it is still legitimate to offer it as evidence. Advertisers use this kind of "evidence" all the time as a means of establishing the efficacy of their products. Courts of law allow personal testimony as well.)

This is all just anecdotal evidence. That is a poor way of discovering truth. Nice of you to liken your evidence to that used by advertisements (because they have a excellent reputation for telling the truth without bias or distortion.) Courts do allow personal testimony but do not often rules based purely on that. They want empirical evidence before they decide on the truth, that is all that I am asking for and nobody has been able to provide it.

6. The degree to which the contents of Scripture corresponds to reality.

We have already ascertained that people interpret the Scripture differently, so does that mean everyone has a different state of reality?

This is a convenient (though illegitimate) way to attempt to hamstring those who would answer you. Its a lot like telling someone to prove to you that their car is a good car without referring to their personal experience of the functioning of their car or how well it has lived up to the claims of the company that made the car. The fact is, the best evidence for whether or not the car is good is how well it has served those who drive it every day! Excluding such "evidence" is just unreasonable and silly. As a result, you'll note that I ignored your restrictions.

Your analogy is ridiculous, I would ask to test drive or examine any car before purchasing it, much as I would for anything that is not brand new or not very expensive. I would not take a man's word that the car he is selling me is good, I would like to find out for myself. I am not ignoring the evidence as you say, I am treating it with scepticism.

Just as I am not trusting your personal testimony that the Bible is true and that God is real. I am asking for empirical evidence besides your personal opinion. If you cannot provide it just say so but I or any rational minded person (including courts) will not accept something to be true based purely on what you say, there has to be something else.

Basically, proof you cannot show to someone else is not proof

 

[Sketcher]

The fact that Christians disagree on some matters doesn't mean the Bible itself is not divinely inspired. Rather, it just shows you that many imperfect people with imperfect understanding of it will come to different conclusions. Yet, on the core matters of Christianity, Christians will agree. I have the same basic faith that billions of Christians around the world have, and have had as long as the Gospel has been around: That I'm a sinner, yet Jesus, as the perfect Son of God became flesh, died in my place, and rose again so that I could go to Heaven even though he didn't have to. The Bible I have is a very popular translation, and millions of of English-speakers have found the Gospel and therefore, eternal life through the truth that is recorded in it - including me. The doctrines of Christianity have been faithfully preserved from translation to translation - we have these translations for people to compare them. Between that and the answered prayers, I'm pretty sure I'm reading the right book and worshiping the right God.

How are you so sure that authors wrote the original translation down correctly?

Because there's life to what I believe, and there was a lot of life to what they believed. That wouldn't be the case if it were just words on a page.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Logic is a formal system, used in math and computer science. How does this need philosopical justification when it can be proven with math?

What is its philosophical justification?

I think matters of belief should be judged by science, or at least using scientific principles. After all, science is just the methods we use to learn about the world in the form of testable predictions and observations. I think if God existed and affected the world as described by the Bible I don't think its unreasonable to assume he would have left some empirical evidence behind.

I think you have double standards however.

Do you believe in Unicorns?
What if told you I had met one once.
Would you believe then?
Or would you ask for some evidence?

Well, I'm not going to go point by point here, as I doubt you'll be persuaded. Like I said, arguing evidence is pointless. There is no experiment, formula, or scientific method I can do to prove God. gasp.

However, to suggest that everything be empirical or proven by science is quite limiting, in my mind. I imagine you're not reading the whole of my posts, but the repeated idea I've been conveying is that life is bigger than logic, science, reason, and rationality...none of which can really be justified by anything other than circular reasoning, which I always found interesting. I think you should give those portions of my posts a glance again, perhaps you'll find something of worth in them. Or maybe not. I'm not out to convert anyone, since cold hard empirical evidence is all that will persuade the eternal skeptic. But, as I said above, life is bigger than logic. Next time your breath is taken away by a sunset or your heart is moved by a beautiful song, remember that.

I would like to find out for myself.

But above you affirmed that you don't accept even your own personal experience as evidence.

I have tried, but I try very hard not to believe something on my own subjective experience.

You experience the car working or not working...would you then discount it? How would you ever buy a car?

A simple definition would suffice.

"Faith in the biblical sense is substantive, based on the knowledge that the One in whom that faith is placed has proven that He is worthy of that trust. In its essence, faith is a confidence in the person of Jesus Christ and in His power, so that even when His power does not serve my end, my confidence in Him remains because of who He is."
- Ravi Zacharias

Also, just as a side note, the similarities between Christ and various other mythologies is a very, very weak position to hold, as there are actually very few similarities of any consequence. Superficial ones, yes, all religions have them, but there are foundational differences that set them worlds apart.


“Though Israel’s notion of God was unique in the ancient world, and a phenomenon that defies rational explanation, to attempt to understand her faith in terms of an idea of God would be a fundamental error. Israel’s religion did not consist in certain religious ideas or ethical principles, but rested in the memory of historical experience as interpreted by faith… Not only was the Israelite league aware that its God had come from Sinai (e.g. Judges 5:4f; Deut 33:2); its sacred traditions remembered the covenant that had been made with him there… We are driven, therefore to assume that the origins of the covenant league, like those of Yahwism itself, reach back to Sinai. .. If Yahwism originated in the desert (as it certainly did) we must conclude that the covenant society did also, for Yahwism and covenant are coterminous!” (Bright, John, History of Israel, pp. 148, 167-168).

 

[solarwave]

Instead of relying on what others have told you why don't you think for yourself?

A simple google search of Egyptian mythology/horus/similarities with jesus will give you all the information you would want on the subject. I personally think its incredibly strange how the son of god managed to share so many similarties with another figure invented centuries before he ever existed.

I did do a google search. I didn't say what I did before because someone I knew told me. Even if you google search you are relying on other people giving you the correct information.

You can find people saying that alot of the stuff claimed of Horus isn't even found in the writings. I honestly wouldn't be supprised it if was made up because if he was simply born of a virgin, did miracles, was killed unjustly and rose again, that would be believable. But many of these Horus storys seem to be a direct copy of the Jesus story with just a few names changed.

Did a google and got these two videos. They seem to explain the opinions of Egyptian scholars and what is actually in the Egyptian stories.

YouTube - Jesus vs Horus Debunked - (Part 1 of 2)

YouTube - Jesus vs Horus Debunked - (Part 2 of 2)

You said I guess the reason I consider the New Testament believable because it was written not too long after the death of Jesusand it seems unlikely that the resurrection would be made up in that time.

I have just shown you how likely it is that the concept of a resurrection, virgin birth, claimed son of god and all the other things we consider special about Jesus are in fact not because so many other characters share them, many invented before Jesus.

I wouldn't be supprised if concepts such as a resurrection, virgin birth, claimed son of god were around before. Does this make it impossible to happen in real life though? Sci-fi movies may have things in them which happen to be made real in the future.

It is very probable that the authors of the bible copied/made up elements about Jesus that are supernatural, impressive and worthy of worship. Why is it so probable? Because so many authors of so many other supposed trustworthy religious texts have been doing the same thing. They were doing it before Jesus existed and they continue after he is dead (Joseph Smith).

How did the resurrection (which was made up) become one of the centeral parts of Christianity? Why make it up when Jesus failed and proved He wasn't the Messiah? Also why make it up when it would only cause persecution?

I would say the difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus is that you can gain money and power through making up a religion in the West, but the Christians only suffered from their 'made up' religion. Its easy to say someone someone made something up and some people believed for some reason. But the question of what happened has to be answered in more detail.

 

[bling]

The same old question:

“Why does God not make Himself obviously known” (in this case by making the “Bible” a perfect book to anyone’s eyes).

If the “Bible” was to “proof” to the skeptic the existence of God it would be totally different and do just that.

Unfortunately there would be lots of problems created by this type “perfection” including the lack of need for faith to “trust” in the existence of God, since now we could know God exist through knowledge.

Look, I am not trying to “sell” you on something (like the Bible), but I am here to help you with your problems. It appears that the Bible having apparent contradictions for you does not really bother you, so what can I help you with?

 

[elman]

=Exial;57021680]I'm glad some Christians can accept this. Given there is no objective evidence, I cannot form a belief in god(s), much less the Christian god.

I do not consider using faith a valuable way of discovering truth as you can use it to justify belief in virtually anything which makes it useless IMO.

You do not have objective evidence that proves we exist without a Creator. You accept on faith that science will one day explain how life came from non life. Even if they did it would not prove we exit as a matter of random chance that is meaningless and has no ultimate purpose. I don't really suggest using faith to discover the reality of God. I suggest you use compassion for others and see where that leads. To me it led to faith.

I have tried, but I try very hard not to believe something on my own subjective experience. Personal testimony is not sufficient to establish truth, not even to myself.

Your own subjective experience is the most valuable information and evidence you have, that your life may have a purpose that is beyond and more permanent than any purpose you can give it.

 

[Exial]

Well, I'm not going to go point by point here, as I doubt you'll be persuaded. Like I said, arguing evidence is pointless. There is no experiment, formula, or scientific method I can do to prove God. gasp.

I'm not asking for evidence of god(s), I'm asking for evidence that the Bible is true. Proving a god(s) existed would not be evidence that the Bible is true.

Like I said, If god had interacted with the world in the way the Bible describes it is not unreasonable to assume he would have left something empirical (observable/testable) behind.

However, to suggest that everything be empirical or proven by science is quite limiting, in my mind. I imagine you're not reading the whole of my posts, but the repeated idea I've been conveying is that life is bigger than logic, science, reason, and rationality...none of which can really be justified by anything other than circular reasoning, which I always found interesting. I think you should give those portions of my posts a glance again, perhaps you'll find something of worth in them. Or maybe not. I'm not out to convert anyone, since cold hard empirical evidence is all that will persuade the eternal skeptic. But, as I said above, life is bigger than logic. Next time your breath is taken away by a sunset or your heart is moved by a beautiful song, remember that.

Science doesn't technically "prove" anything to absolute certainty btw.

I'm also not suggesting everything comes down to empirical evidence.

But when people make claims about God and I'm not just talking about the claim he exists, but when they claim as you do to know what he wants, what he likes, what or who he doesn't like then you had better provide evidence or I cannot take your claims seriously and no rational minded person should. Something had to make them accept the Bible as the truth at some point and I would like to know if that is empirical in your case or anyone else's.

edit: btw, what did you think to this?

Do you believe in Unicorns?
What if told you I had met one once.
Would you believe then?
Or would you ask for some evidence?

 

[Exial]

You do not have objective evidence that proves we exist without a Creator.

But we do exist?

You must first provide evidence of the Creater before you can even begin to try and prove he even created.

You accept on faith that science will one day explain how life came from non life. Even if they did it would not prove we exit as a matter of random chance that is meaningless and has no ultimate purpose. I don't really suggest using faith to discover the reality of God. I suggest you use compassion for others and see where that leads. To me it led to faith.

The difference is I don't claim to know the answers. I made no assertions to how life or the universe began.

You claim to have the answers.
You claim to know how everything began.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Exial]

Because there's life to what I believe, and there was a lot of life to what they believed.

What do you mean by this?

That wouldn't be the case if it were just words on a page.

Actually it would be the case if you were of the opinion that the Bible is just a book. Its only because you take it as a divine book that you can draw that interpretation.