'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

And here I thought having "blind faith" was to believe with eyes wide shut, that a person with this kind of epistemic disposition would be in a circumstance where he/she chooses to completely dispense with any possible kind or quality of evidence or any other epistemic indicator regarding the Christian ontology being engaged and explored in an 'ongoing' manner.

Ooops! I guess I can throw out the dozens of books on epistemology that I currently have sitting on my shelf, and I might as well drop-kick my philosophy diploma into the garbage bin.

Did you want me to respond, or was this just a rant/comment?

 

[cvanwey]

Ooops! I guess I can throw out the dozens of books on epistemology that I currently have sitting on my shelf, and I might as well drop-kick my philosophy diploma into the garbage bin.

No, just shelf such books next to the categorized section in your library, which argue for the existence of God, not the other section in your library, which argue against the existence of God.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you want me to respond, or was this just a rant/comment?

It was both.

After now seeing your various interlocutions here at CF, cvanwey, is it safe for me to say that you're simply experiencing existential angst like the rest of us do and this is why you've felt the need to distance yourself from the Christian faith?

I mean, I too haven't had anything whatsoever in the way of a supernatural encounter with the divine, and I don't feel this is anything I have to either be ashamed of or to keep secret on my part.

So, my point is, on the one hand, I feel what you do, and I always have, but on the other hand, my personal sense of well-being, as well as my long engagement with epistemology and many other facets of the field of Philosophy, afford me the sense and confidence that no atheist critique can actually just put the kibosh on my being drawn toward Jesus Christ or that my faith somehow "counts for nothing in the Nihil."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, just shelf such books next to the categorized section in your library, which argue for the existence of God, not the other section in your library, which argue against the existence of God.

Sorry, I couldn't resist

Why would my books on Epistemology need to be shelved next to those that I have which argue for the existence of God? (Even though, HA!---that's almost exactly where they are. Of course, all my books on Atheism fill a shelf right below that. )

 

[cvanwey]

Why would my books on Epistemology need to be shelved next to those that I have which argue for the existence of God? (Even though, HA!---that's almost exactly where they are. Of course, all my books on Atheism fill a shelf right below that. )

My point is that I too have taken Philosophy classes. And I found that, in Philosophy, one can find authors to support their position, on almost any 'important' position and topic. The same holds true when taking a world religions course. Many will most identify with the religion in which they already agree.

'Blind faith' has many meanings. Hence, the reason I stated as such, and also asked for clarity from the person in which I responded. Furthermore, I doubt all your books on 'blind faith' all agree 100%. Otherwise, there would only exist one book on your shelf, regarding this topic Furthermore, there would be one definition online, and not several.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point is that I too have taken Philosophy classes.

Ah, I see! Classes, in the plural. Now we're getting somewhere! Thanks for admitting this; I had the feeling it was the case. You're much too articulate to have arrived here on CF and to have had no classes of the sort.

And I found that, in Philosophy, one can find authors to support their position, on almost any 'important' position and topic. The same holds true when taking a world religions course. Many will most identify with the religion in which they already agree.

........and I found that that just about no person (including myself) can ever have a fully worked out epistemology with justifications just jutting about in solid fashion like Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Everyone's religious, political, and ethical view of the world is partially suspect, whether they be atheist or theist. And it's this 'truth' that keeps it all very enlivened for me.

Moreover, it's one thing to build a spaceship in which to go to Mars and back, it's another thing altogether to build a set of beliefs by which one perceives contact with God. They're not even the same.

'Blind faith' has many meanings.

I appreciate your honesty. Some atheists, like the Street Epistemologists who work in the vain of Bogghossian, seem to feel they've got "blind faith" completely pegged ontologically and epistemologically.

Hence, the reason I stated as such, and also asked for clarify from the person in which I responded. Furthermore, I doubt all your books on 'blind faith' all agree 100%. Otherwise, there would only exist one book on your shelf, regarding this topic Furthermore, there would be one definition online, and not several.

And there'd probably also just be just one gospel account rather than 4 ....or more.

 

[cvanwey]

It was both.

After now seeing your various interlocutions here at CF, cvanwey, is it safe for me to say that you're simply experiencing existential angst like the rest of us do and this is why you've felt the need to distance yourself from the Christian faith?

Getting warmer.... I don't want to get into all the reasons, and there are many - (trying my 'darndest' to stay focused on this specific topic). As you know, it's sometimes hard for me to do.

I mean, I too haven't had anything whatsoever in the way of a supernatural encounter with the divine, and I don't feel this is anything I have to either be ashamed of or to keep secret on my part.

So, my point is, on the one hand, I feel what you do, and I always have, but on the other hand, my personal sense of well-being, as well as my long engagement with epistemology and many other facets of the field of Philosophy, afford me the sense and confidence that no atheist critique can actually just put the kibosh on my being drawn toward Jesus Christ or that my faith somehow "counts for nothing in the Nihil."

Yes, but I trust you realize such a conclusion is shifting the burden of proof the other direction, right?

(i.e.) 'Prove my specific alien, in which I believe in, doesn't exist.' And if you can't, then I win.

To me, this is a double 'wammie'. Not only am I asserting the existence of extra terrestrials, but I'm also asserting a very specific alien, in which I believe, exists. And then asking you to somehow disprove both. So tell me? How does one go about proving a negative?.?.?.?

The same holds true with your God belief. Not only are you apparently asserting God exists, but your specific God (Yahweh/Jesus).

 

[cvanwey]

And there'd probably also just be just one gospel account rather than 4 ....or more.

I want so badly to respond to this.... But it's an entirely new topic

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Getting warmer.... I don't want to get into all the reasons, and there are many - (trying my 'darndest' to stay focused on this specific topic). As you know, it's sometimes hard for me to do.



Yes, but I trust you realize such a conclusion is shifting the burden of proof the other direction, right?

The Burden of Proof only comes into consideration if Christianity is something that I, 2PV, am actually saddled with in having to prove to other people.

But actually, despite how some people interpret 1 Peter 3:15, I'm feel under no obligation to think that my giving an account of 'my' faith requires that I do so in order for others to 'believe.' I do so because it's my responsibility as a citizen of the Kingdom to represent the King, not to in all necessity convince unbelievers, although if I can indeed help someone to find Christ in their own way, so much the better. But, bye-bye Burden of Proof, and good riddance!

(i.e.) 'Prove my specific alien, in which I believe in, doesn't exist.' And if you can't, then I win.

To me, this is a double 'wammie'. Not only am I asserting the existence of extra terrestrials, but I'm also asserting a very specific alien, in which I believe, exists. And then asking you to somehow disprove both. SO tell me? How does one go about proving a negative?.?.?.?

The same holds true with your God belief. Not only are you apparently asserting God exists, but your specific God (Yahweh/Jesus).

See, this is where those dastardly evangelical foundationalistic apologists have gotten to you, I think. You've be hood-winked to think this is a contest of philosophical chops. But it isn't. And it never really has been. There's simply the fact that you and I both will die, and we both have to think about how our lives now, and what we find in our lives now---such as something like Christianity--might play a part in how we face down our deaths to come...................................................morbid, I know. But true.

 

[cvanwey]

See, this is where those dastardly evangelical foundationalistic apologists have gotten to you, I think. You've be hood-winked to think this is a contest of philosophical chops. But it isn't. And it never really has been. There's simply the fact that you and I both will die, and we both have to think about how our lives now, and what we find in our lives now---such as something like Christianity--might play a part in how we face down our deaths to come...................................................morbid, I know. But true.

Just remember... Another morbid thought... A human's inherit nature to assign 'intentional agency' and invoking 'false positives' is also easily achieved on an atheist's death bed, walking in the dark and hearing a noise, being in war and having everyone in your platoon die but you, etc....

 

[AlexDTX]

Such an assertion assumes the term 'atheist' is a lie, or does not exist, and that no one is a true atheist.

atheist - 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods' (Oxford Dicionary)

I'm seeking clarification here... Did you provide such verses because you adopt the position that everyone 'knows' a god actually exists, and that the one's whom state they don't, are liars in some capacity?

The verse does not say everyone knows of God's existence, but that his invisible attributes are known through the [order] of creation. One may be an atheist in one's mind, but in the heart everyone knows of God's existence. However, the language of the heart is more akin to Jungian archtypes than conscious thought, so less understood by the conscious mind.

 

[cvanwey]

The verse does not say everyone knows of God's existence, but that his invisible attributes are known through the [order] of creation. One may be an atheist in one's mind, but in the heart everyone knows of God's existence. However, the language of the heart is more akin to Jungian archtypes than conscious thought, so less understood by the conscious mind.

Your answer is confusing, and I seek clarification. You begin by stating, 'The verse does not say everyone knows of God's existence'. But then is immediately followed up with 'but that his invisible attributes are known through the [order] of creation.'

So which one is it? Are all atheists actually partially or completely lying, or not???

You then go on to contradict your prior statement, yet again, by stating 'One may be an atheist in one's mind, but in the heart everyone knows of God's existence.'

So which one is it? Are all atheists actually partially or completely lying, or not???

Because if I follow what you are saying, you are at least accusing non-believers as at least being intellectually dishonest.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just remember... Another morbid thought... A human's inherit nature to assign 'intentional agency' and invoking 'false positives' is also easily achieved on an atheist's death bed

...this isn't really saying much. There is no guarantee than 1) anyone will always really know their own death with actually transpire and thereby predispose himself in advance and in preparation or 2) that a person who knows he or she will see fit to reach out to the "God who IS" in any meaningful way that merits salvation.

..., walking in the dark and hearing a noise, being in war and having everyone in your platoon die but you, etc....

Then, there is the messy psychological stuff in our trying to figure out if it is these instance which are driving other people in their epistemic discomforts, or we're just hypothesizing about how other people's experiences have been what they have been even though those experiences are not our own experiences, and we're actually having difficulty believing for other reasons altogether different than these..........like, those attending the thoughts of, "Dang! I really do want to live the life of Hugh Hefner!" or "Dang, the world looks so, so, so good that I don't really want to repent and reach up toward the face of God and have a come to Jesus moment in my life." How about that?

 

[Chriliman]

But I must ask, in light of your response, and also the fact that I'm now curious... What is your definition of 'faith', in this particular case? Faith can mean differing things, in differing situations; and also differs from person to person.

Faith is defined in the Bible as "evidence of things unseen, assurance of things hoped for", which to me essentially means to put your faith in things that you believe will happen based on good reasoning/evidence.

I do know 'faith' is mentioned quite a lot in the Bible. But unfortunately, it appears to elude to the 'worst' kind. Meaning, blind faith. And in such a case, such faith can be used for any and every opposing religion - equally as effective; in regards to the religions you reject. And quite honestly, I may 'know' the underlying reasons why you reject all other asserted and opposing religions... You were born into this one, and/or are majoritively surrounded by this one - (the reason I state this, is because it is the same for me).

Honestly, I think many religions exist because of varying degrees of misunderstanding or direct opposition to the true and good way of living peacefully with one another, which simply involves loving one another and loving God who first informed us, from long ago, of that good and right way of living.

Does it matter that God has always existed or somehow came into existence like the rest of us? I'm not really sure, but what is important is what He teaches and if He is indeed immortal then that teaching will always exist and be with us, reminding us to be loving, not careless or conniving.

Based upon your response, it seems to appear that you believe out of hope, and/or 'just in case'? I'm not trying to 'strawman' you, just looking for clarity; as you appear to present some of the same fundamental reasons I wholeheartedly believed for decades.

Regardless, I hope that you explore what type of 'faith' you are using. Some versions of faith are more synonymous with 'trust' or 'hope'. Trust is earned, and applied to 'knowing' something does exist, and then electing to trust in it. 'Hope' may also apply to a 'known' agent, and in the 'hopes' this 'known' agent will do what you want. Both such propositions can apply to a form of 'faith.'

When it comes to the afterlife, I do believe out of hope. When it comes to God and what He says, I believe because I've put His word into practice and have seen good results. Loving others is a solid practice and I'm thankful for being taught to do that.

Blind faith

, however, is hoping the agent actually exists, or inferring it must exist, because you have no better conclusion established, which is the argument from ignorance most violate from time to time, including myself for things.

I agree, putting your faith in something for which there is no evidence is blind and foolish.

 

[cvanwey]

Faith is defined in the Bible as "evidence of things unseen, assurance of things hoped for", which to me essentially means to put your faith in things that you believe will happen based on good reasoning/evidence.



Honestly, I think many religions exist because of varying degrees of misunderstanding or direct opposition to the true and good way of living peacefully with one another, which simply involves loving one another and loving God who first informed us, from long ago, of that good and right way of living.

Does it matter that God has always existed or somehow came into existence like the rest of us? I'm not really sure, but what is important is what He teaches and if He is indeed immortal then that teaching will always exist and be with us, reminding us to be loving, not careless or conniving.



When it comes to the afterlife, I do believe out of hope. When it comes to God and what He says, I believe because I've put His word into practice and have seen good results. Loving others is a solid practice and I'm thankful for being taught to do that.



I agree, putting your faith in something for which there is no evidence is blind and foolish.

I appreciate your response. Now I would like to circle back, as it relates to my OP But prior to this, I would like to give you (my) rendition of 'faith'.

To me, faith means retaining a fundamental belief, in spite of possible opposing evidence. Faith also means pretending to know something unknown. Faith means to wish or hope something is true, because you want it to be. Faith also means, again, to me, not objectively following evidence, due to the desire to fulfill one's hope of a specific result.

Sorry, I do not possess or share the same opinion of the word faith No viable definition, for the word 'faith', appears to be evidence based. This is why I asked you for your definition. Faith appears the antithesis to evidence. The Bible does not appear to elude to any better conclusion either.

It seems you may be referencing another concept of faith, which is fine. But does not appear to be the definition of the actual word 'faith'.

Anywho, moving forward, I wanted to completely circle back to the OP.

If a God is presumably all power and all loving, what would be the point in 'deliberately' not answering my repeated requests to know He exists? If God knows I would then never doubt His specific existence, and still have the ability to apply 'free will' to decide whether or not to love, worship, and obey, why not just reveal Himself? Why remain hidden, in spite of the fact he has presented himself to many. Appears very illogical, and completely contradicts God's claimed nature....

You see, this is what I would conclude as 'blind faith.' Moving forward, if I were to be a 'Christian', I would instead have to instill and implement my past indoctrination, and apply 'blind faith'. This, to me, is not honest with myself. Hence, the reason I stated 'knowledge of existence' becomes the starting point.

Thoughts?

 

[cvanwey]

in any meaningful way that merits salvation.

What methodology merits salvation, and what is your source?

Then, there is the messy psychological stuff in our trying to figure out if it is these instance which are driving other people in their epistemic discomforts, or we're just hypothesizing about how other people's experiences have been what they have been even though those experiences are not our own experiences, and we're actually having difficulty believing for other reasons altogether different than these..........like, those attending the thoughts of, "Dang! I really do want to live the life of Hugh Hefner!" or "Dang, the world looks so, so, so good that I don't really want to repent and reach up toward the face of God and have a come to Jesus moment in my life." How about that?

No one would have to actually repent. Again, all would be given free choice or free will. However, makes sense to at least present a level playing field for all. However, seems odd that many have not been 'instilled' with the 'knowledge' to the one true God? Especially since there appears no logical reason to withhold such information?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What methodology merits salvation, and what is your source?

I'm not talking about epistemological methodology pertaining to belief, nor am I even talking about some kind of act of subscribing to a specific Christian theology by which one can be 'defined' by some Christian group as qualifying as 'saved' by that group's interpretive measures.

No, when I refer to a response to God in a "meaningful way," I'm simply talking about an existential moment of human realization where a person who is close to death genuinely reaches out in hope and with a contrite state of mind toward the Living Christ as He is and not necessarily as any of us yet fully know Him to be. See the difference? So, methodology? No, there isn't one, although belief and baptism earlier on in life would be the better situation, obvioiusly. But in the case of which we're speaking of here, it's just a matter of reaching out to God in Christ when you know you're about to breath your last..........................................but hopefully reaching out way before then.

No one would have to actually repent. Again, all would be given free choice or free will. However, makes sense to at least present a level playing field for all. However, seems odd that many have not been 'instilled' with the 'knowledge' to the one true God? Especially since there appears no logical reason to withhold such information?

No, according to our personal epistemic 'tastes,' we think there's no "good" reason for God to withhold such information from us. Really, whether something SHOULD be one way or another will depend on the person who is wanting to be so informed and to have that information delivered in a certain way. But then again, you're talking to a person (me) who is an Inclusivist and not an Exclusivist. I don't necessarily think a person HAS, in all instances, to hear about Christ and then make a specific, so-called personal response to the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as He is in Himself in order to be saved. No, I think Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection could possibly extend to any person who, even apart from a specific knowledge about Christ, reaches out to God as He IS (and not specifically as Vishnu, Buddha, or trust in some other erroneous conceptualization about God, such as the one that Muslim's have) and Christ's Grace could be extended to that person.

In other words, there could be some lone young man in India at this moment who is contemplating the shortcomings of Hinduism and is thereby, even though not informed about Jesus, reaches out existentially to that one True Being, Creator of All, God of All, who Is as He is and is not as he has been told God is, and asks for whatever mercy and hope that God might bestow upon Him. In such a case, particularly if that lone young man, let's say, is close to death, could very well still be covered by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

(And yes, yes. I know. Jesus says in John's Gospel that those who believe will be saved, and Paul says that belief in the Gospel of Christ comes by hearing and all that......I get that. I'm just saying that while God does have a main mode and plan for spreading His Gospel into the world, that however, those like Abraham who did not really know of Christ yet had faith in God as He is, then those perhaps who have come after the time of Jesus' first advent could, potentially, although not certainly, be covered by Christ's grace through a faith that discerns the difference between local customs about the divine and the biblical sense of God).

However, those who have a reason to fear are those who, like the Pharisees of old, have been definitely given a specific and epistemically clear enough message about Jesus, with no real misunderstanding, but they yet utterly refuse to come to Jesus ................................................................. those are the ones who are in trouble.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not talking about epistemological methodology pertaining to belief, nor am I even talking about some kind of act of subscribing to a specific Christian theology by which one can be 'defined' by some Christian group as qualifying as 'saved' by that group's interpretive measures.

No, when I refer to a response to God in a "meaningful way," I'm simply talking about an existential moment of human realization where a person who is close to death genuinely reaches out in hope and with a contrite state of mind toward the Living Christ as He is and not necessarily as any of us yet fully know Him to be. See the difference? So, methodology? No, there isn't one, although belief and baptism earlier on in life would be the better situation, obvioiusly. But in the case of which we're speaking of here, it's just a matter of reaching out to God in Christ when you know you're about to breath your last..........................................but hopefully reaching out way before then.

Oh, I actually knew what you were saying, and thank you for giving me your take (in answering that question), in the second part of your response...

No, according to our personal epistemic 'tastes,' we think there's no "good" reason for God to withhold such information from us. Really, whether something SHOULD be one way or another will depend on the person who is wanting to be so informed and to have that information delivered in a certain way. But then again, you're talking to a person (me) who is an Inclusivist and not an Exclusivist. I don't necessarily think a person HAS, in all instances, to hear about Christ and then make a specific, so-called personal response to the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit as He is in Himself in order to be saved. No, I think Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection could possibly extend to any person who, even apart from a specific knowledge about Christ, reaches out to God as He IS (and not specifically as Vishnu, Buddha, or trust in some other erroneous conceptualization about God, such as the one that Muslim's have) and Christ's Grace could be extended to that person.

In other words, there could be some lone young man in India at this moment who is contemplating the shortcomings of Hinduism and is thereby, even though not informed about Jesus, reaches out existentially to that one True Being, Creator of All, God of All, who Is as He is and is not as he has been told God is, and asks for whatever mercy and hope that God might bestow upon Him. In such a case, particularly if that lone young man, let's say, is close to death, could very well still be covered by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

(And yes, yes. I know. Jesus says in John's Gospel that those who believe will be saved, and Paul says that belief in the Gospel of Christ comes by hearing and all that......I get that. I'm just saying that while God does have a main mode and plan for spreading His Gospel into the world, that however, those like Abraham who did not really know of Christ yet had faith in God as He is, then those perhaps who have come after the time of Jesus' first advent could, potentially, although not certainly, be covered by Christ's grace through a faith that discerns the difference between local customs about the divine and the biblical sense of God).

However, those who have a reason to fear are those who, like the Pharisees of old, have been definitely given a specific and epistemically clear enough message about Jesus, with no real misunderstanding, but they yet utterly refuse to come to Jesus ................................................................. those are the ones who are in trouble.

This is a nice thought. However, (to me), the Bible appears very clear, very direct, and very precise; in regards to the methodology for salvation. I see little room for extrapolation on this one... In contrast, one could read certain verses in the Bible, which appear to conclude one is judged by what they give up for, and also give to others. And yes, other verses, also seem clear in believing, faith, and baptism. It is not abundantly clear, as some argue both ends (belief verses works). To me it is one way, to you it may be another.

But again, regardless of if I get 'mentally prepared', or not, the 'knowledge of existence' should be instilled upon me, as axiomatically as being diagnosed with a disease. I maybe don't want it, and even hope it's not true. But the evidence is in my face where I have no choice but to address it and accept its reality. I'm not using this analogy to show disdain towards a God. But I hope you understand my position. It should be common knowledge, it should be presented in a way where there exists no further discussion, in regards to the existence. Choices are then made, from this specific common knowledge of Jesus, and not Vishnu, Brahma, Zeus, etc...

It becomes the starting point, and presents a level playing field for all to be judged accordingly. And yes, many can still fail, like the pharisees.

I honestly do not see this as breaking the 'is verses ought fallacy.' It just seems logical, and not emotional.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I actually knew what you were saying, and thank you for giving me your take (in answering that question), in the second part of your response...



This is a nice thought. However, (to me), the Bible appears very clear, very direct, and very precise; in regards to the methodology for salvation. I see little room for extrapolation on this one... In contrast, one could read certain verses in the Bible, which appear to conclude one is judged by what they give up for, and also give to others. And yes, other verses, also seem clear in believing, faith, and baptism. It is not abundantly clear, as some argue both ends (belief verses works). To me it is one way, to you it may be another.

But again, regardless of if I get 'mentally prepared', or not, the 'knowledge of existence' should be instilled upon me, as axiomatically as being diagnosed with a disease. I maybe don't want it, and even hope it's not true. But the evidence is in my face where I have no choice but to address it and accept its reality. I'm not using this analogy to show disdain towards a God. But I hope you understand my position. It should be common knowledge, it should be presented in a way where there exists no further discussion, in regards to the existence. Choices are then made, from this specific common knowledge of Jesus, and not Vishnu, Brahma, Zeus, etc...

It becomes the starting point, and presents a level playing field for all to be judged accordingly. And yes, many can still fail, like the pharisees.

I honestly do not see this as breaking the 'is verses ought fallacy.' It just seems logical, and not emotional.

And if a Being did show up, ipso facto, in front of your face, how would you ensure that this Being who claims to be the Great Supreme Divine Thing-a-ma-Jig is indeed the greatest of the great Supreme Divine Beings? Would His doing a miracle in front of you surely provide the 'evidence' that you so surely seek? And if He did appear to you, like He did with Job let's say, and He was a bit brusque and obscure with you, also like He was with Job, would that be a reason for you to rebel, or would you just take in in stride and finally say, "Hallelujah!"

 

[cvanwey]

And if a Being did show up, ipso facto, in front of your face, how would you ensure that this Being who claims to be the Great Supreme Divine Thing-a-ma-Jig is indeed the greatest of the great Supreme Divine Beings? Would His doing a miracle in front of you surely provide the 'evidence' that you so surely seek? And if He did appear to you, like He did with Job let's say, and He was a bit brusque and obscure with you, also like He was with Job, would that be a reason for you to rebel, or would you just take in in stride and finally say, "Hallelujah!"

I honestly don't know, but would like to be given the opportunity - Like many claim to have had (some and not others, which appears to present favoritism)...

Furthermore, God, being 'all knowing' and all, would know my required 'evidence' to accept His existence as reality to me. I would then have NO choice, but to view the Bible as presented from the actual stated source, from which it is claimed, (verses) written by men, with their own personal agendas. You see, 'knowledge of the existence' becomes the starting point. My bias currently tells me the Bible is man-made. I have no choice, because I currently only accept the existence of humans. If I accepted the existence of Yahweh, now we have a whole new ball game.

Hence, the reason why I see people (believers) viewing the Bible waaaay differently than I. They view it as inspired. I do not, because I think it wasn't, because I'm skeptical there even exists an agent out there to provide as such. If God's so-called power was able to 'harden the Pharaoh's heart', 'present evidence to doubting Thomas', and also claims omnibenevolence and omnipresence, I see no issue.... Do you?