Correct, but I'll add to that a bit, to help my original questions be answered.
I believe that God exists. I believe this because look around, the universe is incredibly complex. When someone sees a picture they know that there was a painter, when someone sees a clock they know that there was a clockmaker. Through logic, reason and science we can see that something superior to creation must exist, a Creator.
You're off to a good start.
That's all that any of us can be 100% sure of.
You must first decide if you have to be 100% sure of something in order to believe it. Can you even be 100% sure that the sky is blue? It is possible that all our eyes are malfunctioning due to a genetic problem and it is really pink. Can you even be 100% sure that the world exists? How do you know it isn't actually a virtual reality setup?
A healthier approach to believing something is not a 100% sureness, but a reasonable assuredness. In other words, the proof (logical, scientific, legal, or what have you) supporting something is reasonably greater then that rejecting it.
We can't be sure that he had a son. And why should we be expected to believe that God had a son when it defies logic and reason?
But it does not defy logic and reason. the Christian stance is not the Jesus is the literal son of God. In other words, Jesus did not spring from the loins of God. The Christian position (for the most part) is that the term father and son refer to the different roles and interaction between two of the three entities of God which have always existed together and equally. This is the understanding of the trinity.
God created us with an intellic so that we could use it.
You are absolutely right.
Through the things that God created us with: logic, reason, sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, love, hate, etc. we can experience the creation of God. Do these instincts lead us to believe in certain sacred text, religios figures, etc? Many would say yes to that question, and all that did would claim that different texts, different interpretations of those texts, and different leaders were the end result of their instincts.
I would be one of those.
So, we can't be at all sure of which claimed revelation is true because there are so many different claimed revelations.
If there are several different views, then logically we know that either they are not actually conflicting or are conflicting with each other. Of those that are conflicting we know that only one of them can be right. This being the case, why can't we determine which it is? We were created as logical beings and as such have the capability of doing just that.
And ALL of them have records of miraculous healings and various different miracles.
So, what can we be sure of.
We can be sure that not all of the miracles happened. We must use our minds to determine if the miracles of the Bible really did happen.
I can be sure that as I look outside this window with this amazing miracle of sight I see millions of miracles, a bird feeder which attracts these beautiful, flying, feathered miracles to find their sustenance, beautiful flowers that spring from a tiny seed, trees that reach up to the heavens, mosquitoes that remind me that in all of this beauty there is still pain and that pain is a necessity, a family in the rooms around me that shower me with their love and I them. These are miracles that I can know, miracles with which I see the rich love of the Divine Author lavished upon me from the very beginning of creation.
I'm surrounded by created things that call for care and protection. Creation that calls for peace and civil justice.
Just as you can use your mind to know these truths, so can you use it to know the truths of Christ as revealed through the Bible.
Let us first start with the Bible. Setting aside the miracles recorded in it (for the moment) can the accounts written in the Bible be trusted?
The earliest known manuscript of the Bible has been dated to AD 130. This is 100 years after the crucifixion. Considering the materials used at the time for writing and it's tendency to burn, tear or just plainly disintegrate over time it is quite likely that much earlier manuscripts existed.
There is another reason for an earlier date for the writing of the New Testament. This is lack of certain information. Just thirty years prier to the writing of the manuscript I mentioned an event that rocked the lands of the middle east took place. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
The complete destruction of the holiest site in Judaism and the carnage of mass suicide and slaughter and scales that the world had yet to know was not soon forgotten. If the bible had been compiled around AD 130, then there should have been reference to this tragic event, but there is none. Even in the Epistle to the Hebrews who would be displaced and distraught by the event more then any other group, there was no mention of this act. Such negligence would require intent. So, either the New Testament was written before AD 70 or the writer was a con-man.
But the idea of a con-man does not hold up to logic. If it had suddenly come on the scene in AD 130 and was made to look as if were written before AD 70, then the con-man has a problem. Where have the writings been over the last thirty years? Why has no-one else ever heard of it.
This, however, is not the only problem that the con-man would have to face. The New Testament is made up of writings by different authors. If it was made by different authors, this means that several different people had to coordinate their writing to have no contradictions and to leave out any reference to the most notable event in secular history in that region.
If it was all written by the same con-man then he had to be the most talented author the world has ever known. To be able to write in so many different styles and with such different personality is almost impossible.
As such, logic dictates that the Bible was written before AD 70. This is about forty years after the ministry of Jesus. This means that while the writings of the New Testament was being circulated, those who had actually witnessed the events recorded in the New Testament would still be alive. Granted, allot of these people would have been favorable to the writings because they were Christians, but there would also have been many witnesses that would have not been favorable towards it. People like the Jews and Romans (who were trying to stomp out the new religion). If these witnesses would have said that the writings were wrong, the whole thing would have ended there. They did not and it did not. If all the witnesses would have been in favor of the New Testament then such could be shrugged off, but many of the witnesses were against the Christian. Logic dictates that the events recorded in the New Testament are accurate.
I would challenge you to find any such religious account that has such logical proof.
Due to the length of this so far, I will stop here for the moment and write some more later. I hope I am makeing sence so far.
