The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Colter]

"The method" produces no consistent or predictable results. As such, it's a rather poor method.

The question that's important here is, if one uses your method....and has some subsequent "experience"....how does one determine that experience was related to god?

If the answer to this is any version of "you just know"...then I'd be forced to conclude that your method is utterly useless. The reason why should be obvious to even a believer.

Shoe shopping for an Atheist must be torture!

"How do theses look Margie?"

"Great!"

"Oh but how can you be certain?" "what at will testable proof do you have that they look "great?" Will everyone who sees theses shoes on me have the exact same reaction?" "And don't give me that nonsense about how "you just know" Margie, we've all had quite enough of your unprovable personal opinion!"

No, rather I don't think Atheist are nearly as anal-retentive when it comes to their own lives as they pretend to be when they pick at the religious.


To answer your question, while certainty may grow through daily living in faith, there is no certainty I can give you about my experience with God. God is living, he is not a mathematical formula.

The real revelation of God to man is in the lives that we live. Jesus lived a God revealing life. To have seen Jesus was to see the Father. But still, no certainty.

In the original gospel, before Paganized Christianity remixed it, the core of Jesus' "good news" was the realization that we are ALL in fact sons and daughters of God. That by faith we can realize this ennobling truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"what at will testable proof do you have [that a particular pair of shoes] look "great?"

Poor analogy.

Whether or not shoes look "great" to one is a matter of taste. Answering the question "do shoes exist?" is where empiricism is valuable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Shoe shopping for an Atheist must be torture!

"How do theses look Margie?"

"Great!"

"Oh but how can you be certain?" "what at will testable proof do you have that they look "great?" Will everyone who sees theses shoes on me have the exact same reaction?" "And don't give me that nonsense about how "you just know" Margie, we've all had quite enough of your unprovable personal opinion!"

No, rather I don't think Atheist are nearly as anal-retentive when it comes to their own lives as they pretend to be when they pick at the religious.

Although this is presumably meant as a jibe at atheists, I wonder if you see that you've just compared religious belief to one's shoe preferences. I don't think believers choose their theology in the same manner that they choose their shoes, though your analogy would imply otherwise.

 

[Colter]

Poor analogy.

Whether or not shoes look "great" to one is a matter of taste. Answering the question "do shoes exist?" is where empiricism is valuable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Me thinks you take yourself to seriously, it was humor.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Me thinks you take yourself to seriously, it was humor.

That's not always apparent online. We can't see your facial expressions or hear your tone of voice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Hi Colter

Well, good to know faith 'isn't enough,' but when I was a believer, I was taught that it 'should' be enough. Soooo...it's not enough for you, either. Does this mean you have scads of proof to share?

"The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are."

Jesus would have had doubts, but his doubts never became a religion, his faith became a religion. It wasn't so much that he wanted man to merely believe in him as he asked us to trust and believe with him; to share his faith in the Universal Father. Atheism is a religion of doubt, it's a form of faith because they cannot disprove God to the point of certainty.

But I have no absolute proof, even Jesus demonstrated that so called miraculous proof is overrated. He would perform some amazing act of healing yet some religious fanatic would point out how he didn't wash his hands before he ate??? Or claim that he got his power from Satan. Man may develop spiritual laziness if he were "certain".

I've grown, through experience, to appreciate the Fathers love and wisdom in allowing me to find truth legitimately rather then violating his own natural way, depriving me of the exhilarating adventure out on the high seas of faith adventure. Some of my friends who are former Atheist came by faith legitimately, they didn't buy into a ready made religion, rather through experience they came to a faith in a God of their own understanding.

While I have had tons of experiences and observations of God, as well as doubts, I can share this fact with you. On the day of my unanticipated psychic conversion, I was a hopeless, drug addicted alcoholic who often entertained suicide. My life was an unmanageable mess! I was anti religious, although I never had a big problem with Jesus the man. One moment I had no hope, the next moment I had hope. (There was no at will testable BS process).

They say that when the pupil is ready the teacher will appear. I'm so humbled by the fact that I didn't even realize how profound my personality change was, others saw it in me, my family, friends, but alls I knew was that I wanted help and went to a 12 place to get it. I haven't had a drink it drug for 29 years. People who new me say I only mildly resemble the criminal a-hole they once knew.

Other things about me that you may note:

* I do not now nor have I ever thought that God wrote ANY of the current books on the list that make up the Bible. The books of the bible were written by holy men, some more holy than others. The OT books were redacted and edited during the Babylonian captivity, they were written by the elite Hebrew priest class for a scattered Israelite audience. They made NO claim of writing the word of God. They took a mostly ordinary secular history and converted it into a miraculous fiction! After the return the Jews would frankly loose sight of their destiny and purpose, sadly they rejected the Son when he finally did come. Further complicating matters was the contamination of evolved Christianity by OT thinking and the prevailing Pagan doctrines of human sacrifice.

* I believe in cosmic evolution, the fragmented story of Adam and Eve shows evidence of their arrival on a previously populated, fallen earth.

* The Noah flood story is the most ridiculous story in the bible, it was a result of the Hebrew priests failure to trace their blood line back to a much older Adam, so they just decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness to fill in the gap.

* Jesus knew the errors of the scripture, but rather than
reform Judaism, he revealed new truths making use of what was true in the older writings and letting the untrue ideas die on the vine.

* In the plan of life God has has decreed that "human wisdom must evolve", he will not deprive us of that. Besides, man is in partnership with God in the evolution of God the Supreme in time and space through the collective of our unique, individual faith experiences in the very face of uncertainty.

 

[bhsmte]

"The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are."


This statement, reeks of psychological predisposition, independent of facts.

So, as science has made discoveries such as; medical advances, computers, etc. etc., how can you claim these discoveries made man "less sure" of how to use science to improve the lives of people? It would appear, the more science has discovered, the more sure man has become in how to improve life and hence, why we have advancements that actually work.

What you are really referring to is this; science loves questions, because discovering the answers to questions is how we advance and science also has no problem saying; we don't know the answer to that question, but we are working on it. Religion on the other hand, doesn't really care for hard questions and also has a real difficult time acknowledging; we don't know the answer to that question, so they just make stuff up.

 

[variant]

This statement, reeks of psychological predisposition, independent of facts.

Its odd that someone would feel that "being certain" of what they don't know is a virtue.

Acting like you know more than you do is not virtuous it is hubris.

 

[True Scotsman]

Shoe shopping for an Atheist must be torture!

"How do theses look Margie?"

"Great!"

"Oh but how can you be certain?" "what at will testable proof do you have that they look "great?" Will everyone who sees theses shoes on me have the exact same reaction?" "And don't give me that nonsense about how "you just know" Margie, we've all had quite enough of your unprovable personal opinion!"

No, rather I don't think Atheist are nearly as anal-retentive when it comes to their own lives as they pretend to be when they pick at the religious.


To answer your question, while certainty may grow through daily living in faith, there is no certainty I can give you about my experience with God. God is living, he is not a mathematical formula.

The real revelation of God to man is in the lives that we live. Jesus lived a God revealing life. To have seen Jesus was to see the Father. But still, no certainty.

In the original gospel, before Paganized Christianity remixed it, the core of Jesus' "good news" was the realization that we are ALL in fact sons and daughters of God. That by faith we can realize this ennobling truth.

It is ridiculous to compare a situation like, a subjective opinion about a pair of shoes, with the most fundamental questions about the universe that have implications for all of knowledge. Just ridiculous.

I am anal retentive as you say when it comes to the truth. I know that there is no innocent breach of reason. You can't say let me have this one irrational belief and I'll be reasonable about everything else because reality is a whole, not a bunch of disconnected facts. If you fake one that will necessarily lead to faking others.

Last February I was driving home a little after 8 o'clock and I had one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I and my son saw a real honest to goodness UFO. It was a huge glowing orange shape and some smaller shapes hanging in the sky with absolutely no sound. Looked like a big crown with two spikes sticking up off the top. It was cruising along and then just took off like a bat out of you know where. Now I know what I saw was not something ordinary or within the realm of current technology. It was no plane, blimp or helicopter, nor was it reflections off of clouds. It was real. I saw it again the next night with my daughters. Other people saw the same thing from a different location.

What was it? I don't know. Was it evidence of aliens? No. Was it evidence of a space ship from another planet? No. It was something unexplained and that is it. Did I want it to be a real live spaceship? Yes that would be amazing, but I can't say that without real evidence and my wanting it to be doesn't make it so. I could imagine all sorts of things that it might be but that is not knowledge. In reason you don't get to say "well that is plausible" I'll go with that explanation.. No. I apply the same standards of evidence to everything. You don't get to make up answers to fill gaps and say it's true. That is not how reason works.

We can have certainty about some things. You must start from what we can be certain of, existence exists, and proceed to find out what we can about the world. If an idea contradicts what we already know then it is false. The process for doing that is logic and contrary to your view that it is overrated, it is the only method we have for adhering to reality and not floating off into koo koo lala land.

 

[Colter]

"The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are."


This statement, reeks of psychological predisposition, independent of facts.

So, as science has made discoveries such as; medical advances, computers, etc. etc., how can you claim these discoveries made man "less sure" of how to use science to improve the lives of people? It would appear, the more science has discovered, the more sure man has become in how to improve life and hence, why we have advancements that actually work.

What you are really referring to is this; science loves questions, because discovering the answers to questions is how we advance and science also has no problem saying; we don't know the answer to that question, but we are working on it. Religion on the other hand, doesn't really care for hard questions and also has a real difficult time acknowledging; we don't know the answer to that question, so they just make stuff up.

I think you heard something that the quote didn't say. The exploration of science does in fact benefit mankind, but the quote is more about science unlocking mystery leading to more fascinating questions about the origins of the material universe. I will broaden the quote:

"The reason of science is based on the observable facts of time; the faith of religion argues from the spirit program of eternity. What knowledge and reason cannot do for us, true wisdom admonishes us to allow faith to accomplish through religious insight and spiritual transformation.

Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia (earth) has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.

The certainties of science proceed entirely from the intellect; the certitudes of religion spring from the very foundations of the entire personality. Science appeals to the understanding of the mind; religion appeals to the loyalty and devotion of the body, mind, and spirit, even to the whole personality.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality."



​

 

[bhsmte]

I think you heard something that the quote didn't say. The exploration of science does in fact benefit mankind, but the quote is more about science unlocking mystery leading to more fascinating questions about the origins of the material universe. I will broaden the quote:

"The reason of science is based on the observable facts of time; the faith of religion argues from the spirit program of eternity. What knowledge and reason cannot do for us, true wisdom admonishes us to allow faith to accomplish through religious insight and spiritual transformation.

Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia (earth) has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.

The certainties of science proceed entirely from the intellect; the certitudes of religion spring from the very foundations of the entire personality. Science appeals to the understanding of the mind; religion appeals to the loyalty and devotion of the body, mind, and spirit, even to the whole personality.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality."



​

And, is there something wrong with unlocking these mysterious which science has proven, is more than capable of answering over time?

Should we just not reveal mysteries or answer the questions with empirical evidence and just rely on believing something on faith, without evidence?

 

[Colter]

It is ridiculous to compare a situation like, a subjective opinion about a pair of shoes, with the most fundamental questions about the universe that have implications for all of knowledge. Just ridiculous.

I am anal retentive as you say when it comes to the truth. I know that there is no innocent breach of reason. You can't say let me have this one irrational belief and I'll be reasonable about everything else because reality is a whole, not a bunch of disconnected facts. If you fake one that will necessarily lead to faking others.

Last February I was driving home a little after 8 o'clock and I had one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I and my son saw a real honest to goodness UFO. It was a huge glowing orange shape and some smaller shapes hanging in the sky with absolutely no sound. Looked like a big crown with two spikes sticking up off the top. It was cruising along and then just took off like a bat out of you know where. Now I know what I saw was not something ordinary or within the realm of current technology. It was no plane, blimp or helicopter, nor was it reflections off of clouds. It was real. I saw it again the next night with my daughters. Other people saw the same thing from a different location.

What was it? I don't know. Was it evidence of aliens? No. Was it evidence of a space ship from another planet? No. It was something unexplained and that is it. Did I want it to be a real live spaceship? Yes that would be amazing, but I can't say that without real evidence and my wanting it to be doesn't make it so. I could imagine all sorts of things that it might be but that is not knowledge. In reason you don't get to say "well that is plausible" I'll go with that explanation.. No. I apply the same standards of evidence to everything. You don't get to make up answers to fill gaps and say it's true. That is not how reason works.

We can have certainty about some things. You must start from what we can be certain of, existence exists, and proceed to find out what we can about the world. If an idea contradicts what we already know then it is false. The process for doing that is logic and contrary to your view that it is overrated, it is the only method we have for adhering to reality and not floating off into koo koo lala land.

Scotsman, you talk as if you have a monopoly on reality, none of us do. Taken altogether, science and religion, we hardly know anything about the universe in which we live yet we haven't floated off into koo koo land.

(1137.5) 103:6.15 The highest attainable philosophy of mortal man must be logically based on the reason of science, the faith of religion, and the truth insight afforded by revelation. By this union man can compensate somewhat for his failure to develop an adequate metaphysics and for his inability to comprehend the mota of the morontia.

7. Science and Religion

(1137.6) 103:7.1 Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit.

(1137.7) 103:7.2 True salvation is the technique of the divine evolution of the mortal mind from matter identification through the realms of morontia liaison to the high universe status of spiritual correlation. And as material intuitive instinct precedes the appearance of reasoned knowledge in terrestrial evolution, so does the manifestation of spiritual intuitive insight presage the later appearance of morontia and spirit reason and experience in the supernal program of celestial evolution, the business of transmuting the potentials of man the temporal into the actuality and divinity of man the eternal, a Paradise finaliter.

(1138.1) 103:7.3 But as ascending man reaches inward and Paradiseward for the God experience, he will likewise be reaching outward and spaceward for an energy understanding of the material cosmos. The progression of science is not limited to the terrestrial life of man; his universe and superuniverse ascension experience will to no small degree be the study of energy transmutation and material metamorphosis. God is spirit, but Deity is unity, and the unity of Deity not only embraces the spiritual values of the Universal Father and the Eternal Son but is also cognizant of the energy facts of the Universal Controller and the Isle of Paradise, while these two phases of universal reality are perfectly correlated in the mind relationships of the Conjoint Actor and unified on the finite level in the emerging Deity of the Supreme Being.

(1138.2) 103:7.4 The union of the scientific attitude and the religious insight by the mediation of experiential philosophy is part of man’s long Paradise-ascension experience. The approximations of mathematics and the certainties of insight will always require the harmonizing function of mind logic on all levels of experience short of the maximum attainment of the Supreme.

(1138.3) 103:7.5 But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach.

(1138.4) 103:7.6 Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

(1138.5) 103:7.7 What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

(1138.6) 103:7.8 The truth — an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values — can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

(1139.1) 103:7.9 The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty.

(1139.2) 103:7.10 In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.

(1139.3) 103:7.11 All divisions of human thought are predicated on certain assumptions which are accepted, though unproved, by the constitutive reality sensitivity of the mind endowment of man. Science starts out on its vaunted career of reasoning by assuming the reality of three things: matter, motion, and life. Religion starts out with the assumption of the validity of three things: mind, spirit, and the universe — the Supreme Being.

(1139.4) 103:7.12 Science becomes the thought domain of mathematics, of the energy and material of time in space. Religion assumes to deal not only with finite and temporal spirit but also with the spirit of eternity and supremacy. Only through a long experience in mota can these two extremes of universe perception be made to yield analogous interpretations of origins, functions, relations, realities, and destinies. The maximum harmonization of the energy-spirit divergence is in the encircuitment of the Seven Master Spirits; the first unification thereof, in the Deity of the Supreme; the finality unity thereof, in the infinity of the First Source and Center, the I AM.

(1139.5) 103:7.13 Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness — something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values.

(1139.6) 103:7.14 There is a real proof of spiritual reality in the presence of the Thought Adjuster, but the validity of this presence is not demonstrable to the external world, only to the one who thus experiences the indwelling of God. The consciousness of the Adjuster is based on the intellectual reception of truth, the supermind perception of goodness, and the personality motivation to love.

(1139.7) 103:7.15 Science discovers the material world, religion evaluates it, and philosophy endeavors to interpret its meanings while co-ordinating the scientific material viewpoint with the religious spiritual concept. But history is a realm in which science and religion may never fully agree.​

 

[bhsmte]

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has provided the computer for you to type your message?

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has driven medicine to advance to the point it is today?

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has provided you with a car, a house with heat, air conditioning and a television to watch.

Which koo koo land specifically are you referring to?

 

[Colter]

And, is there something wrong with unlocking these mysterious which science has proven, is more than capable of answering over time?

Should we just not reveal mysteries or answer the questions with empirical evidence and just rely on believing something on faith, without evidence?

No, nothing wrong with studying the material world. There is the realm of the material where scientist operate and the realm of the spiritual where spiritualist operate. A spiritual scientist can jugs as well research the material realm and visa verse.

 

[Hetta]

Scotsman, you talk as if you have a monopoly on reality, none of us do. Taken altogether, science and religion, we hardly know anything about the universe in which we live yet we haven't floated off into koo koo land.

Do you mean cuckoo? As in cloud cuckoo land?

Anyway .. I'm shocked that you think "we" hardly know anything about the universe. Maybe you could take some classes .. read a little .. and then you would know more. I always advise people to listen to 2 or 3 TED Talks every day. Try it. You would be amazed.

 

[Colter]

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has provided the computer for you to type your message?

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has driven medicine to advance to the point it is today?

Are you referring to the koo koo land that has provided you with a car, a house with heat, air conditioning and a television to watch.

Which koo koo land specifically are you referring to?

Scotsman used the term koo koo land in his post.

 

[Hetta]

No, nothing wrong with studying the material world. There is the realm of the material where scientist operate and the realm of the spiritual where spiritualist operate. A spiritual scientist can jugs as well research the material realm and visa verse.

Spiritualists? I thought that the Bible was opposed to spiritualists.

 

[True Scotsman]

Scotsman, you talk as if you have a monopoly on reality, none of us do. Taken altogether, science and religion, we hardly know anything about the universe in which we live yet we haven't floated off into koo koo land.

(1137.5) 103:6.15 The highest attainable philosophy of mortal man must be logically based on the reason of science, the faith of religion, and the truth insight afforded by revelation. By this union man can compensate somewhat for his failure to develop an adequate metaphysics and for his inability to comprehend the mota of the morontia.

7. Science and Religion

(1137.6) 103:7.1 Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit.

(1137.7) 103:7.2 True salvation is the technique of the divine evolution of the mortal mind from matter identification through the realms of morontia liaison to the high universe status of spiritual correlation. And as material intuitive instinct precedes the appearance of reasoned knowledge in terrestrial evolution, so does the manifestation of spiritual intuitive insight presage the later appearance of morontia and spirit reason and experience in the supernal program of celestial evolution, the business of transmuting the potentials of man the temporal into the actuality and divinity of man the eternal, a Paradise finaliter.

(1138.1) 103:7.3 But as ascending man reaches inward and Paradiseward for the God experience, he will likewise be reaching outward and spaceward for an energy understanding of the material cosmos. The progression of science is not limited to the terrestrial life of man; his universe and superuniverse ascension experience will to no small degree be the study of energy transmutation and material metamorphosis. God is spirit, but Deity is unity, and the unity of Deity not only embraces the spiritual values of the Universal Father and the Eternal Son but is also cognizant of the energy facts of the Universal Controller and the Isle of Paradise, while these two phases of universal reality are perfectly correlated in the mind relationships of the Conjoint Actor and unified on the finite level in the emerging Deity of the Supreme Being.

(1138.2) 103:7.4 The union of the scientific attitude and the religious insight by the mediation of experiential philosophy is part of man’s long Paradise-ascension experience. The approximations of mathematics and the certainties of insight will always require the harmonizing function of mind logic on all levels of experience short of the maximum attainment of the Supreme.

(1138.3) 103:7.5 But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach.

(1138.4) 103:7.6 Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

(1138.5) 103:7.7 What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

(1138.6) 103:7.8 The truth — an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values — can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

(1139.1) 103:7.9 The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics, but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty.

(1139.2) 103:7.10 In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.

(1139.3) 103:7.11 All divisions of human thought are predicated on certain assumptions which are accepted, though unproved, by the constitutive reality sensitivity of the mind endowment of man. Science starts out on its vaunted career of reasoning by assuming the reality of three things: matter, motion, and life. Religion starts out with the assumption of the validity of three things: mind, spirit, and the universe — the Supreme Being.

(1139.4) 103:7.12 Science becomes the thought domain of mathematics, of the energy and material of time in space. Religion assumes to deal not only with finite and temporal spirit but also with the spirit of eternity and supremacy. Only through a long experience in mota can these two extremes of universe perception be made to yield analogous interpretations of origins, functions, relations, realities, and destinies. The maximum harmonization of the energy-spirit divergence is in the encircuitment of the Seven Master Spirits; the first unification thereof, in the Deity of the Supreme; the finality unity thereof, in the infinity of the First Source and Center, the I AM.

(1139.5) 103:7.13 Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness — something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values.

(1139.6) 103:7.14 There is a real proof of spiritual reality in the presence of the Thought Adjuster, but the validity of this presence is not demonstrable to the external world, only to the one who thus experiences the indwelling of God. The consciousness of the Adjuster is based on the intellectual reception of truth, the supermind perception of goodness, and the personality motivation to love.

(1139.7) 103:7.15 Science discovers the material world, religion evaluates it, and philosophy endeavors to interpret its meanings while co-ordinating the scientific material viewpoint with the religious spiritual concept. But history is a realm in which science and religion may never fully agree.​

You know that the Urantia Book is not evidence of anything don't you? You keep quoting from it as if it is authoritative. Can you prove any of it because I can prove that it is all made up nonsense and I already have.

I am shocked that none of your fellow Christians have commented on it. I didn't know they accepted it as authoritative. But I guess it is just as valid as the Bible when you take things on faith.

 

[Colter]

You know that the Urantia Book is not evidence of anything don't you? You keep quoting from it as if it is authoritative. Can you prove any of it because I can prove that it is all made up nonsense and I already have.

I am shocked that none of your fellow Christians have commented on it. I didn't know they accepted it as authoritative. But I guess it is just as valid as the Bible when you take things on faith.

You haven't proven anything to me other than you have faith in the Atheist religion ......and you could benefit from a treatment center for Randaholics.

The Urantia Book is evidence of the philosophy of metaphysics and the existence of others who are conscious of such a philosophy. Truth is its own authority.

You aren't searching for spiritual meaning, you are defending the religion of doubt. That's not the attitude of a true scientist or a sincere truth seeker.

 

[bhsmte]

You haven't proven anything to me other than you have faith in the Atheist religion ......and you could benefit from a treatment center for Randaholics.

The Urantia Book is evidence of the philosophy of metaphysics and the existence of others who are conscious of such a philosophy. Truth is its own authority.

You aren't searching for spiritual meaning, you are defending the religion of doubt. That's not the attitude of a true scientist or a sincere truth seeker.

Maybe he relies on objective evidence?

You are free to have faith in what you choose, but if you don't have objective evidence to support it, people will question you.