The Old Testament

[Djevv]

This sort of hand-waving sophistry is rife with logical inconsistencies. It speaks of the soul and its properties as a proven proposition, begging the question.

You speak of communication with God. You speak of God being able to influence people's lives. You speak of God's perfection and omnipotence. What infinitely simple construct can behave in such a way. God is clearly complex, by any definition you wish to table. The question arises as to where he came from. You often cite cause and effect, but suspend it for your God.

As for " 'Dawkins' disciple" (why the ' ' around Dawkins BTW ???). My colleagues would have a good laugh at that, as his view on drivers of evolution differs a bit from my own. However, I realise you were referring to his atheist viewpoint. I do subscribe to much of that logic, so if that makes me a "Dawkins disciple", than so be it. However, I do object the term "disciple" which dogmatic religious adherents like to cast upon non-believers to somehow point out that we are no different, we just blindly follow our own beliefs. However, I would happily dispute Dawkins' conclusions where I see errors in his reasoning, such as in his views on evolution. There is no blind adherence.

Simple as in no component parts. One whole with no division. Not complex. Yes I base this (and my other arguments) on the Bible's revelation without apology - since it is God's revelation of himself - if you don't believe it fine, but those are my premises. Try to remember we WERE discussing the Old Testament.

I meant Dawkins disciple in that you were using one of his (poor) arguments in which he demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of what he was talking about.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Simple as in no component parts. One whole with no division. Not complex. Yes I base this (and my other arguments) on the Bible's revelation without apology - since it is God's revelation of himself - if you don't believe it fine, but those are my premises. Try to remember we WERE discussing the Old Testament.

I meant Dawkins disciple in that you were using one of his (poor) arguments in which he demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of what he was talking about.

So....in the first paragraph you admit that your 'simple God' argument begs the question (a logical fallacy) and then you claim that Dawkins' argument is poor because he doesn't understand that logically flawed premise. Interesting approach.

 

[evo]

If one can gives it a bit of thought, the claim that "God is infinite", when posited by a someone of the Abrahamic religions is logically false.

You don't even need to be au fait with philosophy or logic to appreciate that it is self-evidently fallacious.

in⋅fi⋅nite
   /ˈɪnfənɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-fuh-nit] Show IPA
–adjective

unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.

Every'thing' in existence is bounded. That is in fact how we recognise one thing from another. By contrasting it with what is not, we recognize it's existence. It is the most basic of the laws of thought, A is not -A.

For example you say that that there is a "keyboard" existent in front of you because you can see it's boundaries,what it is not ie. the desk , the air around it etc.

In the Abrahamic religion it is claimed God created heaven and the earth ; God watches down on us ; God does this and that -- he acts upon things. Clearly their position is that there are existent things--you ,me , the tree the keyboard and so on ; and there is God. He has to be finite then; bounded !



It follows then that:

Either God is the sum total of all things as a pantheist believes -- "utterly everything"--because that is the only 'thing' that cannot be bounded by what is not. In that case he truly would be infinite.

or

If God is infinite but not "utterly everything" ,then he/it doesn't exist.

 

[Djevv]

So....in the first paragraph you admit that your 'simple God' argument begs the question (a logical fallacy) and then you claim that Dawkins' argument is poor because he doesn't understand that logically flawed premise. Interesting approach.

??? :-\

I am saying that these arguments come from axioms that originate in the Biblical revelation and continue logically from there. I am not, have not, would not and could not prove logically that the God of the Bible exists! If I were to make that attempt I would use William Lane Craig type arguments but that is not and never has been nor ever will be my approach to this thread! Hope that is clear. Since I am making no such argument I'm not sure how I can be accused (yet again!) of begging the question. I think you are begging the question of me begging the question ;D.

As for Dawkins, his argument may hold for infinitely complex Gods, but since this is not the God of the Bible, I'm not sure that it is much of an argument.

 

[Djevv]

If one can gives it a bit of thought, the claim that "God is infinite", when posited by a someone of the Abrahamic religions is logically false.
[snip]
If God is infinite but not "utterly everything" ,then he/it doesn't exist.

I once read an 'out there' Christian website that addressed this issue. It argued that God either made the universe (and other stuff) out of himself or something else. He concluded that God made the universe out of himself, as that was all there was :hihi. I'm OK with that.

 

[evo]

I once read an 'out there' Christian website that addressed this issue. It argued that God either made the universe (and other stuff) out of himself or something else. He concluded that God made the universe out of himself, as that was all there was :hihi. I'm OK with that.

Well in a way he is right, I suppose.

That is why I ask you guys about the gospel of Thomas from time to time. Because in that, Jesus seems to be intimating God is the Universe.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

??? :-\

I am saying that these arguments come from axioms that originate in the Biblical revelation and continue logically from there. I am not, have not, would not and could not prove logically that the God of the Bible exists! If I were to make that attempt I would use William Lane Craig type arguments but that is not and never has been nor ever will be my approach to this thread! Hope that is clear. Since I am making no such argument I'm not sure how I can be accused (yet again!) of begging the question. I think you are begging the question of me begging the question ;D.

Your axiom can't be a disputed point! What is the basis of that axiom? Your axiom is that the Bible is the unerring word of God. I am sure you know that is disputable. So everything that follows...ie. your god is "simple"....is illogical from my and I would think, Dawkins' perspective.

As for Dawkins, his argument may hold for infinitely complex Gods, but since this is not the God of the Bible, I'm not sure that it is much of an argument.

I am still not quite sure how you can have a creative, communicative deity with the power to do ANYTHING and you consider them simple. I really struggle to follow that.

 

[evo]

I am still not quite sure how you can have a creative, communicative deity with the power to do ANYTHING and you consider them simple. I really struggle to follow that.

Apart from the fact that this is the creater of everything (allegedly).... Given that it took a huge text written over a span of1000 years or so; plus him literally sending his son to explain him, plus 2000 years of debate surroiunding what 'he' is,it seems to me the least thing that can be said about God is that he is a "simple"

 

[jayfox]

Does the fact that out of the billions and billions of humans that have lived on this earth not one (barring Jesus, I assume) has lived without sinning suggest that perhaps God set the bar a bit high? The ubiquity of sin by humans would suggest that perhaps it could be considered an inherent design flaw?

No. God sets the bar at Himself, perfection. Anything less is not good enough. This is why God knew before He even made creation that He would need to sacrifice Himself for us, and still went ahead with it. I think it's interesting how you guys don't focus on that point. That God knew we would fail Him but loved us so much that instead of not creating us at all, He created us and made a way, through His own sacrifice, for us still be to with Him.
Answer me this, if you knew in advance that someone you were about to meet was going to go out of their way to do everything that was against your wishes for their entire lifetime, would you then willingly sacrifice yourself to be tortured and killed so that they may have a chance to become a better person (but also the strong possibility of not wanting to change at all)?

 

[jayfox]

You means mankind's definition of evil and God's differs? No dictionary I've ever seen equates sin with evil.

Incidentally, just on this one, the first one I looked at was dictionary.com and it includes this -

"the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin."

 

[jb03]

Just wondering if god has an opinion on whether the Universe is finite?

 

[jayfox]

I wasn't referring to myself! I was referring to miracles in general. The "Why does God hate amputees?" principle.

Ridiculous example. God clearly doesn't hate amputees as Christians and non-believers alike can be amputees. Besides, God loves all of us and wants all of us to be saved. If someone is an amputee, God allows that to be a challenge in their life. Often these challenges/trials make us stronger, better people in the long run. In that sense an amputee is no different to a child who has lost his parents at a young age, a blind person, a deaf person, a physically disables person, an intellectually disabled person, a victim of severe burns etc. Some of us have a harder life than others but instead of blaming God perhaps we should all show some more of His love and try to help these people as much as we can to try to make their lives as good as possible.

Yet you know the nature of God himself? You certainly claim to know many details that contradict other religions' definitions. Citing the Bible in this circumstance is begging the question.

The Bible tells us about God's nature, yes.

Again, this is assuming that your god exists. Of course if you go into it with the presupposition (the theist's prism that I have been referring to) than you can interpret anything in that context. In the same way that I can read a horoscope and apply it to my own life, any happenings in your own life, good or bad, can be ascribe to God's will. What I am asking is that you question the basic premise, without using that premise in your explanation (the begging the question fallacy that evo was referring to).

Yes I believe God exists. I believe it to my very soul. My life has had way too many confirmations for me just to put that belief aside.

[cough] Global flood [cough]. [cough] man living inside a whale [cough]. I could go on.

Amazing things happen in our world each year that absolutely amaze us and defy belief. So why are these things so unbelievable when you add the involvement of a God not bound by earthly laws?

This has been discussed before. Just because an ancient text has historically accurate statements (as much fiction does) says nothing about the supernatural claims made therein. Science responds to evidence. Thus, it is skeptical of claims made in the absence of evidence. If evidence is unearthed, the scientific consensus will adjust accordingly.

The point was that people have disbelieved the Bible in the past and been found to be wrong through archaeological discoveries. That may well continue to happen. But there is certainly a level of faith that is required as many of the things described in the Bible are not everyday occurrences. But as I have always said, if you believe in an omnipotent God, it is not a stretch to believe that He could have got a man to live inside a while for a few days.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer. Re-read my previous paragraph. Science can only work with falsifiable propositions. Faith-based notions are not open to such evaluation. However, specific claims made by adherents of faiths are subject to scientific scrutiny and have come up short.

As I've said before, what we consider evidence differs. You only include the physical.

I didn't say that Christians think "stuff the planet", it is the mindset that I am interested in. The anthropomorphic viewpoint that the earth was specially created for humans by a benevolent creator. Such a view would suggest that the Earth was made with us in mind and this is intimately connected with our views on what can happen on this planet. The Earth was most certainly not created with humans in mind. We are already seeing the consequences of our actions and the possibility that we are making the Earth far less hospitable for our species. That is how species go extinct. I am pretty sure from your POV that is not a really pressing concern. That couldn't happen with a benevolent God. What about the 99.9% of species that have gone extinct on this planet? Where was their benevolent creator? We are no different.

God has clearly instructed us to look after this planet and it's creations. After all, He put us in charge of them. Yes, some creatures become extinct but we should do all we can to prevent that. I reckon Christians of all people think that as we recognize them all as God's creatures.

Yet you haven't presented evidence to support that position. You try to defend your position but rarely present strong evidence to dispute my point.

Again, what you and I consider evidence is different. I consider personal experience and similar documented experiences of others to be evidence.

We have no idea how likely or unlikely life is in this universe. We are working with a sample size of 1! Pretty hard to draw any statistical conclusions on the likelihood of life emerging from such a sample. Same for the universe.

The fact that we are dealing with a sample size of 1 would indicate that it is a fairly unlikely scenario wouldn't it? Anyway, for anything to form and evolve in the way you believe it did it takes certain conditions to be right. That involves chance.

That is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was in response to your argument that the ubiquity of religious belief amongst humans is some sort of evidence for your Christian belief system. I was pointing out that the array of contradictory religions would suggest that it has something more to do with the human condition than the presence of your Christian god.

And I am merely saying that I believe the fact that so many people look for a higher power of some kind shows that God has put it in us to look for Him. You can't disprove that that is why there are so many people in the world who do believe there is a God. Also, Christians have been amongst the most hated groups in human history yet there are over 1 billion people who claim to be Christians in today's world. Why would so many people want to search for and then claim to find a God otherwise? You say it is a human condition and I just expand on that and say that it is a human condition that God put in us so that we may be able to find Him.

I could make up any ridiculous proposition and ask you to believe it. Take the beliefs of the Mormons, or the ancient Greeks. Do you believe them? Why not? There is nothing hard about saying that you believe something for which there is no foundation. You just do it. Proving a proposition takes real work.

I think that you are confusing truly believing and having an interest in or wanting to believe. I am still stunned that a scientist finds it easier to truly and completely believe in something that he has never seen than something he can put his hands on and physically examine. Amazing.

I'll ask you again. Why would your creator provide you with critical faculties and ask you to disregard them if you want to earn eternal paradise?

I don't think He does at all.

Self-fulfilling evidence that begs the question or is easily explainable by other, non-supernatural phenomena. If that is sufficient for you, good luck to you. The seduction of religion in action.

It is sufficient for me. Faith is not seductive but a reason for living, a meaning to life, and a hope and trust in the future.

 

[jayfox]

Just wondering if god has an opinion on whether the Universe is finite?

Dunno JacksonBarham09. Sorry.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No. God sets the bar at Himself, perfection. Anything less is not good enough. This is why God knew before He even made creation that He would need to sacrifice Himself for us, and still went ahead with it. I think it's interesting how you guys don't focus on that point. That God knew we would fail Him but loved us so much that instead of not creating us at all, He created us and made a way, through His own sacrifice, for us still be to with Him.
Answer me this, if you knew in advance that someone you were about to meet was going to go out of their way to do everything that was against your wishes for their entire lifetime, would you then willingly sacrifice yourself to be tortured and killed so that they may have a chance to become a better person (but also the strong possibility of not wanting to change at all)?

Can you really not see how ludicrous that highlighted sentence actually is? The problem with your analogy is that God didn't just meet us.....he MADE us! Warts and all. He made us in such a way that we go out of our way to do everything that was against his wishes for our entire lifetime. He made us in such a way that he would have to be tortured and killed (Why?).

I don't really know how all of this is supposed to make us better people.

 

[jayfox]

Can you really not see how ludicrous that highlighted sentence actually is? The problem with your analogy is that God didn't just meet us.....he MADE us! Warts and all. He made us in such a way that we go out of our way to do everything that was against his wishes for our entire lifetime. He made us in such a way that he would have to be tortured and killed (Why?).

I don't really know how all of this is supposed to make us better people.

I don't think it is ludicrous at all. I think it is amazing.

It should make us appreciate His love and grace for us, making us want to be more like Him (perfect).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Ridiculous example. God clearly doesn't hate amputees as Christians and non-believers alike can be amputees. Besides, God loves all of us and wants all of us to be saved. If someone is an amputee, God allows that to be a challenge in their life. Often these challenges/trials make us stronger, better people in the long run. In that sense an amputee is no different to a child who has lost his parents at a young age, a blind person, a deaf person, a physically disables person, an intellectually disabled person, a victim of severe burns etc. Some of us have a harder life than others but instead of blaming God perhaps we should all show some more of His love and try to help these people as much as we can to try to make their lives as good as possible.

I think you miss the point. The "God hates amputees" principle is highlighting the fact the miraculous cures always involve conditions that sometimes resolve themselves naturally. It is never something like an amputated limb that is miraculously cured. It goes to the premise that what you consider evidence, ie. miracles, can easily be explained by the non-divine, without exception.

The Bible tells us about God's nature, yes.

So why is the bible more accurate than the contradictory holy scriptures of other faiths?

Yes I believe God exists. I believe it to my very soul. My life has had way too many confirmations for me just to put that belief aside.

So you believe in God and souls....why? Because it feels good? It is self reinforcing through confirmations that you put down to the divine touch?

Amazing things happen in our world each year that absolutely amaze us and defy belief. So why are these things so unbelievable when you add the involvement of a God not bound by earthly laws?

What has occurred recently that defies belief?

A global flood would have left geological and biological evidence. Evidence that is not there. It didn't happen.

The point was that people have disbelieved the Bible in the past and been found to be wrong through archaeological discoveries. That may well continue to happen. But there is certainly a level of faith that is required as many of the things described in the Bible are not everyday occurrences. But as I have always said, if you believe in an omnipotent God, it is not a stretch to believe that He could have got a man to live inside a while for a few days.As I've said before, what we consider evidence differs. You only include the physical.

And you include? The spiritual? We come to the problem that Evo often speaks about when it comes to debate with a theist....pinning them down on a definition. We can't really discuss this if I don't know what it is you are talking about.

God has clearly instructed us to look after this planet and it's creations. After all, He put us in charge of them.

Humans only appeared on this planet in the blink of an eye ago, geologically speaking. Life has been around MUCH longer. How did he put us in charge of them in light of these facts?

Yes, some creatures become extinct but we should do all we can to prevent that. I reckon Christians of all people think that as we recognize them all as God's creatures.

Some creatures? Over the history of life 99.9% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct! You are making my point for me. This skewed view is not conducive to coming up with real solutions to the problems facing this planet (at least from a human's perspective).

Again, what you and I consider evidence is different. I consider personal experience and similar documented experiences of others to be evidence.

Do you know why I don't consider these lines of evidence when I evaluate my beliefs? They are notoriously prone to inaccuracy. So you believe anyone's personal experience? What about religions pre-Christianity. They are documented, had huge numbers of adherents.....why isn't that evidence for their accuracy?

In medicine the gold standard for evidence of efficacy is the double-blind study. In 'alternative' medicine the gold standard is anecdotal evidence. Why do you think that is? You obviously consider both equally valid?

The fact that we are dealing with a sample size of 1 would indicate that it is a fairly unlikely scenario wouldn't it? Anyway, for anything to form and evolve in the way you believe it did it takes certain conditions to be right. That involves chance.

And how many planets with conditions conducive to life have we studied? That would be 1. Guess what? Life exists on that planet. We won't really know how unlikely life is until we can evaluate other planets.

As for your second proposition, yes it involves chance, ie probability, that doesn't mean it is unlikely...it might be very likely....we just don't have the information to say either way.

And I am merely saying that I believe the fact that so many people look for a higher power of some kind shows that God has put it in us to look for Him. You can't disprove that that is why there are so many people in the world who do believe there is a God. Also, Christians have been amongst the most hated groups in human history yet there are over 1 billion people who claim to be Christians in today's world. Why would so many people want to search for and then claim to find a God otherwise? You say it is a human condition and I just expand on that and say that it is a human condition that God put in us so that we may be able to find Him.

You make very specific claims about your god. Claims that contradict other believers in a deity or deities. So you think you are privileged enough to be born into a culture at the right place at the right time where the only true religion was being practiced? Sorry, but that is pure delusion. More likely is that humans have an intrinsic belief system hard wired into our nervous systems...it gets expressed in all sorts of ways in our cultures, including religion.

I think that you are confusing truly believing and having an interest in or wanting to believe. I am still stunned that a scientist finds it easier to truly and completely believe in something that he has never seen than something he can put his hands on and physically examine. Amazing.

So if I hold an apple up to you and you are able to believe that it is really a basketball that is something to be commended?

You need to read more about the human mind, the power of suggestion, the power of wish-thinking and self delusion. Not just in relation to religion, but from a clinical perspective. It gives you greater insight into the vagaries of our subjective experience and perhaps make you more sceptical of those feelings that you ascribe to God.

I don't think He does at all.

As you yourself say...you must believe that which you cannot see or detect. You must believe in something that has apparently contradictory evidence against it. In other words you must discard your scepticism and give up your critical faculties to truly believe. Djevv put it clearly in a recent post where he claims that his axiom is that the Bible is the unerring word of God...everything follows naturally from that position. If that truly is your axiom than your beliefs are logical...the problem is that there are huge question marks over the validity of that axiom. You discard your critical faculties when it comes to that point. It allows the rest to make perfect sense.

It is sufficient for me. Faith is not seductive but a reason for living, a meaning to life, and a hope and trust in the future.

Belief in eternal life is not seductive? Belief that we will be reunited with our loved ones after death is not seductive? Belief that a benevolent omnipotent being has your back is not seductive? Please.

I have plenty of reasons for living, my life has meaning and I have hope and trust (but not blind faith) in the future. All of this and I don't believe in any faith-based propositions. Go figure.

 

[Disco08]

Incidentally, just on this one, the first one I looked at was dictionary.com and it includes this -

"the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin."

Really?

Evil:

–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.


Sin:

–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
–verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
–verb (used with object)
6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.


The definition of evil has one mention of sin and the definition of sin has no mention of evil, as far as I can see.

 

[jayfox]

Really?

Evil:

–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.


Sin:

–noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
–verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
–verb (used with object)
6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.


The definition of evil has one mention of sin and the definition of sin has no mention of evil, as far as I can see.

Only because you didn't scroll down far enough to synonyms.

 

[jayfox]

I think you miss the point. The "God hates amputees" principle is highlighting the fact the miraculous cures always involve conditions that sometimes resolve themselves naturally. It is never something like an amputated limb that is miraculously cured. It goes to the premise that what you consider evidence, ie. miracles, can easily be explained by the non-divine, without exception.

There are many miracles that occur that can't be explained by medicine or science. I have seen one myself of a close friend who had a brain tumour that mysteriously disappeared that has doctors absolutely baffled. They had given her a few months to live.

So why is the bible more accurate than the contradictory holy scriptures of other faiths?

I believe it's message to be the only one that makes sense given an Omnipotent Creator God and it is the only religion which teaches that people can not do anything to save themselves and we rely on the grace of God alone.

So you believe in God and souls....why? Because it feels good? It is self reinforcing through confirmations that you put down to the divine touch?

No, because it makes sense.

What has occurred recently that defies belief?

See example above and watch the news occasionally.

A global flood would have left geological and biological evidence. Evidence that is not there. It didn't happen.

And that is your right to believe that. It is my right to believe that it did happen. I believe that there may be evidence that it did happen. There are some sites which present this evidence.

And you include? The spiritual? We come to the problem that Evo often speaks about when it comes to debate with a theist....pinning them down on a definition. We can't really discuss this if I don't know what it is you are talking about.

You probably won't know what I am talking about until you experience it, if you ever do.

Humans only appeared on this planet in the blink of an eye ago, geologically speaking. Life has been around MUCH longer. How did he put us in charge of them in light of these facts?

Depends on your take on the Creation account told in the Bible. Did God take 6 24 hour days, or over 6000 years or more to complete creation? Both are possible without contradicting scripture.
[/quote]
Some creatures? Over the history of life 99.9% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct! You are making my point for me. This skewed view is not conducive to coming up with real solutions to the problems facing this planet (at least from a human's perspective).
[/quote]
What rubbish. As I have said before, Christians should try to look after God's creation and there are many Christian environmental charities.

Do you know why I don't consider these lines of evidence when I evaluate my beliefs? They are notoriously prone to inaccuracy. So you believe anyone's personal experience? What about religions pre-Christianity. They are documented, had huge numbers of adherents.....why isn't that evidence for their accuracy?

I can only judge from my own experience.

In medicine the gold standard for evidence of efficacy is the double-blind study. In 'alternative' medicine the gold standard is anecdotal evidence. Why do you think that is? You obviously consider both equally valid?

I don't know what you mean?

And how many planets with conditions conducive to life have we studied? That would be 1. Guess what? Life exists on that planet. We won't really know how unlikely life is until we can evaluate other planets.

So how many planets haven't had life? Heaps. So the chances of a planet in our universe being conducive to life is....? And growing. Anyway, I was more talking about the chances of a big bang creating world's where life flourishes like this from virtually nothing. Surely life would have had to have existed prior to the Big Bang otherwise how did it just suddenly start? Life can't start by itself can it?

You make very specific claims about your god. Claims that contradict other believers in a deity or deities. So you think you are privileged enough to be born into a culture at the right place at the right time where the only true religion was being practiced? Sorry, but that is pure delusion.

That's your opinion but a very judgmental and rather insulting one.

So if I hold an apple up to you and you are able to believe that it is really a basketball that is something to be commended?

No but you have said that it is easier to believe that it is a basketball if you can't see it than if you can and can hold it, bounce it etc.

You need to read more about the human mind, the power of suggestion, the power of wish-thinking and self delusion. Not just in relation to religion, but from a clinical perspective. It gives you greater insight into the vagaries of our subjective experience and perhaps make you more sceptical of those feelings that you ascribe to God.

I 'need' to read more of it? I could suggest that you need to read more of the Bible.

As you yourself say...you must believe that which you cannot see or detect. You must believe in something that has apparently contradictory evidence against it. In other words you must discard your scepticism and give up your critical faculties to truly believe. Djevv put it clearly in a recent post where he claims that his axiom is that the Bible is the unerring word of God...everything follows naturally from that position. If that truly is your axiom than your beliefs are logical...the problem is that there are huge question marks over the validity of that axiom. You discard your critical faculties when it comes to that point. It allows the rest to make perfect sense.

So I should just reject everything else within me that makes me certain that He exists?

Belief in eternal life is not seductive? Belief that we will be reunited with our loved ones after death is not seductive? Belief that a benevolent omnipotent being has your back is not seductive? Please.

Having to live your life trying to fit into stricter than average guidelines? Getting questioned, mocked and ridiculed for what you believe? In many places being tortured or killed because of your beliefs? Spending an enormous amount of time at church or reading his word when other things could be done? I reckon it cuts both ways.

I have plenty of reasons for living, my life has meaning and I have hope and trust (but not blind faith) in the future. All of this and I don't believe in any faith-based propositions. Go figure.

Every person has plenty of reasons for living. That doesn't mean that they have found the meaning of life though.

 

[evo]

There are many miracles that occur that can't be explained by medicine or science. I have seen one myself of a close friend who had a brain tumour that mysteriously disappeared that has doctors absolutely baffled. They had given her a few months to live.

How is that a miracle?

Doctors are human, they can't literally tell the future,it was merely their proffessional opinion your friend had months to live. And like all humans they can also make errors.

Clearly the body healed itself,it is hardly unprecedented.It happens all the time.