Out of body religious experiences

[Guest 91108]

just keep feeding them ToS ... round and round we go.

[TomOfSweden]

just keep feeding them ToS ... round and round we go.

Has everything really been said and discussed here?

[thrall]

The problem with the religion debate is the lack of evidence for and against. But we have the wonderful tool of logic.

Exactly Tom. You CAN NOT argue logic without evidence. Otherwise anything you may conclude, is determined with false logic either for or against. So, again.....the bottom line is only opinion.

And opinion is just that........an opinion. Opinion is neither right or wrong, it is only personal opinion.


QUOTE.....The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.


Again ..my point exactly

There is no evidence.....for or against. So again, the bottom line is only opinion.



QUOTE.....These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.



Your contradicting yourself here, Tom. How can you have structured reasoning and logic......without evidence?

The thing your not getting Tom, is that I'm playing Devils advocate for both sides.......LOL




I love you Tom..........kisses and hugs

Thrall

[tessa]

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

Po-TA-to = Po-TAH-to.

Has everything really been said and discussed here?

Nope. I don't think so. Could it ever?

[Rhabbi]

Although you made some good points Tom, and I do want to address them, I also want to take some time to make sure my answers are well though out. I am therfore going to limit my answer here to one thing you said.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

[TomOfSweden]

Exactly Tom. You CAN NOT argue logic without evidence. Otherwise anything you may conclude, is determined with false logic either for or against. So, again.....the bottom line is only opinion.

And opinion is just that........an opinion. Opinion is neither right or wrong, it is only personal opinion.


QUOTE.....The discussion on religion has to be about which evidence there are and then evaluate them. There's no way we can reason about an entity we know nothing about.


Again ..my point exactly

There is no evidence.....for or against. So again, the bottom line is only opinion.



QUOTE.....These are all pretty basic things. So religious faith is not only about opinion, but structured reasoning and logic.



Your contradicting yourself here, Tom. How can you have structured reasoning and logic......without evidence?

The thing your not getting Tom, is that I'm playing Devils advocate for both sides.......LOL




I love you Tom..........kisses and hugs

Thrall

Sorry for being unclear. We can use structured logic even though we have nothing to work with. The fact that we have no evidence is also evidence.

Christianity is formulated in such a way as to make it impossible to both verify and reject. How does this add to its credibility?

...and I've got this thing about always questioning myself. Even my own conclusions he he. Schizofrenic, who me....nah.... But I don't think I did so here.

[TomOfSweden]

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

I'll quote Zizek here. "Philosophy isn't about finding answers. It's about finding questions". Philosophy helps us question what we know and what we think. That's why I think it is very very important to take it very very seriously. I'm pretty sure Aquinas was first and foremost a servant of god. He certainly seemed to need to say it in every second sentance. But maybe that was just to cover his ass

Ok, so smart guys converted to Christianity. I won't argue that. The interesting thing is, how did their line of reasoning go? The fact that they were famous for being smart and educated doesn't add any credibility to the religion does it? I've read Kirkegaard and his journey into faith. Wouldn't you say that he summed it up pretty well?

[TomOfSweden]

I'm on the same porn sharing network as a lecturer of philosophy at the university of Cambridge. He had earlier mentioned in another discussion that he was atheist so I asked him about his line of reasoning. He is a smart lad and I wasn't disapointed. Above all he is very well trained at arguing his case.

For Americans this guy is a professor at a grad school. I've never really understood the American inflation of academic titles. What do you call your professors?

"The problem here isn't a lack of logic. The problem here is what, for want of a better term, you might call a shortfall of logic itself. Our logic is unable to prove a generalisable absence; the total lack of something. You and a friend could be discussing the most outlandish thing either of you can imagine - something you can be pretty sure doesn't exist, as the pair of you made it up only moments before - and our logic will be unable to prove that it doesn't, hasn't, couldn't or will not exist somewhere at sometime.

I say 'our logic' because the shortfall is not in logic, but rather in us. Logic is a process rather than an end result; you put garbage in, you get garbage out, and it's not the fault of logic. If we had complete knowledge of everything, logic as a process could be used to prove the absence of something. We don't, so we can't use it to disprove the existence of God. Our knowledge is less than full and complete, so the information we feed in has to be less than complete. Logically, then, the conclusion we get will be less than conclusive.

Does atheism thus require 'a leap of faith'? Well...yes. But I would hesitate to liken the size of the leap to the one required in theism.

We believe in lots of things we've never seen. I've never been to Kuala Lumpur, but I believe it exists. We also don't believe in lots of things we've seen; all of us here know what a unicorn looks like, but none of us believe in them.

I agree that atheism is not a position which can be fully logically supported. But it can be rationally supported, using a balance of probabilities based on known science, sociology and history. The 'leap of faith' I make to believe that Kuala Lumpur exists without personal experience of it is tiny; the leap I make to believe that unicorns don't exist is miniscule, and of the order of the one I make not to believe in God.

Logically, therefore, we imperfect beings cannot disprove the existence of God. Sensibly, however, probability and rationale dictate that we are more likely to be correct in atheism than theism - at least by the terms defined in Christian theology. A true position would be agnosticism, but not 50/50, sitting on the fence, vacillating agnosticism. Informed agnosticism says we can't know for sure...but it's doubtful..."

I thought you'd like this.

edit: I looked the professor thing up. It's called lecturer in America to. They just have a nasty habit of being sloppy with the term and using it as an honorary title even though it is in fact wrong.

[thrall]

Sorry for being unclear. We can use structured logic even though we have nothing to work with. The fact that we have no evidence is also evidence.

Christianity is formulated in such a way as to make it impossible to both verify and reject. How does this add to its credibility?

......Precisely.....


Evidence of non-evidence. So apply logic.......you can not prove or disprove.......anything.

Any and all conclusions you may make, logically, will only be opinion.........personal opinion.

All religions........not just Christianity......are set up with this conundrum built into them. That is why they are not a science, Tom.

They are however..........based on blind faith.

Credibility has nothing to do with anything in any Religion, because there is nothing to prove. Religon is about believing blindly in something bigger than yourself.

love you Tom
hugs and kisses

Thrall

[TomOfSweden]

......Precisely.....


Evidence of non-evidence. So apply logic.......you can not prove or disprove.......anything.

Any and all conclusions you may make, logically, will only be opinion.........personal opinion.

All religions........not just Christianity......are set up with this conundrum built into them. That is why they are not a science, Tom.

They are however..........based on blind faith.

Credibility has nothing to do with anything in any Religion, because there is nothing to prove. Religon is about believing blindly in something bigger than yourself.

love you Tom
hugs and kisses

Thrall

I'll buy that but it's when the religious makes claims as if it was a choice made by rational evaluation of available evidence that I get pissed off. If somebodies best case for something is the impossibility of proving it's non-existence. It's still making an inference from nothing at all, which shouldn't allow us to make any statements about it what so ever, let alone a whole library of religious texts we have in the world today. They are all inferences from thin air. Or rather they are inferences from phenomena which we today judge as insanity. If Moses would come today he'd be locked up or just laughed at. Just like we're doing to Raëlians today.

I heard an interview yesterday with a scholar studying religion yesterday called Barry Kosmin. He is responsible for USA's two largest religious surveys. One in 1990 and one in 2001. They where both pretty comprehensive regarding what people believe in detail. Where he did manage to show that belief in the supernatural was increasing. This was the basis for a shock of fear that went through the secular community a while back. The assumption has always been that the atheist faith would be increasing. But what Kosmin said in the interview was that even though religious faith is increasing the rejection of religious authorities and texts is also increasing at an ever growing pace. So it's not the old religions that are growing but the numbers of peoples own private interpretations growing. Which is to me a sign of health. People thinking more and more and questioning old truths more and more is always good. This was only in the USA though. But I think the trend is pretty international and equally true for the middle-east albeit a bit later in the start.

This effectively ended my crusade against god. I don't mind people being deluded, as long as they don't make it a hassle for me boarding aeroplanes or worse. My only problem with religion is that it can be dangerous. But so can pretty much anything so I'll bury my hatchet now.

[thrall]

So we finally agree..........LOL........*smiles*

love you Tom........

Thrall

[Rhabbi]

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

[Rhabbi]

Logically, therefore, we imperfect beings cannot disprove the existence of God. Sensibly, however, probability and rationale dictate that we are more likely to be correct in atheism than theism - at least by the terms defined in Christian theology. A true position would be agnosticism, but not 50/50, sitting on the fence, vacillating agnosticism. Informed agnosticism says we can't know for sure...but it's doubtful..."

My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.

[tessa]

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

Well duh!

~giggles outrageously~

Who knows ya, baby?

[TomOfSweden]

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

Well, yeah. Maybe. This effectively makes you an agnostic and not a Christian at all, doesn't it? Truth on the quantum scale hinges a lot on knowing which is the ass end of the stick. When it comes to quantum theory we have an ass load of theories but a shortage on methods for testing them. So far it's been a bit like poking a broken stick through what we think is a haystack and from this making inferences. All we know is that we have no fucking clue. All we seem to be good at is dismissing the few plausible theories we had. Which I admit is definitely progress albeit to a crawl.

[TomOfSweden]

My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

[Guest 91108]

Edited by self .................

[Rhabbi]

"Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason."

See what you're doing? First stating that you're an agnostic and from that making a leap of faith which you earlier stated you weren't sure about. The leap of faith can only be done once you are convinced. But you're obviously not. You're not really a Christian, are you?

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

[TomOfSweden]

Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

[Rhabbi]

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

I do not always win converts when I talk to people, but the fact that I am willing to listen to them, and be honest about my struggles, plants a seed so that God is able to work in their hearts and reach out to them. And, if you are right and I am wasting my time doing this, then I am at least enjoying my life and feel that it has a purpose.

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

[TomOfSweden]

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

ok, this is going to be interesting.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

[Rhabbi]

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Amen

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I do have answers, but waht I do not have is all the answers. I also admit I could be wrong, as any good scientist should. I do not be one of those idiots that should be stoned because I think I know it all.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

[TomOfSweden]

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

[Rhabbi]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

I could make a logical argument for God's existence. Doing so would leave me with a two part question, is it valid and is it true?

To be valid would be rather simple, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. Let us use your example of boiling water.

1. God designed the universe so that water would boil at 100 C at sea level.
2. God controls every aspect of the universe continually
3. Water will not boil if God does not actively watch and make sure it happens.
4. Every time water is heated it boils at 100 C at sea level.
   
   Conclusion: God exists.

Tis is a perfectly valid argument. If the 4 premises are true then the conclusion is true. But does that make the argument true? No, it is fallacious.

As I stated earlier, it would be impossible to use logic to prove anything in the real world because we have to use inductive logic, and all inductive arguments are fallacies. Here is an example of a inductive argument that is valid, that everyone would agree with, yet is still a fallacy using the definitions of logic.

1. Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
   Therefore
2. The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Every person I know believes this line of logic, in fact I would go so far as to say that every person alive has total faith in this logic. Nonetheless it is still not true, it is a fallacy. this is why logic has the terms strong and weak to also define arguments. the argument above is a strong one, mostly because it has a premise that everyone agrees is true, even though there is no proof of it. How do we know that the Law of Gravity and the Gravitational Constant has always held steady?

To make an argument for the existence of God using logic the best case I could make would be a weak inductive argument. this is because I cannot offer premises that are facts, or even that are generally accepted. You talk about a leap of faith being necessary at the end of the argument, but the truth is it would be necessary throughout the argument. If we cannot agree on observable phenomena that indicates the presence of god, then how can I make an argument for his existence?

Let us engage in a thought experiment.

We are both in a little town of Bethany approximately 2000 years ago. We are in a quantum bubble to research the account of the resurecction of a certain man called Lazurus.

He died approximately four days ago and was buried according to the customs of the time and culture. We witnessed the preparation of his body for burial with special herbs and as it was wrapped in linen. We were unable to use advanced methods to test whether he was dead, or simply in a coma so deep that the people were unable to detect signs of life. this has something to do with the limitations of time travel and the universe protecting itself from paradoxes.

Tis day the man that would one day be known as Jesus Christ arrives, and after a bit of conversation with the family and friends he asks that the stone that closes off the tomb where Lazarus was buried is rolled aside by a few bystanders.

Jesus then offers up a short prayer and calls Lazarus out of the grave. We then watch as Lazarus does indeed walk out of the tomb, and when his friends finish unwrapping the linen that bound him for burial he appears healthy to us.

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

[Rhabbi]

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

Again. not my field, but there is apparently some debate about that. I know there are paintings that were thought to have been done by Rembrandt that are now classed as 'school of' Rembrandt. I would imagine it has something to do with technique and brush strokes, but I would be guessing.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

I studied many religions, comparative religion has always been a hobby of mine, one I still indulge in.

The basic choices come down to two types of religion, monotheistic and polytheism. (I am including pantheism under polytheism here though there are significant differences.)

Polytheism has numerous Gods, none of whom seem to claim responsibility for creation. Quite often the Earth was a byproduct of something they did, or even waste product. This did not appeal to me for obvious reasons, if I was going to actually believe in a God I wanted one that at least cared about people.

This leaves monotheism. There are three basic monotheistic religions in the world, listed in the order of appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Doing a comparison of these three we see that they all claim the same roots, Judaism. I studied Judaism and found it quite interesting, perhaps the most intellectual of the three. The average rabbi knows more about the history of religion and the various debates surrounding it than all but the most scholarly of Christian preachers.

Then I looked at Christianity, which center around the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.

Looking at Islam, it focuses mostly on Mohammad as being the last of the prophets, and trying to bring the teachings back inline with what the earlier prophets taught before the Bible was corrupted by man. According to Islamic scholars, the Bible was rewritten by Christians to support the claims that Jesus was God, and even the Old Testament was rewritten to support this. Interestingly enough, Islam still revers Jesus as a prophet.

Studying the words of Jesus leads you to one of four inescapable conclusions. Either this man was a liar, insane, a demon from the pits of Hell, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Looking further at his life, a reasonable man would rule out that he was insane or a demon because the impact of his life was spectacularly on the side of good. I suppose he could have been a demon, but that seems unlikely also.

Also, a thorough study of the texts of the Bible that survive, some dating to before Jesus, show that the changes that Islam claim as necessary to their faith are impossible to support. This leads a thinking man to reject Islam as based on a falsehood. It also leads a thinking man to look more closely at Christianity.

In a lot of ways Judaism is more of a set of rules to live by then anything else. You could look at it as the first rules that a parent gives a child. don't touch this, don't go there, etc. These rules do not change when that child reach adulthood, they just become unnecessary. The adult sees that the rules were there to protect the child from unknown dangers.

Christianity is about living those rules as an adult. It does not replace the rules, it fulfills them because we, as adults, now know enough not to do those things. This is why I settled on Christianity as what I believed. It was not a blind leap from going to not believing, then choosing Christianity at random after I had an epiphany and realized God existed. Before I believed in God I knew that Christianity made more sense than any other religion out there.

This does not mean the Christianity that you find today, it means the Christianity of the early church. I guess this does mean that I pick and choose, because I have to try and figure out what that is for myself.

[TomOfSweden]

I studied many religions, comparative religion has always been a hobby of mine, one I still indulge in.

The basic choices come down to two types of religion, monotheistic and polytheism. (I am including pantheism under polytheism here though there are significant differences.)

Polytheism has numerous Gods, none of whom seem to claim responsibility for creation. Quite often the Earth was a byproduct of something they did, or even waste product. This did not appeal to me for obvious reasons, if I was going to actually believe in a God I wanted one that at least cared about people.

This leaves monotheism. There are three basic monotheistic religions in the world, listed in the order of appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Doing a comparison of these three we see that they all claim the same roots, Judaism. I studied Judaism and found it quite interesting, perhaps the most intellectual of the three. The average rabbi knows more about the history of religion and the various debates surrounding it than all but the most scholarly of Christian preachers.

Then I looked at Christianity, which center around the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.

Looking at Islam, it focuses mostly on Mohammad as being the last of the prophets, and trying to bring the teachings back inline with what the earlier prophets taught before the Bible was corrupted by man. According to Islamic scholars, the Bible was rewritten by Christians to support the claims that Jesus was God, and even the Old Testament was rewritten to support this. Interestingly enough, Islam still revers Jesus as a prophet.

Studying the words of Jesus leads you to one of four inescapable conclusions. Either this man was a liar, insane, a demon from the pits of Hell, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Looking further at his life, a reasonable man would rule out that he was insane or a demon because the impact of his life was spectacularly on the side of good. I suppose he could have been a demon, but that seems unlikely also.

Also, a thorough study of the texts of the Bible that survive, some dating to before Jesus, show that the changes that Islam claim as necessary to their faith are impossible to support. This leads a thinking man to reject Islam as based on a falsehood. It also leads a thinking man to look more closely at Christianity.

In a lot of ways Judaism is more of a set of rules to live by then anything else. You could look at it as the first rules that a parent gives a child. don't touch this, don't go there, etc. These rules do not change when that child reach adulthood, they just become unnecessary. The adult sees that the rules were there to protect the child from unknown dangers.

Christianity is about living those rules as an adult. It does not replace the rules, it fulfills them because we, as adults, now know enough not to do those things. This is why I settled on Christianity as what I believed. It was not a blind leap from going to not believing, then choosing Christianity at random after I had an epiphany and realized God existed. Before I believed in God I knew that Christianity made more sense than any other religion out there.

This does not mean the Christianity that you find today, it means the Christianity of the early church. I guess this does mean that I pick and choose, because I have to try and figure out what that is for myself.

I'd say you've done all the cardinal sins of religious contemplation.

Your first mistake is in your groupings. The error is in assuming we have covered all possible versions of deities already. Even if we have reached the conclusion that there exists a lone intelligent omnipotent being, all today's religions could still all be wrong. You can't line up Islam and Christianity and compare them and from this draw the conclusion that because one doesn't seem to work for you the other does by default.

Second fault is that you assume that if god is good then....well...erm... How could you possibly reason about how a being more intelligent judges and values on moral issues? Let alone a omnipotent. You didn't think that an omnipotent being might have thought of stuff you haven't, did you? It's as if humans is god's pet project and he can empathise with us. Can you empathise with a spider? It's too dumb for us even to try. You don't think that an omnipotents concept of good and evil might be different from ours?

...and then this compulsion to connect this all powerful omnipotent god with the Bible or any religious text! Why even try? What possible evidence could you or anybody come up with to make it even meaningful? What makes you think that anybody in any way have got it even almost right. Let's say for sake of argument that there really exists an all powerful and good omnipotent god, and it speaks to people. Let's also for sake of argument assume that some of those people that know the truth of god have put pen to paper to write about it. They're humans!!!! Humans fuck up and interpret things in ways that aren't true just to fit their world view. Not out of spite or evil, but just out of being human. You also missed the option that Jesus might have been only partly right.

I'd say that the Bible itself proves how people misinterpret. As we all know Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Aryan Bible, Ebionite Bible, Koptic Bible, Donatist Bible and Tawahedo Bible are all major Christian Bibles that all pre-date the Vulgate Bible and all have more in common with each other than with the Versio Vulgata. The Vulgate Bible was quite a radical edit. They're all Christian Bibles, all are the word of god but they're also all different. The Aryan one kept all the angel wars parts which creates a radically different world than the vulgate.

We have the problem of context. In the time around the birth of Christ it was common practice to create myths about kings and emperors which were identical to that of the birth of Jesus. When Julius Caesar was born it was said that a star appeared above his villa and foreign astronomers visited. There's accounts of all the old kings and emperors performing miracles. Witnesses of it was extremely common. This practice even included famous athletes. Nobody believes today that the Mediterranean was any more full of miracle healers than any other period in history. As far as I know all historians agree on that Julius Caesar was just a normal person, even though he was considered a god during his lifetime.

The context tells me that the point of writing in the Bible that Jesus did all the miracles and how he was born, wasn't to say that he had supernatural powers, but simply to emphasize that he really was the new king of the Jews and that he had a normal birth as expected of a king. Which one of the two theories is in your opinion requires the smallest leap of faith? It's also quite possible that Jesus was only a narrative trick. A mythical figure in order to frame a story around. A story with profound implications which may very well have conveyed the truth in an effective way, but none the less a story.

It's quite possible to argue that all the various religions of today are all the result of this omnipotent being talking to people but because of humans doing what humans do best, misinterpret, we've got a plethora of religions of which all are utterly and completely wrong.

Also you must never forget that any action of any beings more powerful than us will always be interpreted by us as actions of an omnipotent being. We don't know better. But just because we can't see that beings limits doesn't mean they aren't there.

Even if your epiphany was genuine and you really did see the real and existing god you made it perfectly clear that alternatives you allowed yourself to chose between were pretty far from a complete list of possible variations on monotheism.

You really don't think that you chose Christianity because of social or emotional reasons? It was all detached logical reasoning?

[TomOfSweden]

BTW C.S Lewis faith hinges a lot on morality, (ie Moral Law) being universal. Since it isn't then CS Lewis faith is based on an erroneous conclusion. So much for that. I find it annoying with people who behave like they're masters on a subject in which they're amatures and ignore what all the people doing serious research into it is saying.

[Rhabbi]

I'd say you've done all the cardinal sins of religious contemplation.

Your first mistake is in your groupings. The error is in assuming we have covered all possible versions of deities already. Even if we have reached the conclusion that there exists a lone intelligent omnipotent being, all today's religions could still all be wrong. You can't line up Islam and Christianity and compare them and from this draw the conclusion that because one doesn't seem to work for you the other does by default.

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

Second fault is that you assume that if god is good then....well...erm... How could you possibly reason about how a being more intelligent judges and values on moral issues? Let alone a omnipotent. You didn't think that an omnipotent being might have thought of stuff you haven't, did you? It's as if humans is god's pet project and he can empathise with us. Can you empathise with a spider? It's too dumb for us even to try. You don't think that an omnipotents concept of good and evil might be different from ours?

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

...and then this compulsion to connect this all powerful omnipotent god with the Bible or any religious text! Why even try? What possible evidence could you or anybody come up with to make it even meaningful? What makes you think that anybody in any way have got it even almost right. Let's say for sake of argument that there really exists an all powerful and good omnipotent god, and it speaks to people. Let's also for sake of argument assume that some of those people that know the truth of god have put pen to paper to write about it. They're humans!!!! Humans fuck up and interpret things in ways that aren't true just to fit their world view. Not out of spite or evil, but just out of being human. You also missed the option that Jesus might have been only partly right.

I'd say that the Bible itself proves how people misinterpret. As we all know Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Aryan Bible, Ebionite Bible, Koptic Bible, Donatist Bible and Tawahedo Bible are all major Christian Bibles that all pre-date the Vulgate Bible and all have more in common with each other than with the Versio Vulgata. The Vulgate Bible was quite a radical edit. They're all Christian Bibles, all are the word of god but they're also all different. The Aryan one kept all the angel wars parts which creates a radically different world than the vulgate.

We have the problem of context. In the time around the birth of Christ it was common practice to create myths about kings and emperors which were identical to that of the birth of Jesus. When Julius Caesar was born it was said that a star appeared above his villa and foreign astronomers visited. There's accounts of all the old kings and emperors performing miracles. Witnesses of it was extremely common. This practice even included famous athletes. Nobody believes today that the Mediterranean was any more full of miracle healers than any other period in history. As far as I know all historians agree on that Julius Caesar was just a normal person, even though he was considered a god during his lifetime.

The context tells me that the point of writing in the Bible that Jesus did all the miracles and how he was born, wasn't to say that he had supernatural powers, but simply to emphasize that he really was the new king of the Jews and that he had a normal birth as expected of a king. Which one of the two theories is in your opinion requires the smallest leap of faith? It's also quite possible that Jesus was only a narrative trick. A mythical figure in order to frame a story around. A story with profound implications which may very well have conveyed the truth in an effective way, but none the less a story.

It's quite possible to argue that all the various religions of today are all the result of this omnipotent being talking to people but because of humans doing what humans do best, misinterpret, we've got a plethora of religions of which all are utterly and completely wrong.

Also you must never forget that any action of any beings more powerful than us will always be interpreted by us as actions of an omnipotent being. We don't know better. But just because we can't see that beings limits doesn't mean they aren't there.

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

Even if your epiphany was genuine and you really did see the real and existing god you made it perfectly clear that alternatives you allowed yourself to chose between were pretty far from a complete list of possible variations on monotheism.

You really don't think that you chose Christianity because of social or emotional reasons? It was all detached logical reasoning?

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

BTW C.S Lewis faith hinges a lot on morality, (ie Moral Law) being universal. Since it isn't then CS Lewis faith is based on an erroneous conclusion. So much for that. I find it annoying with people who behave like they're masters on a subject in which they're amatures and ignore what all the people doing serious research into it is saying.

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

[TomOfSweden]

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions