Do you believe in miracles?

[TomOfSweden]

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

[Ozme52]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

[TomOfSweden]

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

I think you're totally wrong. All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

[Ozme52]

I think you're totally wrong.

Perhaps. I will admit I had fundamentalist types in my mind as I wrote my comment. Those who out and out reject any possible interpretation of the world that implies that the bible isn't the actual word of God. Those who reject science and would prefer blind obedience... and who would force it on you if only they could.

All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level.

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

[TomOfSweden]

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

And this is of course why all holy texts will eventually fail being true. At least if scientists are doing their job. And is a problem for any religion with a static holy text.

But then again. This shouldn't really apply to Christianity since the original Bible only was a bunch of ever expanding collection loose articles. It's a shame that little tid bit of information got lost somehow.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

I was speaking from the sense of perception. If we perceive we have valid data, then we will perceive that the conclusions we draw are correct. The world is full of opinionated people who haven't done all their homework. People who read theories from the wrong angle, misinterpret and then draw conclusions. I've been guilty of this many many times. It is very difficult to get every theory right. Sometimes we cannot understand a theory, like molecular biology. I don't know enough maths to understand even the simplest of their theories. I have to depend on second hand interpretations. Which comes down to trust. Valid Data is an elusive animal. Especially when it comes to the big theories. I mean Quantum Theory! Even the greatest minds of physics can't understand that one. So let's say we're Christian and we want to reconcile it with known theories of physics. Even if we have all the valid data it is impossible. I'd personally see this as a victory for agnosticism. How can we have faith in something we don't fully understand?

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Doing away with the unknown is the goal of our curiousness. Is it not? But let's for sake of argument say you're lazy. You don't want to do your homework, but you still want the answers. I'm certain the latest surge of finding God in the west is simply a symptom of people becoming more comfortable and lazy. They can't be arsed to study the data out there because it is hard to understand. Any buffoon can accept God. It's a superficially an easy concept. Even though it isn't really. But that's just my highly personal opinion.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

That is why neither of us is religious. I have no problems with using the "unknown" column in my spread sheet of the universe.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

I'm really posting here with my fax. Now you know.

[wmrs2]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

That's the definition of faith. You have evidence for something and each time you check the result is the same. When you've checked enough times without any deviation it's safe to assume it'll always be the same, we call it faith. It's the same for scientific or religious faith. When I'm out walking I don't go running between lamp posts and grabbing them tightly just in case gravity might give way. I have faith in that it'll keep working. Even when I'm not watching. I'm a man of faith.

But you're leaving out the most interesting detail. How did you reach this conclusion that "God is absolute truth"? How did you work it out? How can you be sure that it isn't just in your head?

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life.

I didn't get this? Are you talking about how much evidence you need for faith in God?

To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Are you saying that "intuition" is the same thing as "self evident truths"? I wouldn't mind you explaining this. How do we know when a truth is self evident? My intuition tells me God doesn't exist. If intuition is self evident truths, then is my brain broken?

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

But Artistotelian logic can prove Christian theory of God has logical inconsistencies, (ie the Christian paradoxes). How do you reconcile that? How can the theory of God be true and false at the same time? How can God be good when there is evil in the world? Once again, what I think you're doing is removing the content of the "Scientific method" and "Aristotelian logic" and treating them as empty abstractions, because it looks good in a sentence. I'll grant you that it saves you the effort of understanding it, but doesn't add to your argument. You cannot apply the scientific method to something that cannot be measured. Some say this is proof God doesn't exist. Some say it's down to nonoverlapping Magisteria, but if that is the case your Christian faith cannot teach you anything about science. What you mean with "historical approach" I'm not sure? Hegelian dialectical reading of history perhaps? It's the standard method today of interpreting history.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

You'll have no argument there. But there's a world of difference between living your life as Christian because that's what sounds the most plausible to you, and having faith. One is arrogant and the other one is an educated guess.