Singularity v. Bubba on whether the Bible is Reasonable

Jabba:

It seems to me that, if your idea of trustworthiness centers on the idea that a theory has yet to be disproven, one can never have a thoroughly good reason to believe in a godless universe. It seems to me that agnosticism and theism are the only two logical positions: agnosticism in the absence of proof, theism if one believes God has revealed Himself.


"If you want to actually trust that contradiction is impossible, you have to rely on supernatural revelation."

Just the opposite. Once we allow for the existence of supernatural events, we are open to the possibility of anything happening, whether contradictory or not, whether it destroys the uniformity of the operation of physical laws or not.

Actually, many theologians believe that contradiction is impossible, even with God. Omnipotence means the ability to bring about any entity, but a contradiction (like a 4-sided triangle) is a non-entity.


Again, only by adopting an assumption of the truth of naturalism can I hope to gain any useful insight into the human mind.

This does not, as Bubba says, prove that naturalism is true. Only that supernaturalism is useless.

Except, that the most you can say about your useful insight is that it is a theory that hasn't been disproven.

If you want more than that, you need to be able to trust that what we think are fundamental truths (such as the transitivity of equality) are indeed fundamental. No amount of affirming the consequent or using the circular logic of assuming that they're fundamental can do that. The natural universe itself cannot give us any assurance of fundamental laws that transcend it.

If you genuinely believe the human mind is able to perceive "if a=b and b=c then a=c" as a legitimate truth, no amount of assuming naturalism can explain how that perception occurs.

And that is one of the utilities of supernaturalism.


Zap, I did not confirm "precisely" what you said. Go back and read what I wrote. My conclusion about the necessity of supernaturalism flows from the definition of reason, not vice versa.


And there it is; your presupposition that leads to your conclusion.

This is your presupposition, and yours alone. In the words "actually true". The only explanation you accept as "actually true", is devine. Hence you rigged the game.

Since you stubbornly refuse to accept any other cause for reason than the devine - you get the devine.

A beautiful case of Circular reasoning.

Except, I can point out where the naturalistic explanations go astray -- usually, they affirm the consequent. Even in your most recent post ("When is enough? When it's enough!") commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If I can point to an actual flaw in every naturalistic explanation of human reason, where does that leave me?


And I find it hilarious that the atheist is complaining to the theist about absurd standards.

This, when you've demanded impossible and ever-changing standards for the proof of God.


I especially love this line:

I fully agree this does not prove it to your "absolute proof" level, but as you are probably well aware, absolute positive proof of anything is not possible, unless you happen to be omniscent, or working within the realm of the pure abstract.

On the question of God, you're not omniscient, and we're not working within the realm of the abstract.

And yet you've demanded absolute proof.


The truth is, humans can simply see that certain things are true:

- If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

- Contradiction is impossible.

We don't need to test either of these to see that they are true. And if they really are true insights into those fundamental laws that transcend even the physical universe, the physical universe itself cannot explain how we can simply "see" the truth of those statements and actually trust what we see.


Your definition of "nature" misses the point of contention between the naturalist and the supernaturalist.

By your defini

 

Bubba

Will be going on Christmas vacation soon, so I'll go ahead and address your prior questions as best as I can.

Me to, see, there is some common ground. But I should probably get my arguments to a good stopping point.

Or, let's look at civilization. Let's be generous and assume that we've done 10,000 years worth of observation (and that, somehow, we're able to review all those observations). Let's say that the universe actually is 10 billion years old. We've just observed 0.0001 percent of the universe in terms of time.

But what choice do we have? Especially if I don't have some proof of God and therefore I feel no reason to accept the supernatural, what else can I do? Wait another billion years before the human race decides that maybe it should act on trends that happen in a matter of minutes?

I realize that naturalistic 'rational' thinking may be flawed and may lead us astray, but we have no choice but to use it.

I feel that we should just keep an open mind and realize that anything we can 'explain' may be explained in some better way that we have not found yet. But until then, for practical reasons, we need to assume it is true.

For the case of evolution it is something of a moot point. I doubt there is much real practical benefit from knowing how we got here other than it is cool to know.

It comes down this: if not God, who? Who or what could be trusted? The unthinking processes that unfold in the universe around us? Some other creature of God's making?

So I ask why trust God and you say why not?

But if you believe that we do sometimes have a genuine insight into what's true (and I do, and I think most of us do regardless of the position we're taking in this thread), the only possible source is an omniscient source.

I disagree. A person just might get lucky and realize something that was overlooked or missed.

If you think of the dozens of times a day that a bit of useful insight could help us, and how little it actually happens, I feel we can just say it is luck.

I should take the moral thing to another thread. It is just morals is one of the big things that I have been asking 'what does it really mean?' especially since everything is just a word.

I'm saying there cannot ever be a contradiction, and I think that most of us can perceive that this is a fundamental truth.

But you are saying that if naturalism is true, then there could be?

Indeed, but I think this means that someone can't say that they've proven that naturalism is true. In the end, theism and agnosticism strike me as the only two rational positions.

Who-Ho, I am rational .

I don't see how theism is a rational position though(which may be because I do not know the supernatural must exist). Theism is asking me to trust and love a being that I cannot understand or rationally explain with the rational thought that being gave me? I just feel that you are replacing one thing we can't explain with another. I feel the only rational way to think is to keep an open mind, but acknowledge that for practical purposes, we have to assume things are true.

Evidence of the supernatural isn't sufficient for Christianity, but I think it's necessary for this debate. It's a pre-cursor. Why I believe Christianity has more to do with the theology and the historical evidence -- see the second part of my opening debate.

And my point is not, "we don't know how naturalism could explain reason;" it's that I don't see how it could explain reason.

I just feel that it is irrelevant to this debate if the supernatural exists or not. If it does exist, then why is your supernatural belief more accurate than other ones? If there is no supernatural, then this whole debate is trivial, and I feel Singularity has not taken the stance of this being a trivial debate in that respect.

I will rereread the main thread again after this week (it is a long week). By that time though, we will both be off.

Will be going on Christmas vacation soon (

 

Zap, I did not confirm "precisely" what you said. Go back and read what I wrote. My conclusion about the necessity of supernaturalism flows from the definition of reason,

Exactly... your definition. Which is only satsifiable (to your absurd level) by supernaturalism.

Except, I can point out where the naturalistic explanations go astray -- usually, they affirm the consequent. Even in your most recent post ("When is enough? When it's enough!") commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I know. You missed the point. As a human being, you will have to be satisfied with that. Thats just life.

If I can point to an actual flaw in every naturalistic explanation of human reason, where does that leave me?

A person that inherently misunderstands how naturalistic reason came to be, perhaps?

This, when you've demanded impossible and ever-changing standards for the proof of God.

No, just actual proof.

I am not too keen on your intentional dodge tactics.

This text explains clearly the type of evidence that would be needed for a miracle

And yet you've demanded absolute proof.

No, evidence. REAL evidence. Not heliographic heresay.

The truth is, humans can simply see that certain things are true:

- If a=b and b=c, then a=c.

- Contradiction is impossible.

Yep, our underlying layer, aka "the subconscious", the marvellous machine of pattern recognition, delivers these answers to us. It has tested a million times (and is testing, a million times a second) such things, on a subconscious level. It has already established the pattern "if something is the same as something else, and something else is the same as that third thing, then somethign and that third thing is the same thing" as well as "if something has a particular property that excludes another property then by golly that other property will not occur at the same time".

Our subconscious pattern-recognizing layers pick up these during our two first years on this planet (and evolution might have hardwired some of it in).

All these things you deem "obvious" can be boiled downed to pattern recognigion. Pattern recognition is just the general assumption that "I've seen a certain patterne enough, so lets start assuming this pattern is true".

The subconscious deals with this.

We don't need to test either of these to see that they are true. And if they really are true insights into those fundamental laws that transcend even the physical universe, the physical universe itself cannot explain how we can simply "see" the truth of those statements and actually trust what we see.

Perhaps it is because it is simply obvious?

Your definition of "nature"

My? I think this is the definition of every Naturalist.

misses the point of contention between the naturalist and the supernaturalist.

Not really; The supernaturalist claims are of a particular character; Miracles, exceptions to the order of nature. External forces with a will, etc. All taken on faith.

Naturalism doesn't deal with faith, only what is observable. Miracles and Dieties does not enter naturalism until real, actual evidence is present.

By your definition, "nature is everything that is," we're all naturalists.

Exactly. So how was it again that naturalism precluded reason? Remember, you are a naturalist now.

The difference between us is that you think that this universe of matter, energy, space and time is all there is

And when did I say this? Where? You are making completely invalid assumptions.

while I believe that there is something else (or Someone else) beyond it all.

Something I can understand. Someone is what I will never understand how a person can even reason in this absurd

 

"one can never have a thoroughly good reason to believe in a godless universe."

No, but we have a thoroughly good reason to behave as though we believe in a natural universe. A failure to adopt a posture of methodological naturalism would be catastrophic for humans. For many people, the overwhelming success of methodological naturalism has convinced them of its trustworthiness, and so they have become ontological naturalists (atheists). Clearly this is not the dominant philosophical view in the western world. Most people are theistic methodological naturalists - or insincere naturalists. But naturalism doesn't require the sincerity of its adherents in order to function.

"It seems to me that agnosticism and theism are the only two logical positions: agnosticism in the absence of proof, theism if one believes God has revealed Himself."

Your use of the word "godless" instead of "natural" leads me to believe you are setting up a false dichotomy between naturalism and theism, when the choice is between naturalism and supernaturalism. Theism is but one of an infinite number of choices of possible beliefs for supernaturalists.

Again, I'm not convinced there's any practical difference between the agnostic and the atheist, unless it is that the agnostic is priviledging theism over all other possible supernatural claims about which he or she is withholding judgment. Both would say: "there's no proof of supernaturalism, and no reason to believe it despite the lack of proof" with the agnostic stopping right there but the atheist going on to say "and therefore I don't believe it."

If you want more than that, you need to be able to trust that what we think are fundamental truths (such as the transitivity of equality) are indeed fundamental. The natural universe itself cannot give us any assurance of fundamental laws that transcend it.

Clearly, I overstated my case when I wrote that "supernaturalism is useless." Supernaturalism obviously fulfills an emotional need for many humans.

One of those emotional needs is a desire (you used the term "want") for fundamental truths. For you, Bubba, supernaturalism seems to be fulfilling a need for "assurance of fundamental laws that transcend [the natural universe].

If you genuinely believe the human mind is able to perceive "if a=b and b=c then a=c" as a legitimate truth, no amount of assuming naturalism can explain how that perception occurs.

And that is one of the utilities of supernaturalism.

Yes, if a desire to believe in the transcendent qualities of a semiotic system is something you need, then that could easily be one of the utilities of supernaturalism. That's the beauty of supernaturalism. Since any belief is permissible under supernaturalism, no emotional desire need remain unfulfilled.

I am frightened by uncertainty.
There are fundamental truths that transcend the natural universe

I feel unloved.
God loves me.

I fear death.
Ghost stories give me hope of an afterlife.

I'm lonely
Jesus is my friend

etc.

The emotional utility of supernaturalism is immense, because supernaturalism can expand to fulfill any need that is not physical.

 

I will remind you, Jabba, of the Oedipus complex. There are irrational reasons to deny God, too, so let's not act as if athiests are capable of separating themselves from the rest of humanity and live in crystalline towers of pure rationality.

The fact that there are psychological reasons for both positions says nothing about which position is true.

In fact, the fairly ubiquitous desire for the supernatural might not be damning in the least. Humans thirst, and water exists to quench that thirst. Humans hunger, and food exists to satisfy that hunger.

If humans desire the divine and the divine does not exist, it would be the first time, I think, that we as a species desire something that cannot be found.

 

Bubba, you've hinged your whole argument for the supernatural on an emotional appeal to transcendental truth values.

"There are irrational reasons to deny God."

Again you're insisting on theism as the first and foremost of all supernatural claims before you even make a feasible argument in support of supernaturalism. The atheist is saddled with an unfortunate name. That's why I prefer "ontological naturalist."
If I were to deny God, that would mean I would have to work through every possible supernatural claim and reject it individually. Who knows when I would get around to the question of theism. Adopting naturalism means that I don't have to consider every conceivable supernatural claim and reject it individually.

 

First, I'm not setting up a false dichotomy. I suppose I should use "supernaturalism" many times when I've used "theism," and I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Regardless, "ontological naturalism" is a form of denying God, denying His impact and acting as if He doesn't exist. There are emotional and psychological reasons for people to do this.

And, my argument does not hinge on an emotional appeal simply because you don't agree on an academic level that human reason is based on a legitimate insight into the world around it.

 

"And, my argument does not hinge on an emotional appeal simply because you don't agree on an academic level that human reason is based on a legitimate insight into the world around it."

But I do believe that human reason is based on a legitimate insight into the world around us.

Unlike you, I haven't insisted on a definition of "legitimate" that requires an emotional appeal to the need for "transcendental truths."

I'm not going to quibble with you about psychological reasons for rejecting theism, because clearly theism takes a primary spot over other supernatural claims in the history of western civilization (although not for all of human civilization). I can't possibly comment on people's psychological motives for making rational arguments. I can only comment on whether the arguments themselves are rational.

You have not adequately explained why transcendental truth values must exist, only that you desire the "assurance" and "trustworthiness" that they might provide. I am not commenting on your psychological motives, only on the rhetoric of "need" that you have employed in making the argument.

 

The problem is, that most theist claims of "psychological reasons" for atheism goes by the fallacious reasoning that the atheist would ever (or ever had) contemplate(ed) that dieties would make sense.

All those "oidipus" and other humorous things theist mentions, intrinsically assume that one at one time thought theism has merit.

I find theism false because it is contradictory, illogical, meaningless, and utterly unproven.

/Z

 

On the one hand, I agree with you Zap, but to be realistic, theism looms over all other supernatural claims in the western world. How did it get there? Bubba would say because people supernaturally sense its intrinsic truth. Or he would say that God reveals himself to them. Or something. Or maybe they just pretend to believe because everyone else does.

But whatever, once there, dominating western thought, to deny it asserts a psychological pressure over people would be absurd. The word atheism is itself culturally biased in its insistence on a privileging of theism over other supernatural claims. I guess I would agree that for cultural and psychological reasons, rejecting supernaturalism is for many people going to entail an overt rejection of the Judeo-Christian God. For me, I felt absolute psychic pain at being unable to believe in God when I was 11 or 12, but that was more because I feared the rejection of my church congregation and my parents. Once I realized my parents were ok with my beliefs, then I was ok. I had this conversation with my parents a day before I was supposed to be confirmed in the Methodist church. "I've tried as hard as I can, but I can't believe in God." I'm not sure what would have happened if my parents had said "get confirmed anyway," or "just keep going to church until it clicks."

I guess I was lucky. But anyway, sorry for the irrelevant anecdote.


On the other hand, for someone who did not grow up in a theistic family, some kind of irrationally motivated rejection of theism would be unlikely.

 

Remember, I am from Sweden. We are all a bunch of heathens. My father, may his soul be in fond memory, was the kindest, gentlest person in the world, he sung in the church choir. In his own softspoken, humble words, he said "I'm not much of a religious man... I just like to sing. The reverb is good."

My father never put any beliefs on me, positive or negative. The above statement was upon a direct question from me, at age 12, I believe, if he believed in God. God had, basically, never been mentioned in the household.

The US is very different. I made once a huge social blunder at a garhering with some American employees for Autodesk (for whom I worked at the time) and we were discussing christmas.

I said something which is an obvious truth to a Swede, that "... I mean, nobody actually celebrate christmas due to Christ - it's just an excuse for a party, and the presents". (And y'all stole our yule winter solistice party anyway)

The deafening silence and the stares from the Americans present made me blushingly realize that they actually did. This was completly alien to me.

The most important character on the Swedish christmas is definitely not Christ. I dont think anybody mentions him. No, it's Donald Duck. And I aint kidding. The most holy event, bar none, on Swedish Christmas is the Walt Disney Christmas Special, at 3 PM, every Christmas Eve. (It's a long story, if you want the story, let me know, it's an interesting tale on how tradition gets built).

So, I most certaily neither had any dislike for my father (as many theists insultingly claim) nor had any form of pressure to believe in something as absurd as theism, or even supernaturalism.


/Z

 

Something like 90% of Austrians are catholics. Catholicism there has the kind of position that the monarchy has in England. Most people love it for its cultural resonance, but only think about it on special occasions.

Insincere theism is one of those things that becomes inevitable in wealthy cultures where the fruits of methodological naturalism are so obvious. People hold onto their theism because it's a lot of fun during the holidays.

 

I'll get back to the Argument from Reason thing, probably after the Christmas break, but to travel with y'all on this digression...

I'm not sure prosperity necessarily leads to insincere theism. The U.S., for instance, is quite wealthy but a lot of people take religion seriously -- even many atheists here seem to take the question of God seriously enough to not answer it flippantly.

I think, honestly, the phenomenon has more to do with whether a nation has an official state church. According to the Wikipedia, Austria was officially a Roman Catholic state until 1918 (WWI). Likewise, the Lutheran church was the official church of Sweden until 2000.

Perhaps the lack of an official church in the United States has allowed more competition; as established churches atrophy in the frequent attempt to focus on social issues instead of the gospel message, newer evangelical churches have a better chance to grow and become a spiritual force within the country.


At any rate, I agree with Zap's assessment that many here take the true meaning of Christmas seriously.

I for one believe the story of Christmas is historical, but for y'all who clearly don't, I hope you can at least see one important aspect of the story: love, unconditional and unmerited love that moved God to lower Himself to become one of us, even knowing that the impromptu cradle of a cattle trough would lead to the excruciating suffering of the cross.

I hope you all feel the warmth of love and grace in the next few weeks, even if you don't think its source is from above.

With that, Merry Christmas.

 

Frankly, I think it is us that are takign the true meaning of Christmas - a get together to have fun and eat well with the family - seriously.

Personally, Christmas is an ultimate example of why Religion has stuck with us so long; in some cases, religion "legitimizes" having a good o'le fashioned PARTY, it "traditionalizes" it and it becomes e.g. a yearly thing, or whatever.

It becomes a thing to talk about, to plan for, and a big social event. For us humans, some "religion" has been used as the "excuse" to throw a fest many times. To me, being the secular heathen I am, it is quite clear the real reason is the party/food/companionshipe/etc, and the "religious" part is a mere excuse. It is definitely so here, and I can pretty much say that us Vikings has always been like that.

Personally, I think all religion was always intended metaphorically and the very concept of taking any of it seriously is a recent ludicry.

Regardless, Merry X-mas and all that, may you all eat a lot of Christmas Porridge, Lutefisk, Pickled Herring, Grilled Ham and drink lots of Schnapps!

/Z

 

Yes, merry Christmas/happy holidays, whatever your tradition or faith. How disappointed I feel that my traditions don't include lutefisk or porridge.

 

in regards to religion and social activity -- that was probably one of the main reasons i decided to leave the church -- because for me it simply became a social event. an excuse to go out, see my friends, hang out and eat after the service, etc etc... i admit that i had a lot of fun with it, but i couldn't help but feel hypocratical. and because a few people knew my struggles with the faith at the time, i couldn't help but think that me continuing to attend was sending the message that "i'm not gone yet -- there's hope for me yet!", which wasn't what i wanted to say. in the end, i left, and that said enough.

as for christmas, i agree with zap that it's an excuse to get together as family... and, really, that's far more important than worrying about some dude who lived 2000 years ago. (although he inevitably comes up in discussion, the rest of my family (except my little sister) being christians)

 

Since the Swedish word for Christmas, "Jul", doesn't contain a reference to "Christ" in any way, it's relatively easy to go an entire christmas without even considering the subject.

While some Swedish TV channel may broadcast some traditional x-mas concert where they play out some lip service to some Jesus-or-other, it's mostly about other things.

Like Donald Duck.

And the Pickled Herring and Schnapps.

Dont worry about the Lutefisk or Porridge, I am not too fond of neither.... the Porridge is good to calm the stomach after the massive x-mas dinner with smoked salmon, meatballs, "Jansons Frestelse", and the ever importad PICKLED HERRING AND SCHNAPPS!

/Z

 

I think it is us that are takign the true meaning of Christmas - a get together to have fun and eat well with the family - seriously.

Don't be insulting or try to pervert the meaning of the holiday to suit your philosophy.

That isn't the true meaning of Christmas - only the celebratory part of what Christmas is.

 

DM, is there anything you DON'T get insulted by?

 

Whatever it's in aid of, I'm glad (from what I've heard of it) that our traditions don't include lutefisk.

Seriously, I don't think that Christmas (given its religious meaning) is all about eating, drinking and making merry but, as far as I know, that was the main purpose of the earlier festival which was adopted as a suitable opportunity to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Of course, in my part of the UK, a lot of people, whatever their beliefs, carry the celebrations on through Hogmanay!

Whatever you're celebrating, I hope you all have an enjoyable and peaceful time.

 

DM, don't be ridiculous. The reason you guys celebrate Christmas is because the missionaries tried to Christen us vikings (heh), and thereby had to "chritenify" our Midvinterblot (our mid-winter-rave).

That is all. So please, don't come and talk to me about the true meaning of Christmas. YOU are the ones using OUR holiday for perverted purpouses, NOT the other way around.

/Z

 

Enforcer,

I had seen your words to me, and I apologize that It has taken me so long to get back to you. It seems my schedule is so hectic that everything is a trade off in regard to my time. No rest for the weary.

I'll respond to your post in chunks...as time permits.

You wrote:

"However, it is useful for me to point out that I have presented to you a good piece of evidence as to why the universe cannot only be 6000 years old to which your very few responses did not change (telescopes being well focused cameras and the ideas that the speed of light is slowing down enough to account for that don't pan out). Although I do not care about the details, it does make me ask two questions. First, would you change your belief if you were convinced that something contradiction your religion was true? And two, do you trust yourself?"

Firstly, I do not believe I have ever stated the universe to be '6,000 years old,' and if I did suggest something along those lines it would have been with a stipulatory qualifier involving what we do and do not know about the very temporal nature of the universe.


Most succinctly, our level of knowledge is at the same time staggering compared to what it was, yet infinitesimal in comparison to what there is to know. It is incomplete. Many of our current "answers" are in fact tentative explanations, to whit, nothing more than speculation (albeit exalted in certain considerations as dogma given unwarranted gravitas). And simply saying it is the best we can currently formulate doesn't legitimize such convictions as 'factual' as such are often passed around by so many.

A couple of days ago I was listening to the NPR am talk radio program All Things Considered which had devoted a segment to an interview of one of the Hubble space telescopes' attendant scientists. In the course of the interview the scientist accolade-ingly pointed out how much more knowledge we have now than even a scant 10 years ago due to the success of the Hubble. Stating that 10 years ago it was thought that the universe was gradually slowing down, but it turns out to be the exact opposite, that the universe appears to actually be accelerating in speed.

That's a pretty dramatic shift in just 10 years.

If our discussion were held 10 years ago perhaps you, or someone else, would no doubt present the slowing of the universe as a commonly accepted factoid. Today, in 2003, we now know how erroneous such a 'factual' assumption would be, and actually were. (What does that imply about mathematics involved in the calculating of the universe age? The constant would have been completely backwards.)

Too often 'today's facts' end up on tomorrow's trash heap. That should be no surprise since history has shown no area of knowledge to be exempt from error. The difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism might come to mind. Generally it is regarded as a triumph of science, but what isn't remembered is that the vast bulk of the scientific voices were not in the right court, in other words, scientist's as a virtual whole in almost unanimous consensus had actually failed. It was the persistent lone voices which finally, and rightly, prevailed and were vindicated.

Most of my discussions in this forum have involved assailing the defense of imaginary walls of speculation presented as "facts."

If someone were to sift back through to my very earliest posts in this forum they would the words, "The verdict is still out." That has been my stance in many regards from the beginning.


The "Big Bang," for instance, is not a fact, although I have at numerous times in various posts opined that it is fundamentally acceptable to, and preferred by, me over other various tentative hypotheses.
My position is based not foremost on the opinions of scientists but on that of a 4,000 year text I consider reliable, which stated well ahead of modern science what would be observed of the sidereal movement of the universe. The Bible stated in clear terms God had caused the expanse of the heavens to be spread out like a tent.

 

_Darth_Brooks_

Thank you for responding and please, take your time and relax. Believe me when I say I can be a very patient person.

Maybe a good debate would be why I should (as an agnostic) trust the Bible as much as you, but unless you or Bubba has a trump card, I think it would be well beyond the scope of this debate.

Would I change my belief if something were shown to be contradictory to scripture? I might change my belief in how that scripture had been understood by myself or others. Certainly I have had to do so previously involving my exegetical opinions of verses. It wasn't that the verses were contradictory but my understanding has been off base. Nothing to do with anything "scientific" in those instances. I am no authority on all-things-Biblical, admittedly.

You know more about the Bible than me though

However in what ways would you reinterpreted the Bible to better understand it? Look at the passages in the eyes of a Jew or early Christian in those times? Take into account language and dialect differences? What does something mean to God? Others? I feel that the last one is a rather slippery slope because if we say 'what is time to God?' then why can't we say 'what is lying or murder or life to God?'

Do I trust myself? That's a large question there, isn't it? In certain areas certainly, in other areas definitely not. I can't even say I fully trust The Living God. I wish that I could, but then I would be a Saint and of the highest magnitude. For me to say otherwise I would be a liar. I am not saint, just a very fallible human being.

If this is getting too personal, say so, but can you say some of the ways you do and don't trust yourself and why? Same question for God?

It was not out of love or devotion to God in any direct sense, but perhaps indirectly in the form of my appreciation and devotion and feeling of personal obligation to what is truthful and accurate. In this way the Lord was certainly unavoidable to me. However, I was very, very resentful of God, very hurt by the Lord's inaction in matters extremely important to me at the time. I do not understand this life, why the Lord has chosen to allow or act or not act in certain ways. Many of the skeptics questions are my own questions, and in addressing responses I come to some conclusions I need for my own life and understanding.

Wow, do you realize what you just said? Many skeptics say that people believe in God for a sense of comfort in many ways. You just said that it is not in some of the same ways. Wow, that is something to think about.

It would have to be the Hebrews who were emancipated from their Egyptian masters in the book of Exodus, or even, shamefully, perhaps Judas Iscariot. They all saw the miraculous magnitude and reality of the power of The Lord firsthand, knew beyond any reasonable doubt the actuality of God, and yet, obtusely turned upon The Lord. I have experienced things which have more than sufficiently demonstrated the reality of the Lord and of the demonic. There is nolonger any question, or even room for question for me. And so many times, while in angry fist shaking defiance of the Lord, I've had a responsibility to the truth that compelled me to post.

You sound like many atheists who I know who hate God. The only difference is they would add 'if he exists.'

Yet do you ever say more to God then 'Why the heck did You do __?" No. I will bet a lot of cash that most of your prayers or thoughts are more thank you's and other loving things.

The difference between you and those who rejected God is that you don?t reject Him, you question Him (maybe angrily, but still, you still accept Him even if you are mad at Him).

We all get angry, even God.


And for proof.

I would like proof one way or another. I ask myself why I would like it? I am curious.

However, I don't know what I will do with the proof. A lot of it would depend on what I find/get clearly (a dream of a guy with a beard in the clouds saying "Hey SG, believe in me" wo

 

*cough*

/Z

 

Maybe people got frustrated that we couldn't solve the question of the meaning of life on a Star Wars fan discussion board. I'm as surprised as everyone else.