Don't lie to me...

[blü 2]

And since Matthew and John were there... they are eyewitnesses.

We don't know who wrote Matthew or John (or Mark or Luke) but we know they never claim to have met or seen Jesus.

Luke also wrote down the statements of the eyewitnesses and verified that some had already made an eyewitness account- a policeman of sorts that is taking down the statements of eyewitnesses.

He says something like that at the start, but we never know (a) who those people were (b) what each of them actually said about anything (c) whether they said it to him, or to someone else or (d) what parts of his own text rely on what alleged witness statements. There's no suggestion that the words of an eyewitness are anywhere preserved.

That's a nice take on it... it just doesn't match the narrative given... "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God"... "And the Word was made flesh". (1st century)

The precise meaning of 'the Word' isn't clear. It can mean 'divine wisdom'. What it doesn't mean is that Jesus was God:

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.​

and not least

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

If you'd like more, there are many more, in John, in Paul, and in Mark, Matthew and Luke.

please see the above quote... very coherent!

It's not a claim that accords with the Trinity doctrine in any way. As I pointed out, the churches themselves assert that the Trinity doctrine is incoherent. And it's nice to agree with them now and again.

First, is there a God
Second, how can we tell whether any real suspect we find is God or not".

I think we have to first start with the first and, after that, as about the second.

No, unless we can answer the second one, the first one has no meaning.

For example, Does the yeti exist? Depends entirely on what creature you mean by 'yeti'. If you catch a snow leopard, have you caught a yeti? Who knows? If you catch a bear, have you caught sasquatch? Who knows?

(But if you haven't caught anything then you've caught nothing.)

"For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known,"

This is the argument from design, which used to be the most potent argument for God for some very astute minds. But then the theory of evolution arrived, which explained "design", and the argument from design no longer had any basis.

Does the Burgess Shale fossil discovery of 1909 of never discovered animals at the Cambrian layer with no precursor forms suggest that something greater was driving everything? It would appear so.

On what basis do you suggest that there was no precursor?

Does symbiotic relationships suggest that something greater was involved? Man certainly can't answer how.

I don't know what that means. Which particular symbiotic relations? What something larger?

Does the mere function of a body, its complexity, its intricacies, its amazing capacity et al seem to defy simple chance? That certainly is what I see but maybe you don't so think of it this way...

The theory of evolution explains evolution, and evolution explains all your examples. (I love the datum that 25% of the genes of slime molds are also found in humans. The slime molds, despite their name, are remarkable critters too.)

I may know understand why there is a mosquito, but I know there is an author.

Yes, the preceding generations of mosquitoes produced the author.

Yes... but are those moral judgments hardwired by God or just your thinking.

We're born with certain moral tendencies ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ and certain moral equipment ─ a conscience, a capacity for empathy ─ and we derive the rest of our morals from our upbringing, culture, education and experience. So a mix of genetics and learning.

And we'll need to get God into the lab in order to determine whether we're in a position to judge [him] or not.

So... we shouldn't put anyone in jail?

If we're omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, indeed we should not. We should heal instead.

If we're humans looking for ways to keep order in our society, then we have to make do with what we can do (and our record is far from flattering in that regard). At some future time perhaps we may be able to fix such things by healing, without calling up the ghost of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest or Brave New World's Soma. I don't see that as being soon, though.

 

[Kenny]

We don't know who wrote Matthew or John (or Mark or Luke) but we know they never claim to have met or seen Jesus.
He says something like that at the start, but we never know (a) who those people were (b) what each of them actually said about anything (c) whether they said it to him, or to someone else or (d) what parts of his own text rely on what alleged witness statements. There's no suggestion that the words of an eyewitness are anywhere preserved.
The precise meaning of 'the Word' isn't clear. It can mean 'divine wisdom'. What it doesn't mean is that Jesus was God:

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.​

and not least

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

If you'd like more, there are many more, in John, in Paul, and in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
It's not a claim that accords with the Trinity doctrine in any way. As I pointed out, the churches themselves assert that the Trinity doctrine is incoherent. And it's nice to agree with them now and again.
No, unless we can answer the second one, the first one has no meaning.

For example, Does the yeti exist? Depends entirely on what creature you mean by 'yeti'. If you catch a snow leopard, have you caught a yeti? Who knows? If you catch a bear, have you caught sasquatch? Who knows?

(But if you haven't caught anything then you've caught nothing.)
This is the argument from design, which used to be the most potent argument for God for some very astute minds. But then the theory of evolution arrived, which explained "design", and the argument from design no longer had any basis.
On what basis do you suggest that there was no precursor?
I don't know what that means. Which particular symbiotic relations? What something larger?
The theory of evolution explains evolution, and evolution explains all your examples. (I love the datum that 25% of the genes of slime molds are also found in humans. The slime molds, despite their name, are remarkable critters too.)
Yes, the preceding generations of mosquitoes produced the author.
We're born with certain moral tendencies ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ and certain moral equipment ─ a conscience, a capacity for empathy ─ and we derive the rest of our morals from our upbringing, culture, education and experience. So a mix of genetics and learning.

And we'll need to get God into the lab in order to determine whether we're in a position to judge [him] or not.
If we're omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, indeed we should not. We should heal instead.

If we're humans looking for ways to keep order in our society, then we have to make do with what we can do (and our record is far from flattering in that regard). At some future time perhaps we may be able to fix such things by healing, without calling up the ghost of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest or Brave New World's Soma. I don't see that as being soon, though.

Let me answer this in a nutshell....

For every proposal there isn't a "let me explore" but simply a "why I don't want to consider it".

Somehow that doesn't translate into "seeking" for me but rather "I'm not really wanting to try" which is probably why you haven't heard God. Not that He isn't speaking but rather "I don't want to listen".

Reminds me of how the people at the town that Jesus came from talked themselves out of receiving from God.

 

[blü 2]

Let me answer this in a nutshell....

For every proposal there isn't a "let me explore" but simply a "why I don't want to consider it".

Somehow that doesn't translate into "seeking" for me but rather "I'm not really wanting to try" which is probably why you haven't heard God. Not that He isn't speaking but rather "I don't want to listen".

Reminds me of how the people at the town that Jesus came from talked themselves out of receiving from God.

So 'seeking' for you isn't about sifting to find what's true, it's searching for affirmations of what you'd like to believe? Fair enough.

I've learnt most by looking seriously at things that contradicted what I wanted to believe. So I'd say nothing's quite as educational as being wrong, seeing it and working forward from there.

But most of the time that's not as important, I think, as cultivating a habit of decency, respect and inclusion. We don't just live on this planet, we share it. I don't think you disagree.

So go well.

Though I do enjoy our conversations.

 

[Kenny]

So 'seeking' for you isn't about sifting to find what's true, it's searching for affirmations of what you'd like to believe? Fair enough.

I've learnt most by looking seriously at things that contradicted what I wanted to believe. So I'd say nothing's quite as educational as being wrong, seeing it and working forward from there.

But most of the time that's not as important, I think, as cultivating a habit of decency, respect and inclusion. We don't just live on this planet, we share it. I don't think you disagree.

So go well.

Though I do enjoy our conversations.

No.. seeking is asking questions to dig deeper. Have you ever connected with someone who all they offered were defensive replies?

For an example... we don't know who wrote John (your position) even though the whole of the book talks as if someone was there. - a modern position)

Why did the people closest to that time believe that John wrote it?

But, yes, I have no problem with sharing the world with people who disagree.

 

[blü 2]

No.. seeking is asking questions to dig deeper. Have you ever connected with someone who all they offered were defensive replies?

Yes, dig deeper into stories, but also into reality, so that the nature of the universe, biochemistry, life, evolution, the human brain, are understood as well as may be.

For an example... we don't know who wrote John (your position) even though the whole of the book talks as if someone was there. - a modern position)

The author of John is unknown. Whoever he was, his take on Jesus was gnostic-flavored (like Paul's), used Mark as his framework, but more loosely than the authors of Matthew and Luke, doesn't claim to have met Jesus, but says he has an informant, whom he doesn't name, who did meet Jesus. As for this informant, we have no idea what parts of John, if any, may be attributed to him, or what his actual words were ─ that is, we don't have his account. We know that the supernatural tales are as unhistorical as other supernatural tales. There's a view that the unnamed informant is a coy reference to the author himself; that's not impossible, nor is it very probable. John is written around the mid-90s CE or later, some 65 years or so after the traditional date of death of his subject.

Why did the people closest to that time believe that John wrote it?

I dare say for much the same reasons they attributed gMark to"Mark", gMatthew to "Matthew" and gLuke to "Luke" ─ for ease of reference.

But, yes, I have no problem with sharing the world with people who disagree.

We must do this again some time!