Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Norman]

yes and I wasn't replying to you. That was about the fact that the bible has changed for political purposes and I was responding to someone else. We were arguing about right and wrong but that other guy had no issues talking about right and wrong. It isn't a red herring because the fact that the bible has changed frequently over the course of the centuries means it isn't as genuine. It was tailored to fit society and politics at the time; it even says that Constantine literally changed doctrine to reflect compromises between the bishops. This isn't text directly from Jesus and the apostles--its been modified substantially. He was arguing that the bible is a completely reliable testament of God's message and my claim was that it wasn't, which means it probably isn't the true word of God, which implies that Christianity probably isn't correct. its been muddled by men for too long even if it was correct at one point.

Norman: This is just my opinion, but I think we all need to respect "serp777" for what He believes or doesn't believe, we are all in the same boat.
Lets not throw him over board.

 

[JustWondering]

Well Jesus did say “an evil age will be eager for a sign but no sign shall be given them except that of Jonah.” I guess this is what he meant. No matter what sign is given they will reject it even for the lamest of reasons, because they do not want to see. They want to remain blind.

You are the one who brought up signs and miracles in the first place and were eager to share this "miracle" until those who are not part of your choir didn't find it convincing. Then you do a 180 from "check out this amazing miracle" to "you don't believe as I believe, you must be part of the evil age". So someone asking for convincing evidence and arguments to except your religions extraordinary claims equals being evil? If a member of another religion that contradicts yours asked you to believe their claims about their religion no questions asked, would you? If they called you evil when you didn't, would that make any rational sense to you? Would them condemning you for not mindlessly excepting their religion really be persuasive in any way whatsoever to you?

Three scientists on the scene gave their written testimonies of the inexplicable phenomenon and you laugh them off along with all the rest. That’s very scholarly of you.

I looked into this "miracle" and it didn't hold up. I did not dismiss it out of hand without seriously looking into it. I even provided an example of a similar incident that happened in Ireland. When it comes down to it you view this incident through the biased eyes of a believer, and you are the one laughing off my arguments. This inexplicable phenomenon is easily explained if you read the article I linked in my earlier post. The fact of the matter is that you want to believe it was a sign from god so you will ignore any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

 

[thau]

You are the one who brought up signs and miracles in the first place and were eager to share this "miracle" until those who are not part of your choir didn't find it convincing. Then you do a 180 from "check out this amazing miracle" to "you don't believe as I believe, you must be part of the evil age". So someone asking for convincing evidence and arguments to except your religions extraordinary claims equals being evil? If a member of another religion that contradicts yours asked you to believe their claims about their religion no questions asked, would you? If they called you evil when you didn't, would that make any rational sense to you? Would them condemning you for not mindlessly excepting their religion really be persuasive in any way whatsoever to you?

The “evil age” passage was a general reference to those who demand a sign to prove there is a God, the Christian God in particular, but when a multitude of signs and reasons are presented they refuse to believe. Why? Because Jesus said that man has a “sluggish heart” and does not want to believe because it will convict him of his wanton disobedience (my interpretation). So if that does not apply to you, then I believe you, but it remains my best guess.

So, yes, I brought up the miracle as an example of God’s presence, but it is you who says “no thanks to any religion” who keeps hanging around religion boards. So what does that tell me? It tells me you are the one who is still in the mode of validating his disbelief, else, why would you spend the time wasting your earthly life on meaningless discourse? If I had no interest in knowing about dogs I would not waste my time discussing dogs each day.

I looked into this "miracle" and it didn't hold up. I did not dismiss it out of hand without seriously looking into it. I even provided an example of a similar incident that happened in Ireland. When it comes down to it you view this incident through the biased eyes of a believer, and you are the one laughing off my arguments. This inexplicable phenomenon is easily explained if you read the article I linked in my earlier post. The fact of the matter is that you want to believe it was a sign from god so you will ignore any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

Your “Knock Ireland” example is not evidence for dismissing the extraordinary facts that surround Fatima. Sorry, no way. I am not about to repeat myself, but the facts and testimonies of Fatima are beyond doubt. I have no interest in “amazing coincidence” on the day of the predicted miracle as evidence for anything except an act of desperation. Plus, Jesus Christ does not need Fatima in the least to reveal Himself to the world or to validate His divine truth. Miracles abound as do logic and sound reason and historical events. Choose whatever you may, but as for me and my house we shall serve the Lord.

 

[serp777]

You can't clearly state the argument, therefore it is unintelligible.

Not at all! It may or may not be the case that Jesus is (not "was") resurrected. Depends on what is meant by "resurrection." I'm not sure anyone fully understands the concept. It may or may not be the case that God exists as most average lay people conceptualize God. But, again, we're not talking about objective fact claims. We're talking about subjective truth claims. Refer to my last post for the difference. You would say that chances are, Jesus is not resurrected and, in that case, Xy is wrong. I say that factual verification actually defeats the purpose of the myth, and that it is that verification that is "wrong" in this case.

You're welcome.

You can't clearly state the argument, therefore it is unintelligible.

You can't comprehend the argument, therefore it is unintelligible to you. I'll just call your other response a blundering misunderstanding of my position and a straw man. Now we have two pointless cop out arguments.

It may or may not be the case that God exists as most average lay people conceptualize God. But, again, we're not talking about objective fact claims.

Its good that you're agreeing that it may or may not correct that God exists for most people, which implies you agree that this topic/question is at least applicable to most people. I'm willing to argue whether its applicable for you. Furthermore your conception of God is entirely dependent on your interpretation and therefore to call those people lay and average as if you're somehow superior not only reflects a superiority complex but also a belief that your conception is more sophisticated or realistic, which is an unjustified assertion. I fail to see how your understanding is supposed to be a more realistic reflection of religion and theology when clearly most religious people see religious claims as being based on objective facts and reality.

Refer to my last, last post for how were not talking about subjective truth claims. Although you didn't find the argument convincing-- parallel universes being dependent on subjective truth similar to your wife--the point was that subjective truth can't determine things which apply to everyone. You loving your wife can be a subjective truth because its about a single person and depends entirely on your personal cognition. Whether God is the fabric or reality or not applies to everyone and therefore cannot be a subjective truth because subjective truths are often mutually exclusives between people.

I say that factual verification actually defeats the purpose of the myth

Most religious people would say it actually occurred and isn't a myth. The historical occurrence of Jesus being resurrected can't be true to one person and false for another. if you want to say its a myth then that means that the alleged historical occurrence made in the bible and by religious people is false. So if you want to say its false in reality, but that people can accept the myth as a truth since it has meaning for their lives, I would be willing to agree that compromise. However, did you not find any of my point regarding your definition of "fact" convincing at all? i claimed that it aligned accurately with what I had said. You didn't reply to them so I assume you just didn't want to deal with them because you didn't like them.

 

[serp777]

Norman: This is just my opinion, but I think we all need to respect "serp777" for what He believes or doesn't believe, we are all in the same boat.
Lets not throw him over board.

Well thank you, but I don't know what to believe since im an agnostic. I guess my one pseudo belief is that other's religious beliefs are probably wrong.

 

[serp777]

(me: "A coincidence that molecules somehow crashed together and created living matter, then bugs, then eyes, then brains, all without an intelligent designer.")

[Serp: “Not only did i not argue this, but i'm an agnostic so i don't know is the appropriate answer. But anyways I find that to be more likely than a invisible magical sky entity who has always existed and created this entire universe and evolution so that eventually it could lead to the evolution, 5 billion years later, of some partially evolved apes. Also evolution is a fact, so once you have a self replicating molecule evoltuion carries it the rest of the way.

“ And its not a coincidence that molecules make certain configurations. its the law of large numbers. There is something like 10^70 atoms in the universe, and there are probably, in a very very modest estimate, 10^60 atoms that could form life in possible habitable environments throughout the universe. Give it 13.7 billion years and suddenly its likely that a self replicating molecule would eventually form. its not a coincidence, its just math and probability.”]

All very interesting except I find the “laws” of probability very much not on your side. Not even in the realm of discussion. But if “by chance” molecules had some rave parties and started making babies, the probabilities would also say for every success we should see a billion failures. We see virtually none. We should see tons of failures in the fossil record between a reptile and a bird with wings and feathers. But the fossil record is quite remarkable in that every one of them is a bona fide success. I am also always charmed by how mindless molecules decided it was time to make a pancreas when once there was none.


[Serp: “And a solar flare is also not a coincidence; its a completely valid explanation for the occurrence of the stellar optical phenomena you describe. Atmospheric ozone as well as water vapor can act as a prism for high intensity solar output creating a prism and distortion effect leading to a variety of colors and changes in the apparent size of the sun. The solar flare in 1917 was so power that it in fact broke telegraph lines because it was the flare of the century. Seems like a very good explanation because it occurred at the same time and produces results similar to those described. You're the one who is saying that is just a coincidence--i claim that as the cause, not a coincidence unlike you.”]

First of all, a solar flare is not what those present witnessed. The sun grew enormous in size and charged the earth. It caused the multitudes to scream and fall to their knees. Of course you doubt it because it would discredit your solar flare theory. So now it is mass hallucination. How crazy they all “hallucinated” the very same thing. How crazy that you and yours can just dismiss the testimonies of scientists and atheists present who had no intention of expecting to see anything but a means to dismiss what these children were claiming. And finally --- what a coincidence your solar flare occurred on that very day at that very time the children showed up.


[Serp: “Not only do I not accept that the children predicted a miracle would occur (90 days in advance) and instead only claimed that they did, but even if they did make the prediction they probably made like 30 other predictions that some generic miracle would occur, and selection bias made them seem correct when one happened to be correct.” ]

Then how do you explain 70,000 people showing up on that day slogging through mud in the pouring rain? How do you explain govt officials imprisoning them for days a month earlier, interrogating them separately, and threatening them with being boiled in oil if they do not recant? They also told each child the other ones had already been boiled. Pretty drastic.

Sorry, serp. You are only wishing they made all kinds of fake predictions, do you have any evidence of that? We have empirical evidence for our claims. We also have the news reports from those days in Marxist newspapers. We also have the testimonies of unbiased professionals which you so do not want to give any credence to. Oh, but because they are not astronomers so they are incapable of deductive reasoning I guess?


[Serp: “I'm still waiting for an explanation for how they knew which God or Gods allegedly caused this phenomena.” ]

Because it walks, talks, smells, sounds and looks like a duck, serp. It’s a duck. The children were praying the rosary when she first appeared. The children repeated the words of the lady they claimed to see who said she was the Virgin Mary. She told them of Jesus, to repent of their sins, to pray the rosary. She showed them a vision of hell and spoke of purgatory. It was very Christian!


[Serp: “Sorry i'm a scientist. i don't accept things willy nilly. I've heard similar arguments from alien abduction groups, Scientologists, Mormons, Muslims, African mythology, etc.”]

We do not care about other fantastic claims, serp. You are slinging mud hoping something will stick. Stick to the facts surrounding Fatima. Will nilly?... please.

I have to cut this short Serp. I understand your other and related points I omitted here. I can see that my answers will not satisfy your doubts. So I am fine that we agree to disagree. We both need to move on to other discussions perhaps. But for the sake of anyone reading this post I am going to reprint a few testimonies of those either at the scene of the miracle or miles away. For me, I cannot deny their authenticity validating the truth of the matter. Unless you are claiming all these testimonies are made up lies? Again, where is your proof of that? Otherwise, it lays your solar flare theory to the garbage heap. (imo)

I repeat:

Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal. “… The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a, heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl. Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible …All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind, and without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them.”

Portuguese aristocrat Baron of Alvaiazere: “. . . An indescribable impression overtook me. I only know that I cried out: I believe! I believe! And tears ran from my eyes. I was amazed, in ecstasy before the demonstration of Divine power . . . converted in that moment.”

Dr. Formigao, Professor at Santarem seminary: “As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendour. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colours of the rainbow and sending forth multi-coloured flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. “The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees. The Creed, the Hail Mary, acts of contrition, burst from all lips, and tears, tears of thanksgiving and repentance sprang from all eyes.”

Lawyer, Carlos Mendes: “I saw the sun as if it were a ball of fire, begin to move in the clouds. It had been raining all morning and the sky was full of clouds, but the rain had stopped. It lasted for several seconds, crushingly pressing down on us. Wan faces, standing here, from every side great ejaculations, acts of contrition, of the love of God. An indescribable moment! We feel it. We remain dominated by it. But it is not possible to describe it.”

Excerpt from Wikipedia article quoting the Marxist journalist:"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Marxist Lisbon newspaper O Século.

Abano Barros (a building contractor) witnessed the apparition from the village of Minde, eight miles away… “I was watching sheep, as was my daily task, and suddenly, there in the direction of Fátima, I saw the sun fall from the sky. I thought it was the end of the world.”

Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away): “… I feel incapable of describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.”

But if “by chance” molecules had some rave parties and started making babies, the probabilities would also say for every success we should see a billion failures. We see virtually none. We should see tons of failures in the fossil record between a reptile and a bird with wings and feathers

I talked about a magical sky criminal thought policeman to show you I can make an intelligent designer sound equally ridiculous. However, I don't think you understand the evolution of species. 99% of fossils are from extinct species--they are all failures, so we do see a billion failures. And we see those failures today--when someone gets cancer or alzheimers, thats a direct example of an evolutionary failure. Species are now going extinct, or failing if you will, at an unprecedented rate. And we see intermittent species all the time. The human evolution is laid out clearly in the smithsonian. its a fact and im bewildered that you can deny it in spite of the mountains of evidence. But then on top of that, you accept the assertions from 3 children that the are the next prophets of the lord, and that mary revealed herself to them

But seriously, have you heard about anti biotic resistant bacteria ravaging africa and anti biotic resistant staff infections killing tens of thousands in the U.S. and India? there was no anti biotic resistant bacteria before penicillin and modern human anti biotics? Did God do this just to kill humans as a joke? You can see evolution occurring in a petri dish if you put anti biotics in a bacteria culture--1% of the bacteria which survive have an improved resistance to anti biotics. This is a perfect example of natural selection. its incredible that you're unaware of this considering you questioned my education, or else you're reconciling this by claiming that God is a sadist.

First of all, a solar flare is not what those present witnessed. The sun grew enormous in size and charged the earth. It caused the multitudes to scream and fall to their knees. Of course you doubt it because it would discredit your solar flare theory.

Charged the earth makes no sense. What does charging the earth even mean? No one you quoted said the earth was charged because that's completely illogical. NThe screaming and knee falling is irrelevant too--i'm not surprised people would think a solar flare is divine, just like the Eskimos thought the aurora borealis was a battle between the Gods and the Mayans thought the solar eclipse was the sun God getting mad at them for not sacrificing. The solar flare would produce the effects people were describing--high intensity colors, an enlarging of the size of the sun, etc.

Because it walks, talks, smells, sounds and looks like a duck, serp. It’s a duck. The children were praying the rosary when she first appeared. The children repeated the words of the lady they claimed to see who said she was the Virgin Mary. She told them of Jesus, to repent of their sins, to pray the rosary. She showed them a vision of hell and spoke of purgatory. It was very Christian!

That's your argument? If it walks and talks like a duck? It walks, talks, and smells like a solar flare, which happened to occur at the exact same time? So you're claiming that its just a coincidence there was a solar flare at the exact same time as God was doing his miracle?

And in regards to the children, no one else claimed to be able to see Mary or visions of heaven and hell. All the people you quoted talked about , I'm amazed how enamored you are with these children, and the evidence they given, and yet all the scientific evidence in the world for evolution somehow isn't convincing. This is purely selection bias on your part--evidence that supports your faith is good, and evidence against your faith is bad. You're probably going to flip this argument on me, which would be incredibly fallacious because I'm an agnostic and I would love to learn the nature of reality. I have no bias, but you have a big bias towards your faith.

I also always find that many religious people are always the first to give up by saying "I can't convince you of anything." The reason why is because at a certain point they just can't handle the fact that someone argues against them and the arguments get too difficult. Of course I couldn't convince you of anything but I wouldn't give up just because your faith is indomitable.

 

[serp777]

Norman: Hi serp777, Thank you, you are a good person, I look forward to talking with you some more.

Aw shucks I try my best to be a good person, even though some people get angry with me on these debate forums. But i hope you realize that post was more of a quip. I mean why not be a Muslim?

 

[thau]

I talked about a magical sky criminal thought policeman to show you I can make an intelligent designer sound equally ridiculous. However, I don't think you understand the evolution of species. 99% of fossils are from extinct species--they are all failures, so we do see a billion failures. And we see those failures today--when someone gets cancer or alzheimers, thats a direct example of an evolutionary failure. Species are now going extinct, or failing if you will, at an unprecedented rate. And we see intermittent species all the time. The human evolution is laid out clearly in the smithsonian. its a fact and im bewildered that you can deny it in spite of the mountains of evidence. But then on top of that, you accept the assertions from 3 children that the are the next prophets of the lord, and that mary revealed herself to them

But seriously, have you heard about anti biotic resistant bacteria ravaging africa and anti biotic resistant staff infections killing tens of thousands in the U.S. and India? there was no anti biotic resistant bacteria before penicillin and modern human anti biotics? Did God do this just to kill humans as a joke? You can see evolution occurring in a petri dish if you put anti biotics in a bacteria culture--1% of the bacteria which survive have an improved resistance to anti biotics. This is a perfect example of natural selection. its incredible that you're unaware of this considering you questioned my education, or else you're reconciling this by claiming that God is a sadist.


Charged the earth makes no sense. What does charging the earth even mean? No one you quoted said the earth was charged because that's completely illogical. NThe screaming and knee falling is irrelevant too--i'm not surprised people would think a solar flare is divine, just like the Eskimos thought the aurora borealis was a battle between the Gods and the Mayans thought the solar eclipse was the sun God getting mad at them for not sacrificing. The solar flare would produce the effects people were describing--high intensity colors, an enlarging of the size of the sun, etc.



That's your argument? If it walks and talks like a duck? It walks, talks, and smells like a solar flare, which happened to occur at the exact same time? So you're claiming that its just a coincidence there was a solar flare at the exact same time as God was doing his miracle?

And in regards to the children, no one else claimed to be able to see Mary or visions of heaven and hell. All the people you quoted talked about , I'm amazed how enamored you are with these children, and the evidence they given, and yet all the scientific evidence in the world for evolution somehow isn't convincing. This is purely selection bias on your part--evidence that supports your faith is good, and evidence against your faith is bad. You're probably going to flip this argument on me, which would be incredibly fallacious because I'm an agnostic and I would love to learn the nature of reality. I have no bias, but you have a big bias towards your faith.

I also always find that many religious people are always the first to give up by saying "I can't convince you of anything." The reason why is because at a certain point they just can't handle the fact that someone argues against them and the arguments get too difficult. Of course I couldn't convince you of anything but I wouldn't give up just because your faith is indomitable.

Most of your assertions here strike me as simply implausible or total diversions of the claims. Solar flares do not act in the way what those tens of thousands witnessed. Give me a break. Why does Fatima persist and continue to amaze much of the world 100 years later? Because it was a phenomenon of the greatest proportions and 90 days prior it was prophesied by three little children to occur on that very day and only after they came to the place. What an amazing "coincidence" (the understatement of all time) for your solar flare to make its appearance at that moment!

During a solar flare the sun does not become genteel so all present can stare at it for 12 minutes! And cause no harm to their eyes. Solar flares do not cause the sun to bounce, to spin like a disc and shoot off green, blue, red, yellow rays covering the entire sky and landscape. The sun grew in enormous size, turned blood red, and charged the earth to where all screamed at once. That is not a solar flare. Many intellectual minds, many enough not even religious including scientists, journalists and other professionals, gave their immediate sober testimonies to what they witnessed and the accounts were remarkably similar. They did not describe a solar flare, so forget it.

Plus these same deniers argue both sides of the coin hoping one will turn up. First it was an extraordinary solar flare where the sun went fantastic, explanation #1. Then if that doesn’t work they say the sun could not have done anything like that at all because no observatories anywhere on the earth witnessed anything unusual with the sun during that time frame so how could it have happened, explanation #2. Well which is it? Sounds like they cancel each other out.

I will tell you what it was. It was a sign from Jesus Christ just as told would happen by three little shepherd children. Now you say but only the children saw the Virgin Mary. Yeah, so what of it? You think God is limited to what you grant Him? Visions have been given a thousand times but only to whom are granted. And if God wants to make the sun dance just for Portugal and no other venue, I am certain He has the ability. But you just do not want to believe for any number of reasons I don’t care to consider. That is my belief. We are all given free will to do as we please and think as we please.

 

[Norman]

Aw shucks I try my best to be a good person, even though some people get angry with me on these debate forums. But i hope you realize that post was more of a quip. I mean why not be a Muslim?

Norman: Hi serp777, NO offense taken. I don't know why people get angry in these forums, I have been attacked several times.
Just keep doing what you are doing, you have a right to post your opinion, belief's whatever they may be. I really do respect
everyone; you are right though some people get hostile. It is like everyone want's to be heard but a lot of people do not want
to listen. I got your back anytime my friend. I enjoy your post's. I know sometimes I can be over bearing in my post's so please
be patient with me when I respond to your post's.

 

[Norman]

Well thank you, but I don't know what to believe since im an agnostic. I guess my one pseudo belief is that other's religious beliefs are probably wrong.

Norman: Hi serp777, I totally respect you being agnostic, your point of view comes across very clearly, I know my Church has
a few skeleton's in our closet, I think everyone does who proclaims any religious affiliation. Keep your post's going, I read all
of them.

 

[JosephThomas]

serp777,

please tell me the difference between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Greek/Norse mythology and Native American Creationism, on a philosophical, moral and technical level.

they are all the same without contradiction.

 

[serp777]

serp777,

please tell me the difference between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Greek/Norse mythology and Native American Creationism, on a philosophical, moral and technical level.

they are all the same without contradiction.

Seriously? You need to read up on your theology. One basic difference is that Hinduism is polytheistic and the abrahamic faiths are monotheistic. Christianity is centered on Jesus Christ being the son of God, while Islam claims Muhammad is the perfect messenger of God. These are a few basic differences, and there are a variety of moral differences that depend on interpretation and scripture. I'm not going to explain all of them but to suffice is to say there is certainly a substantial difference. Its why a Christian person doesn't believe in the norse myths, and doesn't accept Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, etc.

 

[ginaleanne]

Oh my God. That's right. My God. My God doesn't have many rules, my government has a whole bunch though. Before streetlamps and beat cops the government use to be called church and the law said no matter who you were you had to attend to hear what the man of God had to read to you for the week, because only the wealthy and ministers were taught to read. Attending church was the way that people controlled other people's thoughts one day out of the week and the other six days out of the week you did what you were told because you were told God knows and sees all. Today instead of fearing that God is watching we pretty much know that there could be a camera recording us if we decide to hurt others in public, steal from Walmart, hit someone in our car and leave the scene. Religions are regional because they used their version of God to control the masses. I believe in God, because I've seen his works in my life but I don't believe in man and therefore I do not believe in any certain religion, so in a sense I agree with the author of this thread as far as the statements on religion. God exists and God is real but I don't need a church or a book of laws to know that.

 

[1robin]

Given that so many different religions exist, many of which are mutually exclusive, and most claim they contain the truth of reality, the odds aren't in your favor that you picked the right religion. This is based on pure statistical analysis, and that's assuming that one religion we have is actually correct.

Most religious beliefs corresponds with geography--a religion based on truth shouldn't depend on where you're born. Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east and Christianity can be frequently found in the States.

There have also been countless religious frauds that try to take advantage of people and make money/ manipulate people with religion. Even if a religion happened to be correct at some point, its very possible that respective religion has been polluted so much over time, like telephone, that the religion doesn't even resemble anything like what it started out as. For example the original teachings of Jesus Christ vs the modern catholic faith which includes the pope and hundreds of rituals, and the various Xian sects.

Its one thing to argue that a deism God exists as a kind of philosophical entity, but its another to show that there is an intervening God who cares about what we do with our genitals and what we do with our Sundays, and wants to have an individual relationship with people. Most of the arguments given by people of faiths are all identical to each other which I find to be an amusing reflection that there aren't many good arguments beyond those for deism.

As fo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, even though I consider Buddhism to resemble more of a philosophy, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

I agree if this were some evidence-less statistic study that only was relevant to a generic religion. The idea that since there are contradictory answers that any one is probably wrong is unjustifiable. The equation 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet we know the single correct answer (outside of at least one atheist who said nothing was true not even 2 + 2 = 4), children are almost universally aware of the right answer, we build huge projects that demonstrate we have the right answer, it fails no test ever given, and it can be logically deduced. The same can be said for religions. We have an unimaginably large tool box full of ways to evaluate theological claims. Most die a quick death and are no longer in the running, the worst we could do is to be left with several probable choices, but I and millions think we can know the truth. Christianity alone among the choices that survive testing offers validation to every believer. Once that is obtained we can actually know that at least in general we have the right faith. Theology is simply not analogous to the type of statistical analogy you suppose. Even if a million are wrong I am easily capable of knowing the right one.

 

[JustWondering]

The “evil age” passage was a general reference to those who demand a sign to prove there is a God, the Christian God in particular, but when a multitude of signs and reasons are presented they refuse to believe. Why? Because Jesus said that man has a “sluggish heart” and does not want to believe because it will convict him of his wanton disobedience (my interpretation). So if that does not apply to you, then I believe you, but it remains my best guess.

What signs? You presented one "miracle" which is easily debunked and that equates to a multitude of signs to you?

I noticed that you didn't answer my question. If someone of another religion made extraordinary claims about their religion that you didn't buy and they resorted to making statements to the effect of "you must have a sluggish heart and want to be disobedient" to explain away your disbelief, what would you think about that? Would you be able to take that persons arguments and claims about their supernatural belief system seriously?

So, yes, I brought up the miracle as an example of God’s presence, but it is you who says “no thanks to any religion” who keeps hanging around religion boards. So what does that tell me? It tells me you are the one who is still in the mode of validating his disbelief, else, why would you spend the time wasting your earthly life on meaningless discourse? If I had no interest in knowing about dogs I would not waste my time discussing dogs each day.

Perhaps you are the one trying to validate your beliefs? I say no thanks to religion because the dominant religions I see around me insist on a warped and self destructive world view.

I am not about to repeat myself, but the facts and testimonies of Fatima are beyond doubt.

To a close minded believer like you perhaps.

I have no interest in “amazing coincidence” on the day of the predicted miracle as evidence for anything except an act of desperation.

It is evident that you have no true interest in debating or seriously considering another's points and arguments, in favor of dismissing what you don't like out of hand.

Miracles abound as do logic and sound reason and historical events. Choose whatever you may, but as for me and my house we shall serve the Lord.

I have yet to see a "miracle", historical event, or sound logic/reason to substantiate that the Christian supernatural belief system is valid. Therefore I cannot except its beliefs and claims anymore than you'd except Scientology's claims and beliefs. At least I'm being more fair about it. While you choose one unsubstantiated supernatural belief system as valid and all others as false I hold all as being false until real evidence is presented.

 

[serp777]

I agree if this were some evidence-less statistic study that only was relevant to a generic religion. The idea that since there are contradictory answers that any one is probably wrong is unjustifiable. The equation 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet we know the single correct answer (outside of at least one atheist who said nothing was true not even 2 + 2 = 4), children are almost universally aware of the right answer, we build huge projects that demonstrate we have the right answer, it fails no test ever given, and it can be logically deduced. The same can be said for religions. We have an unimaginably large tool box full of ways to evaluate theological claims. Most die a quick death and are no longer in the running, the worst we could do is to be left with several probable choices, but I and millions think we can know the truth. Christianity alone among the choices that survive testing offers validation to every believer. Once that is obtained we can actually know that at least in general we have the right faith. Theology is simply not analogous to the type of statistical analogy you suppose. Even if a million are wrong I am easily capable of knowing the right one.

Its not just that. You have to include religions that have been forgotten, and religions that are to come. Not to mention the fact that its very possible no religion is correct, or ever will be. You also have to include various philosophies that try to handle deities as uninvolved or only slightly involved in our world. So your statistical range just went up big time from what you were considering before.

Its also a fallacy to say that because we have rejected theological claims, therefore there must be only a few possibilities left. That may be true if there were some evidence backing up those assertions.

Millions of people think plenty of wrong things all the time. Everyone thinks of wrong things, so the argument from popularity isn't convincing.

Also 2+2 is true under certain axiom conditions, which have not been proved in themselves, or may not be complete.

The general idea that thousands of contradicting beliefs and mutually exclusive theological perspectives does suggest that each one is probably wrong. Its analogous to asking which particular marble would be randomly picked; there may not even be a marble box, and some marbles are missing, and some marbles still need to be added. This isn't unjustifiable so i don't know how you're asserting that the statistics are unjustifiable.

Even if a million are wrong I am easily capable of knowing the right one.

You only think you are capable of knowing the right one. I'm sure Tom Cruise also thought he was capable of knowing the right one when trying to level up in Scientology. Its somewhat arrogant to say that you have magical deduction powers or special divine knowledge that informs you of the correct perspective and that everyone who doesn't align with your particular interpretation is wrong.

Christianity alone among the choices that survive testing offers validation to every believer.

Christianity survives for a variety of practical reason--first it was designed to be appealing to the poor and to give them hope for the after life because their current lives were, and are terrible. It allows politicians and manipulative religious leaders to dominate peasants under the guise of religion; like how the pope promised the redemption of all sins if people would go and fight in the crusades. Its politically useful and is fantastic for making money. The fact that it has survived just means that it is better suited to the environment in which it exists--there is natural selection between religions, a survival of the fittest if you will. Those religions which spread more efficiently are more appealing to people do better, and were better situated to spread across because of geo political factors. That, however, doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the religion though. There isn't even any kind of proven correlation between a religion's survival and the validity of that religion. Religion would be vastly more believable if it had arisen independently in, lets say, the Americas as well as China and Europe. That would be actual evidence--alas it appears that God only cares about the peasants in superstitious Palestine and the middle east, versus the vastly more populated and literate China. I mean if there was a place where the most religions would arise it would be in superstitious, iron age, illiterate Palestine. There was a need for a strong religion in that region and Christianity filled the void.

The equation 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet we know the single correct answer

And how does this kind of analysis lead you to believe that determining the validity of a religion is like knowing that 1+1 has a definite answer? There is no connection there.

 

[1robin]

Its not just that. You have to include religions that have been forgotten, and religions that are to come. Not to mention the fact that its very possible no religion is correct, or ever will be. You also have to include various philosophies that try to handle deities as uninvolved or only slightly involved in our world. So your statistical range just went up big time from what you were considering before.

I disagree somewhat in places and agree in others. However this is not really a response to what I was saying. I said it makes no difference how many religions prove to be wrong as to whether the next on evaluated is correct. I gave a good analogy for that I thought. Even though 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers we can know the single correct one. How many wrong answers there are has no effect on whether the next candidate is true or not. This kind of thing simply defies that kind of statistical extrapolation. I agree that it is possible that all religions are wrong. However the more we have the more chances we have for at least one to right.

Its also a fallacy to say that because we have rejected theological claims, therefore there must be only a few possibilities left. That may be true if there were some evidence backing up those assertions.

Also a fallacy? I did not see the first one. I do not believe I said anything like this. It brings nothing to mind. I do not even understand it. I doubt I said it.

Millions of people think plenty of wrong things all the time. Everyone thinks of wrong things, so the argument from popularity isn't convincing.

Again I do not recall saying anything like this. This is what can easily occur if each claim responded to is not quoted individually.

Also 2+2 is true under certain axiom conditions, which have not been proved in themselves, or may not be complete.

I have a degree in math. I have never seen nor heard of a single context where 2 + 2 does not equal 4. If your position is relying on 2 + 2 = 4 being false then I would abandon that position.

The general idea that thousands of contradicting beliefs and mutually exclusive theological perspectives does suggest that each one is probably wrong. Its analogous to asking which particular marble would be randomly picked; there may not even be a marble box, and some marbles are missing, and some marbles still need to be added. This isn't unjustifiable so i don't know how you're asserting that the statistics are unjustifiable.

No it does not. The law of non contradiction states that if multiples claims to absolute truth are contradictory then at most only one is correct. It does not say therefore they are al probably wrong. The way the statistics were stated they are applied incorrectly. Any single theologies chance of being right is completely unaffected by how many others prove to be wrong. It is simply a mathematical mistake. If you wanted to get technical about it more theologies help my case and hurt yours. The reason is you have adopted a hard to prove result.

1. It is your claim that all religions are false or that all are likely false because you think so many have been shown to be false.

That claim is defeated if a single religion proves to be true. I also am not sure what you do with ones that contain a lot of truth and some mistakes. So I only need one to be right and you need them all to be wrong.

2. It is my claim that far from having many faiths means that they are all wrong (even if most are) I stand a greater chance of finding one that is true. The more the better in my case.

If you really want to get technical about statistics I can show that the claim that having many religions increases the likely hood they are al false is wrong for at least half a dozen reasons. It is just an unjustifiable use of statistics. No big deal, stats are notoriously hard to use unless you have had significant training.

You only think you are capable of knowing the right one. I'm sure Tom Cruise also thought he was capable of knowing the right one when trying to level up in Scientology. Its somewhat arrogant to say that you have magical deduction powers or special divine knowledge that informs you of the correct perspective and that everyone who doesn't align with your particular interpretation is wrong.

Maybe I am a scientologist and we both agree. I did not say which one I thought was true. However let's do so. I of course think the Bible is true. Now how can I suggest that I am able to know that where Tom Cruise is not, the Hindu is not, the Muslim is not. Easy, no other major faith offers spiritual access to God for every believer. IOW even if someone claimed it they are in defiance of their faith because their texts do not even contain the possibility of that to the average practitioner. Christianity alone contains the guarantee of confirmation for every single believer. Tom Cruise, the average Hindu, the average Muslim, etc...... merely makes an intellectual commitment to a hypothesis without confirmation. They will never know the truth of what they believe until it is too late. The Christians entire faith is centered around being born again which is proof that we are on the right track. So I have met God and know my faith is true. Other faiths do not even contain a doctrine that allows them the same access nor do they contain people claiming to have had (what their faith does not offer) it that even fractionally compares with Christianity.

Christianity survives for a variety of practical reason--first it was designed to be appealing to the poor and to give them hope for the after life because their current lives were, and are terrible. It allows politicians and manipulative religious leaders to dominate peasants under the guise of religion; like how the pope promised the redemption of all sins if people would go and fight in the crusades. Its politically useful and is fantastic for making money. The fact that it has survived just means that it is better suited to the environment in which it exists--there is natural selection between religions, a survival of the fittest if you will. Those religions which spread more efficiently are more appealing to people do better, and were better situated to spread across because of geo political factors. That, however, doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the religion though. There isn't even any kind of proven correlation between a religion's survival and the validity of that religion. Religion would be vastly more believable if it had arisen independently in, lets say, the Americas as well as China and Europe. That would be actual evidence--alas it appears that God only cares about the peasants in superstitious Palestine and the middle east, versus the vastly more populated and literate China. I mean if there was a place where the most religions would arise it would be in superstitious, iron age, illiterate Palestine. There was a need for a strong religion in that region and Christianity filled the void.

You have no possible access to anything which could justify what you claimed. Even if it was true no evidence exists that Christianity was designed to do anything but what it claims. It condemned everyone equally and did not give the poor a pass. Since it original apostles all became poor and many lost everything in the furtherance of the faith there was nothing to especially appeal to the poor. Even today most preachers make far less than the average professional. It did not give anyone a promise of monetary gain, it even suggested it had no interest in monetary issues (counting the love of money as the root of al evil). I really don't want to wade through some revision of history. I would rather evaluate the claims of histories best scholars in the relevant fields. One of the greatest experts (if not the greatest) on testimony and evidence in human history is Simon Greenleaf. His famous work called "The testimony of the evangelists" subjected the Gospels to every test we have developed in 3000 years to separate genuine testimony and evidence from what is contrived. The Gospel passes them all. In fact you can pick any relevant field and I can supply the conclusion of the best scholars it contains and they will not validate your revision of history.

However this discussion was not about proving what religion is true. It was about an abysmal misuse of statics in the absurd attempt to dismiss all religions.

And how does this kind of analysis lead you to believe that determining the validity of a religion is like knowing that 1+1 has a definite answer? There is no connection there.

There is an exact parallel here. Just as 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet still has a correct answer and one which is easily found, having a bunch of religions does not mean there is not a correct one (and in fact having many increases the chance at least one is true) which can be determined.

 

[serp777]

I disagree somewhat in places and agree in others. However this is not really a response to what I was saying. I said it makes no difference how many religions prove to be wrong as to whether the next on evaluated is correct. I gave a good analogy for that I thought. Even though 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers we can know the single correct one. How many wrong answers there are has no effect on whether the next candidate is true or not. This kind of thing simply defies that kind of statistical extrapolation. I agree that it is possible that all religions are wrong. However the more we have the more chances we have for at least one to right.

Also a fallacy? I did not see the first one. I do not believe I said anything like this. It brings nothing to mind. I do not even understand it. I doubt I said it.

Again I do not recall saying anything like this. This is what can easily occur if each claim responded to is not quoted individually.

I have a degree in math. I have never seen nor heard of a single context where 2 + 2 does not equal 4. If your position is relying on 2 + 2 = 4 being false then I would abandon that position.

No it does not. The law of non contradiction states that if multiples claims to absolute truth are contradictory then at most only one is correct. It does not say therefore they are al probably wrong. The way the statistics were stated they are applied incorrectly. Any single theologies chance of being right is completely unaffected by how many others prove to be wrong. It is simply a mathematical mistake. If you wanted to get technical about it more theologies help my case and hurt yours. The reason is you have adopted a hard to prove result.

1. It is your claim that all religions are false or that all are likely false because you think so many have been shown to be false.

That claim is defeated if a single religion proves to be true. I also am not sure what you do with ones that contain a lot of truth and some mistakes. So I only need one to be right and you need them all to be wrong.

2. It is my claim that far from having many faiths means that they are all wrong (even if most are) I stand a greater chance of finding one that is true. The more the better in my case.

If you really want to get technical about statistics I can show that the claim that having many religions increases the likely hood they are al false is wrong for at least half a dozen reasons. It is just an unjustifiable use of statistics. No big deal, stats are notoriously hard to use unless you have had significant training.


Maybe I am a scientologist and we both agree. I did not say which one I thought was true. However let's do so. I of course think the Bible is true. Now how can I suggest that I am able to know that where Tom Cruise is not, the Hindu is not, the Muslim is not. Easy, no other major faith offers spiritual access to God for every believer. IOW even if someone claimed it they are in defiance of their faith because their texts do not even contain the possibility of that to the average practitioner. Christianity alone contains the guarantee of confirmation for every single believer. Tom Cruise, the average Hindu, the average Muslim, etc...... merely makes an intellectual commitment to a hypothesis without confirmation. They will never know the truth of what they believe until it is too late. The Christians entire faith is centered around being born again which is proof that we are on the right track. So I have met God and know my faith is true. Other faiths do not even contain a doctrine that allows them the same access nor do they contain people claiming to have had (what their faith does not offer) it that even fractionally compares with Christianity.


You have no possible access to anything which could justify what you claimed. Even if it was true no evidence exists that Christianity was designed to do anything but what it claims. It condemned everyone equally and did not give the poor a pass. Since it original apostles all became poor and many lost everything in the furtherance of the faith there was nothing to especially appeal to the poor. Even today most preachers make far less than the average professional. It did not give anyone a promise of monetary gain, it even suggested it had no interest in monetary issues (counting the love of money as the root of al evil). I really don't want to wade through some revision of history. I would rather evaluate the claims of histories best scholars in the relevant fields. One of the greatest experts (if not the greatest) on testimony and evidence in human history is Simon Greenleaf. His famous work called "The testimony of the evangelists" subjected the Gospels to every test we have developed in 3000 years to separate genuine testimony and evidence from what is contrived. The Gospel passes them all. In fact you can pick any relevant field and I can supply the conclusion of the best scholars it contains and they will not validate your revision of history.

However this discussion was not about proving what religion is true. It was about an abysmal misuse of statics in the absurd attempt to dismiss all religions.


There is an exact parallel here. Just as 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet still has a correct answer and one which is easily found, having a bunch of religions does not mean there is not a correct one (and in fact having many increases the chance at least one is true) which can be determined.

I said it makes no difference how many religions prove to be wrong as to whether the next on evaluated is correct.

I actually did address this with the marble analogy and supporting reasoning. First of all you can't prove religion wrong so your point here is mostly moot as religion contains a variety of positions which cannot be proved or disproved. You could say the same thing as various mythological creatures as well assuming the argument was valid--it makes no difference if you disprove leprechauns, or santa clause, or dragons, or the tooth fairy as to whether the next is valid. If you want to put religion in the same category as fairies and leprechauns be my guest, but most people would agree those kinds of beliefs are probably wrong. The odds of you picking the correct religion is incredibly unlikely given the vast number of beliefs and interpretations just like picking the correct lottery number. It would be strange if you decided to argue that it wasn't the case that you probably had the wrong lottery number. I'm going to address this significantly more down below so don't jump to conclusions quite yet.

I do not believe I said anything like this. It brings nothing to mind. I do not even understand it. I doubt I said it.

And actually you did suggest it: "We have an unimaginably large tool box full of ways to evaluate theological claims. Most die a quick death and are no longer in the running, the worst we could do is to be left with several probable choices". In other words by rejecting claims we are left with several probable choices.

Again I do not recall saying anything like this. This is what can easily occur if each claim responded to is not quoted individually.

Well you don't have to recall you could just scroll up. "I and millions think we can know the truth."

I have a degree in math. I have never seen nor heard of a single context where 2 + 2 does not equal 4. If your position is relying on 2 + 2 = 4 being false then I would abandon that position.

Well math is a fantastic major but this is heading towards an argument from authority. All of mathematics is based on axioms, correct? Every mathematical proof must be based on some assumptions, because how else would something be derived from something else? Similarly the addition of numbers rests on axioms of mathematics which cannot themselves be proved. My position doesn't rest on this argument it was more of a supporting tangent, which isn't all that important to be honest. it certainly doesn't rely on 2+2 being false. My point was that maybe you could create a different set of axioms that would lead to addition being different.

. Any single theologies chance of being right is completely unaffected by how many others prove to be wrong. It is simply a mathematical mistake. If you wanted to get technical about it more theologies help my case and hurt yours. The reason is you have adopted a hard to prove result.

This is relevant to what I said earlier but again religions cannot be proven wrong, and I never claimed they could be, so I never made the mistake you seem to be implying I made. Regardless though, assuming this was valid, you made a strawman because my position was never that proving a religion wrong lowered the odds of another religion being correct--that would of course be a fallacy. However, lets say there is a set of 10000 different religions and one of them is correct. Now your odds of selecting a correct religion is 1/10000 if you have one selection. Therefore the odds of picking the correct religion is low, thus implying you probably made the incorrect decision. I think you thoroughly misunderstood my argument and position. Then considering the vast number of combinations that combine various beliefs and interpretations, the odds are a lot lower than 1 in 10000.

1. It is your claim that all religions are false or that all are likely false because you think so many have been shown to be false.

Strawman.

They will never know the truth of what they believe until it is too late. The Christians entire faith is centered around being born again which is proof that we are on the right track. So I have met God and know my faith is true.

Could and is argued by your Muslim clone. See this is what i'm talking about--you claim you have divine special knowledge that only a select few have access to. You know what is truth and everyone else who disagrees is wrong. I think its possible you might believe you met God, but there's no way you could tell apart God from a group of advanced aliens doing an experiment on human religious belief, or from a good hallucination. Its also not impossible that you're not being honest about it. Either way its not certain at all and doesn't make a compelling case to anyone that doesn't have a hotline to God. And being born again has no evidence, and doesn't even really make sense. What does that even mean?

You have no possible access to anything which could justify what you claimed. Even if it was true no evidence exists that Christianity was designed to do anything but what it claims.

So you haven't heard about politicians and religious leaders using it to manipulate people? Ill provide historical evidence if you want but i would think you would know it--the pope for instance claimed that sins could be redeemed by fighting in the crusades. Almost 100k crusaders formed and traveled to Constantinople but were then slaughtered by Muslim forces. American politicians now days always have to claim that they're are christian in order to appeal to the masses and get votes.

One of the greatest experts (if not the greatest) on testimony and evidence in human history is Simon Greenleaf. His famous work called "The testimony of the evangelists" subjected the Gospels to every test we have developed in 3000 years to separate genuine testimony and evidence from what is contrived. The Gospel passes them all. In fact you can pick any relevant field and I can supply the conclusion of the best scholars it contains and they will not validate your revision of history.

Greatest is just an assertion. Muslims scholars will also confirm that Muhammad is the one true prophet and even rode to heaven on a winged horse. There are also alien abduction experts and ancient alien experts. Just because some guy claims its credible doesn't make it valid.

There is an exact parallel here. Just as 1 + 1 = has an infinite number of wrong answers yet still has a correct answer and one which is easily found, having a bunch of religions does not mean there is not a correct one (and in fact having many increases the chance at least one is true) which can be determined.

Having a lot of religions doesn't really increase the chance they are true just like having a lot of claims about flying teapots doesn't increase the odds that space teapots are true. The number of claims made by people doesn't really increase the probability of something true. If there is an increase in probability it is very low just like the probability for absurd mythological creatures.

And the reason why it isn't an exact parallel at all is because, for starters, we don't know whether any of them are true, and finding the correct religion isn't easily found, and most religions depend on claims which cannot be shown to be true or false, unlike 1+1 = 2 which can be shown to be true. So if anything this is just a false analogy.

 

[1robin]

I actually did address this with the marble analogy and supporting reasoning. First of all you can't prove religion wrong so your point here is mostly moot as religion contains a variety of positions which cannot be proved or disproved. You could say the same thing as various mythological creatures as well assuming the argument was valid--it makes no difference if you disprove leprechauns, or santa clause, or dragons, or the tooth fairy as to whether the next is valid. If you want to put religion in the same category as fairies and leprechauns be my guest, but most people would agree those kinds of beliefs are probably wrong. The odds of you picking the correct religion is incredibly unlikely given the vast number of beliefs and interpretations just like picking the correct lottery number. It would be strange if you decided to argue that it wasn't the case that you probably had the wrong lottery number. I'm going to address this significantly more down below so don't jump to conclusions quite yet.

A religion is not composed of one or two points. It is usually a complete body of work which in general is claimed to reflect perfect truths. If you can easily determine that dozens of those claims are false then you are justified in considering the whole religion false. Religions are special, they are supposedly from a deity which communicates absolute truths to humanity. If they are found to be grossly in error and those errors are not the result of human error in copying for example then they can reasonably be discarded. The odds of my picking the right religion if that religion contains a validation of it's self are simply depended on whether you looked into that religion. I would be a good example. I looked into Islam, Hinduism, and even [philosophies like Buddhism, Shinto-ism I found them untenable and devoid of any offer of proof. I reluctantly gave Christianity a chance (I had formerly resented God and the faith in general) but I could find no logical fallacy, no historical inaccuracy, and what is more important I did find God. Anyone who has not been born again cannot understand that along with proof that God exists you simply know certain doctrines are true. If you think of theologies as treasure maps, once you use one the actually leads you to the treasure then you can KNOW you had the correct map.

And actually you did suggest it: "We have an unimaginably large tool box full of ways to evaluate theological claims. Most die a quick death and are no longer in the running, the worst we could do is to be left with several probable choices". In other words by rejecting claims we are left with several probable choices.

I don't recall what it is your referring to exactly. The claim you posted here from me is perfectly logical and easily verifiable. There are hundreds of ways of separating truth from fiction. Theologies either stand of hold as single entities. I wouldn't give up on one with only one or two minor errors, but if I find dozens of contractions, inaccuracies, or incoherent claims with the core doctrines of a theology I dismiss it and I am justified in doing so.

Well you don't have to recall you could just scroll up. "I and millions think we can know the truth."

These are not the same things. Millions who have never been to the North pole can easily get what it feels like there wrong. Millions who have been there and have consistent claims about what it felt like are not likely to be wrong. Christianity is like the latter. Unlike all other major faith Christianity's entry point comes with experiential validating. Other faiths are merely intellectual agreements to a proposition. Christianity is the experiential confirmation of a proposition. So millions of claims of one type are not all that persuasive but millions of another type are.

Well math is a fantastic major but this is heading towards an argument from authority. All of mathematics is based on axioms, correct? Every mathematical proof must be based on some assumptions, because how else would something be derived from something else? Similarly the addition of numbers rests on axioms of mathematics which cannot themselves be proved. My position doesn't rest on this argument it was more of a supporting tangent, which isn't all that important to be honest. it certainly doesn't rely on 2+2 being false. My point was that maybe you could create a different set of axioms that would lead to addition being different.

Math is a sucky major. I hated it when I was in it, I have used almost none of it in the technical fields I work in, and it is boring. Let me just state it as I have before. If it is only required that a single X be true then the more Xs there are the higher the likely hood that at least on X is true. So the chance that at least one religion is true is increased with every additional X. That is completely contradictory to what was previously stated and therefor the original claim is wrong.

This is relevant to what I said earlier but again religions cannot be proven wrong, and I never claimed they could be, so I never made the mistake you seem to be implying I made. Regardless though, assuming this was valid, you made a strawman because my position was never that proving a religion wrong lowered the odds of another religion being correct--that would of course be a fallacy. However, lets say there is a set of 10000 different religions and one of them is correct. Now your odds of selecting a correct religion is 1/10000 if you have one selection. Therefore the odds of picking the correct religion is low, thus implying you probably made the incorrect decision. I think you thoroughly misunderstood my argument and position. Then considering the vast number of combinations that combine various beliefs and interpretations, the odds are a lot lower than 1 in 10000.

The original claim was the since so many false religions exists then that lessens the likelihood that one could be true. That is just simply false for a number of reasons. Maybe your making some other point by my original post (the one you responded to) was a response to that original claim. If you are making some other claim then please state what it is. It appears your saying that if there is only one true religion and 9999 false ones then I would have little chance to select that right one. That is a better argument but it still does not work. Religions usually produce things. They if true also would have a very significant following. Even if you adopt that weird evolution idea about religions we value and select truth because lies do not increase the chance of survival. So if a religion is true it should have a significant following. Religions usually also grantee certain things in a society, be it charity, selflessness, morality, etc....... In short there are a whole host of things that can make my search much easier. If that faith promises to do miracles I can find what religion has the most claims to miracles, if it promises to empower it's adherents to be selfless and charitable I can find what religion coincides with charity and self sacrifice, and on and on. Another would be that any God worth believing in would have given us his word and commands for at least since we began forming societies or even since we have existed. There are endless ways to separate religions into ranks of probability. In the end I may only have a half dozen of the best to start on. I can easily start eliminating them by the methods I have mentioned before and arrive at the right one, or if they all faith move on to the next half dozen. It is almost certain the right one will be found in the first few groups no matter how many religions exist. This is not a game of darts.

Strawman.

That was a perfectly valid deduction from the point made in the post I first responded to.

Could and is argued by your Muslim clone. See this is what i'm talking about--you claim you have divine special knowledge that only a select few have access to. You know what is truth and everyone else who disagrees is wrong. I think its possible you might believe you met God, but there's no way you could tell apart God from a group of advanced aliens doing an experiment on human religious belief, or from a good hallucination. Its also not impossible that you're not being honest about it. Either way its not certain at all and doesn't make a compelling case to anyone that doesn't have a hotline to God. And being born again has no evidence, and doesn't even really make sense. What does that even mean?

1. That is like saying if anyone disagrees with you, then you are by default wrong. I disagree with you and there for you must be wrong.
2. I can invent a hypothetical situation which would negate every point you could possibly make. That is not how debates are carried out. Debates take place on the common ground of human experience, etc.....
I did not claim to have what only a select few had. Every Christian has also had that experience. That number is in the billions and is not rare. I have ever justification to trust my experience unless you have a defeater. A hypothetical is not a defeater. That is how the legal system works, how academia works, and how debates are supposed to work.
3. My experience did things no hallucination, wishful thinking, epilepsy, or anything else you may contrive to dismiss what is inconvenient for you. I instantly lost any desire to do any of the habits I had tried and failed for years to quit by mere effort, I felt the tons of guilt that had built up instantly evaporated, I had never heard the term before but the only way I could describe it to myself was feeling brand new (born again), plus it did not occur at any random time, it took place the instant I concluded the Gospels were true and I had cried out for what they had promised. If your so desperate believe that the hundreds of millions who share this experience are all delusional by using aliens don't expect us to take that seriously. Using that standard, you have just destroyed every foundation for us to know anything at all



Continued below:

 

[Hawkins]

If God would like to pass the truth among humans, there are several things He needs to do.

1) He needs to maintain the genuineness of His Word (the Bible)
To do this, He needs to assign an earthly authority acting as His representative and the guardian of His Word. The Jews was assigned the job in OT. They were keeping the one and only one version of the OT.

When this earthly representative when corrupted and no longer functions, another one will be assigned to do the same job. The Catholics were assigned the job in NT. When Catholics went corrupted, that the authority was passed to the Protestants.

The core (Canon) of Bible however is maintained across time, with the Jews, the Catholics and the Protestants keeping the same version of OT, and the Catholics and Protestants keeping the same NT.

If God doesn't maintain His Word this way, then humans are not to blame if they failed to follow the genuine copy of the Word of God as this genuine copy itself doesn't exist or cannot be explicitly told.

2) He needs to use the most efficient method to pass His Truth among humans and He should be able to EXPLICITLY name this method
Again, if God didn't choose the most efficient way to pass a truth, humans are not to blame if they failed to receive or follow.

The most efficient way to pass a truth among humans is through human witnessing, unless of course God shows Himself up in front of humans. That is to say, if God chooses to hide behind on purpose, the most efficient way left for His Truth to convey is through human witnessing. The Christian God does have a reason to hide behind as in the covenants faith is required to be saved. He thus won't show up in front of everyone. He only shows up in front of a small group of witnesses then for this truth to be conveyed through human witnessing.

And He should not only be able to name this method explicitly, but also be able to use it in a correct manner.

Only the Christianity God explicitly calls the prophets His witnesses. And only the Christianity God can make a claim as explicit as follows,

Acts 1:8 (NIV)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

The correct use of human witnessing including the making use of multiple accounts and the martyrdom of the direct witnesses. Both are crucial in terms of human witnessing.

3) If His Truth is critical to humans, He should urge for the spreading of the Truth

Again, if God doesn't urge for the spreading of the Truth, humans are not to blame if they failed to receive the message. And only Christianity says that the Gospel (God's Truth critical to humans) should be preached to the ends of the earth to reach all nations.