The God or Not God Discussion

[BC1980]

I never said anything about proof? I said, evidence. If I have ever said I am proving anything than I misstated (probably typing too fast). I am saying the gospels do count as evidence. I don't think anyone is even disagreeing with me? We all agree, Jesus existed. Where do these scholars get their evidence that Jesus existed? The gospels. I wonder if I am boring anyone at this point? lol

 

However, please, by all means, instead of telling me I'm wrong, instead, make your case. I am honestly interested in this "much better" way to expound Christ. I am particularly interested in how you are going to conduct this experiment in comparative religion without invoking logic.

 

Are you talking about evidence that Jesus was God, rose from the dead, performed miracles? Or just evidence that he existed? I don't think his existence matters a great deal if he was not who he claimed to be. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or we're just talking in circles. My point is that if you applied logic to prove the supernatural, you would fail.

 

I don't know if you said proof. I probably assumed that the only reason to gather evidence would be to prove something, maybe not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but to get to a reasonable conclusion. I'm not sure where I brought in comparative religion or a better way to expound upon Christ.

[BC1980]

Give it a try BC, with you being in the medical field you'll find it fascinating. This link doesn't go into the medical as much, but her other links go in depth with neuroplasticity. It changed my life and literally saved my life.

 

I watched a bit of it but haven't finished it yet.

[pureinheart]

Memory does not define existence. If you don't remember existing does that mean you didn't exist? Do you stop existing when you go to sleep? All the things that have happened to you in your life that you just don't remember: were you not existing for them to happen to you? A person who has extreme dementia and remembers nothing, does that mean they never existed? Did you only exist starting at the moment that you formed the earliest memory you have today? You probably struggle to remember anything before you were in kindergarten. So how do you know what did or did not happen to you before you were born?

 

 

I only got this far... this is really deep and well-written. Not to mention powerful...

 

It's my understanding that when we go to heaven there are no tears... I will be able to sit down with King David, Jacob, Joseph and all the O/T Prophets. Not to mention the Apostles, for a 1000 years and it will be like a day, as there is no time.

[pureinheart]

I watched a bit of it but haven't finished it yet.

 

Thank you BC... I just love her and the concept she teaches

[BC1980]

I never said anything about proof? I said, evidence. If I have ever said I am proving anything than I misstated (probably typing too fast). I am saying the gospels do count as evidence. I don't think anyone is even disagreeing with me? We all agree, Jesus existed. Where do these scholars get their evidence that Jesus existed? The gospels. I wonder if I am boring anyone at this point? lol

 

Yes, we use the gospels as evidence. All scholars use the gospels as evidence. I'm saying that the gospels cannot prove any supernatural occurrences that they claim. All you can really claim is that the authors believed what they are writing to be fact. Even Conservative scholars won't usually go any further than that. They will say that because so many people believed all of this happened, it stands to reason that it might be true.

[TheFinalWord]

Are you talking about evidence that Jesus was God, rose from the dead, performed miracles? Or just evidence that he existed? I don't think his existence matters a great deal if he was not who he claimed to be. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or we're just talking in circles. My point is that if you applied logic to prove the supernatural, you would fail.

 

I don't know if you said proof. I probably assumed that the only reason to gather evidence would be to prove something, maybe not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but to get to a reasonable conclusion. I'm not sure where I brought in comparative religion or a better way to expound upon Christ.

 

Yes, you are coming into the middle of a conversation that has gone on for awhile. The main claim was that: "Using the bible to prove the bible is true (you often see this with Christian apologetics as well). This is a circular argument and therefore invalid." In other words, the bible cannot be used demonstrate the internal consistency of the bible. Yes, it can because the bible is a collection of documents. If the bible were one book with one author, that would be another story. However, the bible is a collection of documents written by different authors at different times. In this particular conversation we have been discussing the gospels (the gospels are part of the New Testament of the bible). The internal consistency of the various gospel accounts are used in establishing the historicity of Jesus. Here is a free good document to get started if you have not studied this topic. Here is a more academic book. Not only can internal consistency be examined, but so can external consistency due to the number of manuscripts. We can compare the gospels against one another. I'm honestly surprised any atheist uses this as an argument because most atheist scholars use the contradictions in the gospels and contradictions between manuscripts (negative evaluation of internal consistency) as counter-evidence against the gospels historicity.

 

I have never said anything about proof. My stance is that each person has to make up their own mind as to what is enough for them, and what they will do with that information. I personally do not think there is any singular point of proof because this would interfere with people's free will to reject God, but that is more of a philosophical argument. Paul stated that God chose preaching as his vehicle for transmitting the truth precisely because it is foolish by the world's standards.

 

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

 

Why Paul?

 

God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

 

I'm not sure where I brought in comparative religion or a better way to expound upon Christ.

 

Trying to use logic to prove that Christianity is true is not a battle you will ever win. You are much better off approaching it from a different angle, such as talking about how the message of Jesus differs from other religions.

 

You stated a better approach would be to compare Christianity to other religions. The courses I have taken in comparative religion all used logic to some degree (that is what you are saying, correct? To compare one religion against another one?). But maybe you have a different approach?

Edited July 13, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[pie2]

That's because you misrepresented the facts.

 

You asked if I believed Scientology or Mormonism to be true. I answered. How did I misrepresent facts?

 

What's written in the bible can't be taken as circumstantial evidence because we don't know if it's a factual account of what really happened.

 

Please define circumstantial evidence.

 

 

I was wondering if we would see Pascal's Wager...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

 

How does my comment change the discussion? Regardless of my personal beliefs, it does not change the discussion about the logic and evidence used to create beliefs we hold in our lives. Seems like you're deflecting a bit there.

[/url]

You are right. But extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence - and they should. Day to day natural events don't require nearly the same standard of evidence. If somebody came to you and said they were dead and then came back to life a few days later would you believe them?

 

Again, I'll ask you to be a bit introspective to try to determine your natural reaction if someone you knew said that they died, were dead for a few days, and then came back to life. Would you require more evidence than just them saying it or would you believe them? It's quite the extraordinary claim and counters everything we actually have learned about biology. For me, I know I'd want medical records, witnesses, preferably some sort of video of the death, any kind of life support monitors etc. Even if there were a bunch of other people that said, yeah he totally died and now he's alive again, I would still be pretty skeptical. It would be like someone that claimed to have traveled faster than the speed of light.

 

Based on the skeptics that exist today (with video, medical records, witnesses, life-support monitors), I am 100% sure that some people would still be naysayers.

 

Do you remember the neuroscientist who had all of those records and evidence and stated he experienced heaven? For all intents and purposes he was completely unresponsive, and yet he experienced an entire world beyond (he claims). And yet there are skeptics galore.

 

No, videos and records will never satisfy everyone, especially in a day and age where doctoring videos is child's play.

 

 

 

I never said anything about proof? I said, evidence.

 

Yes! EVIDENCE.

 

Sorry to talk loudly there! Please Weezy (and others debating the "proof" of Jesus), read through this article. Thank you.

[pie2]

Memory does not define existence. If you don't remember existing does that mean you didn't exist? Do you stop existing when you go to sleep?

 

...

 

From that perspective, every human on Earth should celebrate those two amoeba. Even better would be to worship whatever it was that inspired them, because you know they didn't really make it up.

 

Well said, johan!

[BC1980]

Give it a try BC, with you being in the medical field you'll find it fascinating. This link doesn't go into the medical as much, but her other links go in depth with neuroplasticity. It changed my life and literally saved my life.

 

I think I've heard of this related to addiction, but I didn't know what it was called. Rewireing your dopamine receptors.

[autumnnight]

I can tell you have no idea what neuroplasticity even is... if you want to go in depth with a new understanding, listen to this lady.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM_28xKB4aw

 

Here is my issue:

 

My issue is with people who tell someone who has a chemical, physiological disease that they just need to pray more, having more faith, or go through an exorcism, implying that while it is fine for a diabetic to take insulin, when a Christian takes an Anti-depressant, it is a spiritual failure.

 

You do not help an ill person by telling them they are possessed or a spiritual failure.

 

If praying and going through some kind of deliverance "cured" a person's mental illness....they were never truly mentally ill to being with.

 

I am tired of God's children accusing others of God's children just because they want to treat a disease.

[Fugu]

I never said anything about proof? I said, evidence. If I have ever said I am proving anything than I misstated (probably typing too fast). I am saying the gospels do count as evidence. I don't think anyone is even disagreeing with me? We all agree, Jesus existed. Where do these scholars get their evidence that Jesus existed? The gospels. I wonder if I am boring anyone at this point? lol

 

However, please, by all means, instead of telling me I'm wrong, instead, make your case. I am honestly interested in this "much better" way to expound Christ. I am particularly interested in how you are going to conduct this experiment in comparative religion without invoking logic.

 

The gospels aren't really great pieces of evidence in the archaeological sense. And even though most would believe "Jesus" existed, there is no true archaeological evidence proving that it was a single individual.

[Fugu]

My own belief has been that there is probably a "God" but that the concept of God might be radically different from the way we tend to think of it. Being anthropocentric, we tend to humanize God. In reality, it could far different than that.

 

I tend to doubt that God consciously intervenes in human affairs. I think God gave us the tools, either on purpose or by accident, to figure out our own sh*t and pretty much leaves us alone to do it. God is probably out trying to figure out how he can make a humankind version 2.0 or something. Or maybe downloading patches to fix the current version before we get corrupted by hackers from the Vladimir Galaxy. Okay, maybe that last part's a stretch.

 

I don't know...it seems to me that most of modern Judeo-Christian religion is essentially the written version of oral traditions that eventually found their way into pre-Torah texts. Think of Beowulf, and how it was probably recited for four hundred years before finally being written down in Old English around the year 1000 AD.

 

Human religion, though frequently held up in opposition to science probably itself has a very scientific explanation. I dare say there's probably some sort of evolutionary value to having religious and spiritual beliefs. I'm guessing that the tribes and small cultures that developed religious ideas were highly successful at forming cohesive micro-cultures, which probably served as a defense mechanism in fighting off dangerous animals or even other human tribes. Religion probably made us less fearful of making the ultimate sacrifice before going out on an animal hunt, or before fighting others over precious resources like drinking water and hunting grounds. It bonded us and made us less fearful of taking risks, and it probably had some impact in terms of our ability to create language and art and to think in the abstract. We wouldn't be human without these qualities, and as skeptical and critical as I tend to be of religion, I acknowledge that religion or 'spirituality' is probably responsible for a lot of our 'human' qualities.

 

When you look at it that way, it's probably easy to see why it's so hard to dispel religion. It's easy to understand religion seems almost hardwired into our innate need to connect with others socially. It just happens that it competes with some of the other parts of our brain that study things empirically. Our ability to hypothesize, test, observe, and form conclusions is also part of our DNA. That's how we learned to build fires, huts, and later aqueducts and skyscrapers.

 

At the end of the day, I really don't care what a person's religious beliefs are as long as they don't involve human or animal sacrifices and as long as they just leave me alone. Unfortunately, far too often, religion lends itself to power grabs and corruption, which inevitably pits it against the liberties of the rest of us. Therein lies the problem.

[pureinheart]

Here is my issue:

 

My issue is with people who tell someone who has a chemical, physiological disease that they just need to pray more, having more faith, or go through an exorcism, implying that while it is fine for a diabetic to take insulin, when a Christian takes an Anti-depressant, it is a spiritual failure.

 

I don't think anti-depressants are the answer... shoot, Dr.s are handing those things out like candy and IMO they are very serious drugs. All a person has to do is go to the doctor and say they are depressed- bammm, break out the scripts. That's my issue.

 

You do not help an ill person by telling them they are possessed or a spiritual failure.

 

Sometimes illnesses are demonic.

 

If praying and going through some kind of deliverance "cured" a person's mental illness....they were never truly mentally ill to being with.

 

Not always so...

 

I am tired of God's children accusing others of God's children just because they want to treat a disease.

 

This is just an observation AN, I think you have a real issue with Christians in general.

[pureinheart]

I think I've heard of this related to addiction, but I didn't know what it was called. Rewireing your dopamine receptors.

 

This definitely works for addictions, but not only addictions- every area in which thinking is distorted. The only requirement is a desire to change.

 

It's so amazing BC and it's stuff I've known really. My mind can make me well or sick. Please keep in mind that I don't believe I can control my health completely- God is the ultimate decider in that, but toxic thinking sends toxins through my bloodstream and could cause illness over time, sometimes immediately like stomach aches and such. She just goes into so much depth, medical evidence and Scripture...

[OpenBook]

My mind can make me well or sick... toxic thinking sends toxins through my bloodstream and could cause illness over time, sometimes immediately like stomach aches and such.

 

I believe this too. Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

[pureinheart]

At the end of the day, I really don't care what a person's religious beliefs are as long as they don't involve human or animal sacrifices and as long as they just leave me alone. Unfortunately, far too often, religion lends itself to power grabs and corruption, which inevitably pits it against the liberties of the rest of us. Therein lies the problem.

 

Wow, you just sparked something here... according to how I believe, during the 7 year Great Tribulation, I think at the beginning (or once the 3rd Temple is built), the Jewish people will begin animal sacrifices again. The reason they do this is due to the fact they don't see Jesus as the Son of God, they see Him as a cool Prophet or something, and don't see Him as the perfect sacrifice.

 

I know this will sound weird Fugu, but there has to be a blood sacrifice for sin ...anyway I know a lot of animal lovers/activists... I'm one of them... I wonder if this will be a major issue during that time- the abuse and senseless death of animals...

[pureinheart]

I believe this too. Sometimes we're our own worst enemies!

 

Oh Lord OB, tell me about it! I can't begin to tell you how 'rerouting' my thought processes have made the difference. I've got a long way to go, but am on a good road- I am now in control of my behavior, which has always affected my health.

[BetheButterfly]

While some Atheist friends like to joke about what they call my "imaginary friend", God is the reason I love people.

 

Without God's love through Jesus Christ, I would not love people but would instead become bitter and callous. God is the One who helps me love others even when they are not loving me back.

 

God is also the One who brought my husband and me together, and I am so thankful for God's amazing love!!! He has saved me of my sins through Jesus Christ, and I am so thankful for God's amazing grace that frees me from the power and addiction of sin!!!

[pureinheart]

While some Atheist friends like to joke about what they call my "imaginary friend", God is the reason I love people.

 

Without God's love through Jesus Christ, I would not love people but would instead become bitter and callous. God is the One who helps me love others even when they are not loving me back.

 

God is also the One who brought my husband and me together, and I am so thankful for God's amazing love!!! He has saved me of my sins through Jesus Christ, and I am so thankful for God's amazing grace that frees me from the power and addiction of sin!!!

 

(((((((((Bethy)))))))))

[BetheButterfly]

(((((((((Bethy)))))))))

 

Love you Darling Pureinheart!!! :love:

 

Great to "see" you again!!!

 

How are you doing?

[Weezy1973]

I'm going to take this a bit out of order (and apologies for the late response on this one)...

 

I think you agree Jesus existed. If you want me to demonstrate that Jesus is Yahweh, to me that would be more of a theological debate.

 

Well I'd say that this is the crux of the conversation in this thread. Whether or not Yahweh (or any gods) exist. But it's not a theological debate (or at least not merely a theological debate). It's a discussion about what is true in the universe we live in. Is the earth round? Do sabre tooth cats exist? Is gravity a force in our universe? What is the hereditary unit that gets passed from parents to offspring? Do any gods exist?

 

Limiting it to a theological debate assumes an answer (that God exists) before asking the question (does God exist?).

 

 

I provided you with a list of historical facts, derived from the gospels, that even secular historians agree with (that they too take from the gospels). You also seem to agree that Jesus existed? Why? Were are you getting your facts from? My guess is the gospels. Which is all I am stating. The historical facts about Jesus are derived from the gospels. Agree or disagree?

 

I disagree. There are sources outside of the bible - I believe, more specifically two sources, one Roman and one Jewish, both of which refer to a man named Jesus. That is why the agreed upon facts by most historians are just that a man named Jesus lived, was baptized, taught and was crucified. There are supporting, non religious documents to verify that.

 

I have provided a list of historical facts about the life and death of Jesus. You seem to agree with those. I don't think we disagree about the facts.

 

That he lived, was baptized, taught, and was crucified. If those are the facts you're referring to, yes I agree about those. Always keeping in mind of course, just because we agree, doesn't mean it's true. It's very possible we're both wrong!

 

 

 

Please not with the tooth fairy again. lol Am I making any headway? lol

 

Again I'm not comparing a belief in the tooth fairy to a belief in a god. I'm using the tooth fairy as an example of something that we can both agree doesn't exist. And we can also both agree that nobody can provide any evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. There just isn't any evidence to suggest the tooth fairy does exist, therefore no reason to believe in it.

 

Yes, you can provide evidence that things do not exist. There are no married bachelors. It's a logical contradiction, very easy to prove none exist.

 

Yes, this a point well taken. Of course, an argument using this type of logic doesn't work if you're asking for evidence that gods don't exist. Or evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. As mentioned above.

 

I bring this up because you mention confirmation bias in every reply, which is leading me to think you are accusing me of this? If you are, please show me where I am committing confirmation bias. Are you are stating that I am ignoring evidence? What specific evidence am I ignoring?

 

I'm not specifically accusing you of this. Practically everybody is guilty of confirmation bias (myself included). Strongly held beliefs, religious beliefs being a good example, are even more likely to succumb to confirmation bias.

 

Creationists are an example that I've used of confirmation bias. There is so much compelling evidence at this point that supports evolution that it is now just considered a fact, or a truth about our universe. Creationists ignore that evidence due to confirmation bias.

 

If I go through other religious beliefs that you also don't think are true (Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Judaism etc.) you will likely quite easily be able to discount those religions based on weak evidence or logic. However you will have a very difficult time doing that for your own beliefs (as we all do).

 

My argument is that there isn't any credible evidence to support the notion that any gods exist.

 

The bible is a religious document. It is a collection of books that were chosen by church leaders to promote their religion. Those church leaders were also subject to confirmation bias, as were the authors of the books. There was no methodology to counteract it (like the scientific method). For this reason, nobody should turn to the bible for evidence that the god described in the bible exists. Just like nobody should turn to the Book of Mormon for evidence that the ancient prophets described in the Book of Mormon actually exist.

 

The fact that you can't see the limits of using the bible as evidence that the bible is true indicates confirmation bias. And, again, no evidence has been given that any gods exist.

 

Well I am confident I know your opinion of this. I still say it is a moot point; invoking a genetic fallacy does not do anything to test the truth of Christianity.

 

Perhaps, but it does a lot to explain why people might believe in something that isn't true. I'm sure you'd agree on this point for all religions that aren't your own.

 

The idea of general revelation of God's existence probably explains why so many cultures, separated by time and distance, invoke the divine.

 

Knowledge is built upon prior knowledge. I think we can both agree that the knowledge we now have of our universe is far greater than people had centuries ago. If the fastest growing demographic at the moment are non-believers, and that knowledge is built upon prior knowledge, what does that say about general revelation?

[wizer]

Sometimes illnesses are demonic.

 

And you know this how?

 

Did you see horns or a tail growing out of a sick person?

 

Or did someone just tell you that on a Sunday in Church and it sounds good so you blindly believe it?

 

You might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy if you're going to believe in some bearded dude in the sky.

 

There's the same amount of evidence for all of them.

 

Zilch

[Robert Z]

You might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy if you're going to believe in some bearded dude in the sky.

 

 

There's the same amount of evidence for all of them.

 

There are many forms of evidence including anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony.

 

Show me the eye-witness testimony or anecdotal evidence from throughout the ages claiming direct contact with Santa or the bunny or the fairy.

 

You might want to learn what words mean before using them. Arguments based in ignorance don't help your cause.

[TheFinalWord]

I'm going to take this a bit out of order (and apologies for the late response on this one)...

 

No rush!

 

Well I'd say that this is the crux of the conversation in this thread. Whether or not Yahweh (or any gods) exist. But it's not a theological debate (or at least not merely a theological debate). It's a discussion about what is true in the universe we live in. Is the earth round? Do sabre tooth cats exist? Is gravity a force in our universe? What is the hereditary unit that gets passed from parents to offspring? Do any gods exist?

 

Limiting it to a theological debate assumes an answer (that God exists) before asking the question (does God exist?).

 

What I am saying is we both assert Jesus existed. Jesus is Yahweh. If you want me to demonstrate that point, that is an internal debate.

 

For me, this issue is not the crux of this thread, but you are free to disagree. My main issue was comparing Jesus to the tooth fairy (at least that is why I entered originally).

 

I disagree. There are sources outside of the bible - I believe, more specifically two sources, one Roman and one Jewish, both of which refer to a man named Jesus. That is why the agreed upon facts by most historians are just that a man named Jesus lived, was baptized, taught and was crucified. There are supporting, non religious documents to verify that.

 

You don't know those sources, but automatically assume they are more historically reliable. Why?

 

But if you want to use Josephus, why don't you accept the following?

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

He was [the] Christ

. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for

he appeared to them alive again the third day

; a

s the divine prophets had foretold

these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians,

so

named from him, are not extinct at this day.

That he lived, was baptized, taught, and was crucified. If those are the facts you're referring to, yes I agree about those. Always keeping in mind of course, just because we agree, doesn't mean it's true. It's very possible we're both wrong!

 

Possible, perhaps, but extremely unlikely.

 

Again I'm not comparing a belief in the tooth fairy to a belief in a god. I'm using the tooth fairy as an example of something that we can both agree doesn't exist. And we can also both agree that nobody can provide any evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. There just isn't any evidence to suggest the tooth fairy does exist, therefore no reason to believe in it.

 

Okay, I see what you mean. I still do not think this is comparing apples to apples. I do think we can provide evidence the tooth fairy does not exist. Besides the fact everyone knows, culturally speaking the tooth fairy is a fake story, the story goes if you leave a tooth under your pillow, it will get replaced with money by the tooth fairy. All one needs do is record their child's room once they lose a tooth and they will see no evidence the tooth is replaced with money by an entity called the tooth fairy. Aside from being a bit creepy that one would need to do this, most parents will also know they are the one that replaces the tooth with money. Very easy to prove there is no tooth fairy.

 

The bible is a religious document.

 

Is there any parts of the bible (the bible is a collection of documents) that are written in a historical, literary genre?

 

Can any parts of the bible be historical or is it all discounted immediately because it is a religious set of documents?

 

It is a collection of books that were chosen by church leaders to promote their religion. Those church leaders were also subject to confirmation bias, as were the authors of the books. There was no methodology to counteract it (like the scientific method). For this reason, nobody should turn to the bible for evidence that the god described in the bible exists. Just like nobody should turn to the Book of Mormon for evidence that the ancient prophets described in the Book of Mormon actually exist.

 

The fact that you can't see the limits of using the bible as evidence that the bible is true indicates confirmation bias. And, again, no evidence has been given that any gods exist.

 

Please note, I said the gospels and I said that because they have been critiqued the heaviest from a textual criticism perspective. Textual criticism is based on the scientific method of critique which is why I thought you would like it. And yes, I think the reliability of the gospels can be tested using textual criticism. They can be criticized internally, one against the other, and externally against other copies of manuscripts.

 

Knowledge is built upon prior knowledge. I think we can both agree that the knowledge we now have of our universe is far greater than people had centuries ago. If the fastest growing demographic at the moment are non-believers, and that knowledge is built upon prior knowledge, what does that say about general revelation?

 

I was addressing your hypothetical scenario about me, personally. I was saying it is possible I would believe in God no matter my country of origin. Ultimately, I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me beyond a thought experiment as it would be at best a genetic fallacy.

 

Anyway, good discussing with you friend. I've enjoyed getting to know you. Keep questioning!

Edited July 19, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[wizer]

There are many forms of evidence including anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony.

 

Show me the eye-witness testimony or anecdotal evidence from throughout the ages claiming direct contact with Santa or the bunny or the fairy.

 

You might want to learn what words mean before using them. Arguments based in ignorance don't help your cause.

 

I could find 20 kids who will testify that there's a Santa Claus, an Easter bunny or the Tooth Fairy, and I can come up with at least as much "anecdotal evidence" as you can for their existence.