Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[plumjam]

Not from an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Thanks for bigging me up

Because people with ciritical thinking skills have no reason to believe in them, and without verifiable evidence, people can believe all sorts of things.

Really? So at least 30,000 people, including many skeptics, witness something unexplainable that had been predicted to happen beforehand by a vision of Mary, passed on by 3 peasant children. And that isn't verifiable evidence?
How is it not?
If thousands of people seeing the Sun jump about in the sky, approaching the Earth in a zigzag fashion, and dry their soaking clothes and the ground within an inexplicably short time... and for those people all to have gathered in a field to witness it at a particular predicted day and time ... isn't enough evidence for you, what conceivably would be?
Answer: nothing.

Miracles that have left no evidence.

Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

How is it unrealistic to expect an omnipotent, omniscient, good being to provide constitent revelations? The god of the Pauline letters bears no resemblence to the god of Exodus, who bears to resemblence to the god of The Book of Job, let alone the gods of other religons. If mystical experiences constitute evidence of supernatural beings, why can they be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals, and why are they so variable?

The Pauline letters, Exodus and Job are not reports of internal spiritual states.
It is in these internal states where the commonality you're looking for is to be found.
Normal experiences can be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals too. Does this mean that these normal experiences are invalid, and refer to no reality?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks for bigging me up

I obviously was not talking about you.

Really? So at least 30,000 people, including many skeptics, witness something unexplainable that had been predicted to happen beforehand by a vision of Mary, passed on by 3 peasant children. And that isn't verifiable evidence?
How is it not?
If thousands of people seeing the Sun jump about in the sky, approaching the Earth in a zigzag fashion, and dry their soaking clothes and the ground within an inexplicably short time... and for those people all to have gathered in a field to witness it at a particular predicted day and time ... isn't enough evidence for you, what conceivably would be?
Answer: nothing.

I assume you're refering to Our Lady of Fatima. A bunch of people claim to have seen the sun moving around after being convinced that they should stare at it for a prolonged period, which is rather dangerous. If the sun really did approach the Earth suddenly, and dance about, it somehow failed to boil the seas, burn the sky, rip the Moon from its orbit, and destroy life on the Earth. In fact, no one anywhere else then or since has ever seen any evidence that such an event has ever happened, or even could happen.

Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Oh, so mummification is evidence of Chrisitanity? Does that including Nefertiti and all those mummified Peruvian children in the Andes?

The Pauline letters, Exodus and Job are not reports of internal spiritual states.

False, false, and false. Paul specifically described a mystical vision. Exodus involves Moses having several mystical visions, yet Abraham has a vision wherein he negotiates with an allegedly perfect God, and in Job, Job speaks with God for a rather prolonged discussion wherein God makes fun of Job for not being omnipotent. The Mystical visions in each of those books are remarkably dissimilar.

It is in these internal states where the commonality you're looking for is to be found.
Normal experiences can be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals too. Does this mean that these normal experiences are invalid, and refer to no reality?

Actually, yes. The experiences of a person hallucinating in no way reflect some deeper nature to reality, so why does seeing a god like figure count as peering through the veil of reality whereas dreaming you're a trout does not?

 

[plumjam]

I take it that the point that I made regarding the quality control techniques involved went straight over your head.

So you're saying the Catholic Church easily accepts miracles? Everything I've heard argues to the contrary.

 

[Henners]

Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Woo.

Padre Pio used chemicals.

 

[Henners]

So you're saying the Catholic Church easily accepts miracles? Everything I've heard argues to the contrary.

Really?

Why, only a few moments ago you were saying that they have accepted at least 20,000.

Is the normal number that most people accept larger than 20,000, then?


How long is your own list for example?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

What makes you think I don't care, and for that matter, why don't you? If the salvation of my soul is at stake, you'd think, as a christian, you could at least be bothered to evangelized when begged to do so.

I'll leave it to God. Your soul isn't my burden - mine is.

Because Christian dogma makes specific claims. Here's the Nicene Creed for your benefit.


Does any of that seem familiar?

Yes it does.

Interesting choice, given that's not where the Bible starts.

?? You mean Genesis or what? I'm not going to Genesis to see what Jesus said and I'm not going to Christian Dogma to see what he said. But if that's where you want to go you are free too.

Ok, but why do you believe it? Please answer that question. I'm begging you.

I gave plenty of reasons I believe in a different post knowing full well the response I would get. The response: Sorry - those aren't good enough for me. Excuse me? Was I trying to tell you why you should believe? Those aren't reasons you should believe those are reasons I believe. Those reasons are not reasons for anyone but me.

See - on one hand you are asking for "scientific evidence" (which none exists one way or another) and on the other hand saying "why?" and when told why someone believes it discounting it because it doesn't apply to you.

 

[plumjam]

Does that thought still exist?

It may, but I'd only know that by asking you and trusting your reply. Which is the whole point.

No?

Then my point: "The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist." remains valid.

And your English comprehension is ropey.

Do you comprehend 'pedantry'?

 

[plumjam]

Really?

Why, only a few moments ago you were saying that they have accepted at least 20,000.

Is the normal number that most people accept larger than 20,000, then?


How long is your own list for example?

silly

 

[plumjam]

Woo.

Padre Pio used chemicals.

I see you're quite willing to accept dodgy hearsay when it suits your belief system. Not that you would in the other direction.

 

[Henners]

It may, but I'd only know that by asking you and trusting your reply. Which is the whole point.


Do you comprehend 'pedantry'?

Well if the question was too hard, why not just ridicule it.

Saves having to think.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'll leave it to God. Your soul isn't my burden - mine is.

Not according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

14: ...the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15: But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16: For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

?? You mean Genesis or what? I'm not going to Genesis to see what Jesus said and I'm not going to Christian Dogma to see what he said. But if that's where you want to go you are free too.

Christianity is rooted in Judaism, that's why the OT comes bundled with the NT. It is no more possible to understand Christianity without Judaism than it is possible to understand Buddism without Hinduism.

I gave plenty of reasons I believe in a different post knowing full well the response I would get. The response: Sorry - those aren't good enough for me. Excuse me? Was I trying to tell you why you should believe? Those aren't reasons you should believe those are reasons I believe. Those reasons are not reasons for anyone but me.

I am begging you tell me why you believe in your religion, but reject all others.

See - on one hand you are asking for "scientific evidence" (which none exists one way or another) and on the other hand saying "why?" and when told why someone believes it discounting it because it doesn't apply to you.

Just tell me why you believe in your religion, please.

 

[Henners]

I see you're quite willing to accept dodgy hearsay when it suits your belief system. Not that you would in the other direction.

Reality is not a belief system.

That's where you are making your mistake.

Miracles don't happen in reality - except in the minds of people like woo.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You cannot compare belief in an omnipotent being to a matter of taste.

Yes I can. I just did. An anaology does not have to be complete in all details to work, and the anaolgy in progress has to do with fit and choice. That you choose to be obtuse about that is no surprise.

Religious dogma involves baseless assertions about the existence and non-existence of many things, including the soul, God, miracles, and an afterlife. I believe in graviation because there is evidence. Why do you believe in your religion?

Believing in a religion is an incorrect construction. Care to use English properly?

Also, why do you care? You have made your choice, may it serve you well.

I have noted numerous times on this sub forum that I do not prosletyze on the internet, as I find it a fool's errand. My journey was the result of profound human to human interactions, and if I am able to interest someone in a similar path, it will happen over a course of time, in person.

Or, it won't.

DR

 

[plumjam]

I assume you're refering to Our Lady of Fatima. A bunch of people claim to have seen the sun moving around after being convinced that they should stare at it for a prolonged period, which is rather dangerous. If the sun really did approach the Earth suddenly, and dance about, it somehow failed to boil the seas, burn the sky, rip the Moon from its orbit, and destroy life on the Earth. In fact, no one anywhere else then or since has ever seen any evidence that such an event has ever happened, or even could happen.

The event was witnessed by some people up to a radius of 30 miles away from the field in question. Some that hadn't heard of the prediction.
What really happened to the Sun that day, is anyone's guess... but that's why it's a miracle.

Oh, so mummification is evidence of Chrisitanity? Does that including Nefertiti and all those mummified Peruvian children in the Andes?

Straw man alert. Bernadette, for example, was not given prior mummification treatment, as were your examples. How can a body not decompose for 30 years?
Why does this only happen (without mummification treatment) to people recognised as holy in their societies?
If it's just a physical quirk, why doesn't it happen to animals?

False, false, and false. Paul specifically described a mystical vision. Exodus involves Moses having several mystical visions, yet Abraham has a vision wherein he negotiates with an allegedly perfect God, and in Job, Job speaks with God for a rather prolonged discussion wherein God makes fun of Job for not being omnipotent. The Mystical visions in each of those books are remarkably dissimilar.

I could meet three different people tomorrow at separate times, and the conversation and mutual attitude, for various reasons would probably be dissimilar.
These reports are not generally recognised as enlightenment experiences, such as that of the Buddha. There is a whole pathway of what are commonly described as visions, between normal experience and final enlightenment. These kinds of experiences can vary according to the particular make-up of the individual.

Actually, yes. The experiences of a person hallucinating in no way reflect some deeper nature to reality, so why does seeing a god like figure count as peering through the veil of reality whereas dreaming you're a trout does not?

By their fruits judge them. Genuine spiritual experiences universally tend to make the individual less selfish, more loving.. for example. Whereas dreaming you're a trout may only lead to a couple of days of vague resentment towards anglers.

 

[plumjam]

Reality is not a belief system.

That's where you are making your mistake.

Miracles don't happen in reality - except in the minds of people like woo.

Your whole answer is a belief system.
Is your answer real then? Or just imaginary?

 

[Darth Rotor]

A Christian Skeptic, Darth Rotor, why are we going around and around about whether or not it is nice to ask you why you believe in your religion, and not others, and whether there is evidence for it? For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a very rude question and we're horrible people for asking.

Now, could you please address it?

I already did. I will repeat it for you.

Why should I care?

The embedded assumption in the OP presumes that I hold the beliefs of other religions false. I admit that I could choose to be doctrinaire, and shout from the rooftops that Mohamed has to be a false prophet, based on the snippet from the NT about False Prophets, (ETA: for those who care, Matthew 7:15) or for any other doctrinal reason, but that's an empty position for me to take with any Muslim. He'll tell me I don't get it. He might even tell me that Mohamed is the latest revelation. Etc.

The solution for me, in dealing with that Muslim, is to focus on what he and I share, in common, and try to resolve practically where we don't agree. It can be done, between people who treat people as human beings, and not as abstractions. In some cases, however, folks who choose to be doctrinaire choose to be disagreeable. See my point further up regarding where body counts tend to rise.

Thanks to the embedded assumption I mention, the line of inquiry is rather pointless, unless the aim is bashing another person's world view.

If that is where you get your kicks, so be it.

DR

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

That's fine. When I meet Paul we can have a nice little talk about which of us were more correct and what scientific evidence we had for it.

Christianity is rooted in Judaism, that's why the OT comes bundled with the NT. It is no more possible to understand Christianity without Judaism than it is possible to understand Buddism without Hinduism.

Like I already said - if that's where you want to go to find out what Jesus said then go ahead.

 

[Henners]

Your whole answer is a belief system.
Is your answer real then? Or just imaginary?

An evidence-based system is not a belief system.

Belief systems are useful in spheres where outcomes don't matter, like religions, and woo.

Evidence-based systems are useful when outcomes are important, like Education, Medicine, and Aeronautics.

Let me know if any of this starts to become tricky.

 

[plumjam]

An evidence-based system is not a belief system.

Belief systems are useful in spheres where outcomes don't matter, like religions, and woo.

Evidence-based systems are useful when outcomes are important, like Education, Medicine, and Aeronautics.

Let me know if any of this starts to become tricky.

An evidence-based system is just another type of belief system. It will be based, presumably, on the belief that it is important to base conclusions on some kind of evidence.
It will also, most likely, stipulate the types of evidence it believes to be admissible, inadmissible, borderline etc..
Some evidence-based systems will differ from others, based primarily on the particular belief systems underpinning them.

 

[plumjam]

Thanks to the embedded assumption I mention, the line of inquiry is rather pointless, unless the aim is bashing another person's world view.

If that is where you get your kicks, so be it.

DR

Exactly, DR !
Well put.