My Beliefs- GDR

So Paul claimed to see Jesus, and Paul says 500 other people claimed this too. And you believe this is hard to fake? Look, god can exist, no one is saying otherwise. What I'm questioning is your circular reasoning and logical fallacy. It makes a difference on how one forms a conclusion. Yes, we have established this is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.- Oni

And that's the beginning and end of this argument.You decide that Genesis and Noah and so on are metaphor, but choose the resurrection to be literal. 200 years ago you would have called what you say today heresy. Don't you see that all you are doing is inventing excuses for the bible being just plain wrong?All this pseudoscience stuff that you admit you have no real understanding of doesn't help you, none of it has any biblical reference. Why can't you just admit that you believe because you believe, get on with your worship and simply accept the magic?

All of us look for things that will confirm what we believe so you may be right. I’m not sure that you understood what I was referring to. I didn’t mean that I had a revelation that God existed. My point was that after I accepted the Christian faith I did sense that I was being nudged by God in certain directions. I can’t prove that to be the case and I certainly went in some directions that I’m sure God would just as soon I hadn’t gone, but as this is a thread about what I believe that is part of it.

I don’t just read apologetics and I know that most modern scholarship suggests that they were post 70AD. I’m not convinced that they are right, however they know more about it so they probably are. The Gospels are the compilation of the oral tradition and earlier accounts. I just don’t see the dates that the various accounts were compiled into one larger account matters.Actually the purpose of apologetics is to discern what it is that the writers were trying to convey to their readers. Certainly everyone who engages in apologetics has their personal biases which will show up in what they write so it is important to read widely. I have done that, and I have read the work of both believers and non-believers.

I get that but why did the process begin billions of years ago just the one time. Is there ever any record of non-organic base elements combining to form a single cell? Correct me if I’m wrong, but all we know is that the Earth was formed with base non-organic base elements and compounds, and then at some point we have a geological record of the earliest life forms, which actually involved an extremely complex cellular structure made up of those base elements. We certainly can see chemical reactions altering substances but I don’t what constitutes supernatural phenomena. All life is miraculous, so if that is the result of supernatural phenomena then supernatural wins hands down. If it is based on what we can empirically know the it is chemical reactions. Amino acids are actually organic compounds to start with and are complex themselves. Amino Acids I’m not going to pretend that I know anything about them beyond that.

Is your position that all there is can be detected by at least one of our 5 senses? Fine, but in order to do that we have to in many cases overcome our own bias for not only our own interests but in some cases our own survival. You can talk about it being for the good of our own social groups but people sacrifice for those outside of their own tribes and for people with which they have had zero contact. However, we just aren’t going to agree on this and I’ve had this discussion before. Yes and the question is, how does the potential for sentient life exist in raw base elements. No, you start with the premise that we exist due to the chance combination of base elements without and intelligent beginnings.I have explained why several times including in the OP. It is just that you don’t find my rationale for my faith at all convincing. That is a really good question. I’m human so my inclination is to anthropomorphize Him. It a sense it is all we can do. However, beyond that I see Him as a massive intelligence that exists in another dimension that is interlocked with our own, but that we are unable to directly perceive with our 5 senses. I speculate, and it is highly speculative I know, that we are an emergent property of a much greater multi-dimensional reality, and that one day we will be again fully integrated with that greater reality. There is certainly mythology in the Bible but most of it isn’t written in mythological form. Mind you, I agree that Genesis is completely mythological, but I think that there is divine wisdom to be taken from those mythological accounts.

Evidently you and I have different definitions for that word. Life is natural, not a miracle.That is the problem with you religious types. You hijack words to give them a different meaning in order that you can claim you are correct. Life is not a miracle it is a natural occurrence. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying organic compounds could only have been created by a god? Is H₂O a complex compound? Where is the line drawn and why? Please arguments in support not more assertions. We have seen amino acids created in the lab. So yes we have seen the formation of precursors of cells. Ah yes. That answers it. You continue to argue about things that you know nothing about, but since it is in defense of your religious beliefs I guess it is ok in your eyes.Do you understand anything in the wiki link you posted?

Is your position that things that cannot be detected by the five senses are supernatural?
What do you mean by detected?
It seems to be an exceedingly silly and meaningless comment you are making. Are you going to be changing definitions of words again to make a point? What is this potential of which you speak? Please explain and define what you are asking. Are you saying there must be some sort of code buried in elements in order for life to have sprung from them? That is what is called a bunch of woo. Word salad meaning nothing. Again, faith and faith alone.

Scientists are definitely not postulating supernatural explanations but as for the rest I’m not clear. We are unable to perceive dark matter or dark energy other than we see their gravitational effects if I have it right. We can’t feel, smell, see, taste or hear dark matter or energy. Does that not make it immaterial? I think it is very difficult to understand what an idea is. I know that we can see the results of ideas via brain scans but I think it is more than just that. For example Einstein had an idea that led to his paper on relativity. Did that exist as an idea before Einstein thought of it. Does an idea only become an idea when it is mentally perceived? If the idea always existed, just waiting to be perceived then the idea is something more than just an aspect of our physical nature.I have an idea that I just might be over my head here. That sounds reasonable. If some form of conscious life existed in other universes or dimensions would that life be material or nonmaterial?

Of course he can write whatever he likes but that would be written while there were still eye witnesses. It is the resurrection itself that would virtually impossible to fake and for that matter why would you want to. Do you really think that you would fake being nailed to a cross for hours, having a spear thrust into your side, not to mention the flogging etc. all so you can create this illusion of coming back to life. I think your point is that I believe in God because I believe the resurrection is historical. That isn’t correct. I believe that the resurrection is possible because I believe in God.

Genesis is written in another time and another place than the Gospels. There are written with a different intent. The Bible is not one book and just because I understand one part as allegory does not mean the whole book is allegory.I'm not trying to make excuses for the Bible at all. I am simply doing my best to understand what God has to tell us through it.As far as the science is concerned I find it interesting to speculate as to how to how reality looks. It isn't part of my faith, but if God does exist then ultimately theology and science are going to agree. As I have said before I view science as a natural theology so I just do the best I can with the limited knowledge that I have.Sure it is a faith. I can't empirically know that what I believe is true, partly true or completely false, which holds true for anybody who has considered these things.

I did take some literary licence with that word, but what I meant was that for life as we know it, whether it is a result of God, or the result of completely natural origins, it is seems miraculous in human terms. I'm just going to give you this. I don't have the knowledge to argue it. My only point is that intelligence had to evolve somehow from the elements that were part of this world 4.5 billion years ago or intelligence is the result of a pre-existing intelligence. Take your pick.

No. It is miraculous in your terms. I am human and it is not miraculous in my terms. Again more redefining in order to support your preconceived ideas. Which one is evidenced and which one requires a faith?I will go with the evidence.I am not surprised that you are running away from your previous comments about a need for some sort of potential in order for life to have started naturally. It is an exceedingly silly argument.

No of course not. Quarks are not detected by our 5 senses, only through the use of equipment. Some gases aren't detected by our senses, or wave lengths.What was this supoosed to mean? That's still good for our group, just on a larger scale. It doesn't. The question is nonsensical. Sentience has nothing to do with base elements (whatever that means).Chemistry and evolution have the potential for all of life, sentient or otherwise, to emerge. The potential for sentient life exist ONLY when chemistry and evolution exist. You've already agreed to that. I simply start where the objective evidence points at. There is no ividence for invisible superpowers that control things. The science and the evidence points to chemistry and evolution, and I believe you already agreed with this. You have said that you don't know but you're convinced that there is a god. That is not an explanation. Just because you use some words that physicists use doesn't help what you said make anymore sense.Just saying the word god doesn't describe anything, and likewise saying words like "mulit-dimensional reality" doesn't either.Like I suspected, you don't really know what god is or how he does anything. You're swinging wildly with a few science words to compensate for how poorly your beliefs stand up to scrutiny. You've missed my point entirely.- Oni

I'm not following. Paul never saw Jesus yet claimed he appeared to him (or whatever it says exactly) - then Paul also writes of 500 nameless people, unidentified completely, who he says also saw Jesus.The only question that I'm asking you is do you think that can be faked? I wouldn't do any of that, and I don't believe anyone else did that either. I do believe some people wrote a story like that and passed it on as truth. I also believe Paul was full of shit when he wrote what he wrote. People lie all the time. It is much more likely that a few people lied and made up a story about a man that came back from the dead than a man actually coming back from the dead.Thus I repeat the question, which you continue to evade: Is it easier to fake a miracle or for there to have actually accured a miracle? I don't think you're comprehending me. OF COURSE I know you believe the resurrection is possible because you believe there is a god, this is my argument with you in the other posts - that you put the cart before the horse. It's a logical fallacy. It's circular reasoning. Haven't you been paying attention?See if you can follow your own reasoning: You believe god exists therefore the ressurection is possible. And you believe Christianity is the right one because of the power of the ressurection.That is straight up begging the question - a logical fallacy and completely circular. How do you justify that?- Oni