Your eternal destination: you decide.

Hi, scraf. This post isn't so much directed at you but more of a general statement for the entire thread. I am mostly replying to your post since that is what inspired me to write.There is a problem with this conversation, and that is the fact that "know" can have several different meanings.In epistemology, knowledge is "justified true belief" (ignoring the objections of the epistemic minimalists -- sorry holmes). That is, if one believes that the sun will come up tomorrow (and nothing here requires the belief to be 100% certain -- just reasonably certain), one has a reasonable justification to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, and the sun does in fact come up tomorrow (making it a true belief), then the person did, in fact, "know" that the sun was going to come up the next day.Of course, this is not the meaning that people are using. This sort of argument is very much a heavily philosophical one, and in my opinion if one is going to get this deep into philosophy then one should be careful to use words with a technically precise meaning.That being as it were, most people are using the word "know", it appears, to mean "believe with 100% certainty, with no doubts whatsoever." Far be it for me to try to stop the incoming tide, so I will accept that as the working definition.--In that case, it is perfectly possible for someone to acknowledge, intellectually, that there is a very, very small chance that the sun will not come up tomorrow, yet nonetheless have no doubts whatsoever that the sun will come up tomorrow. For many people, perhaps most, belief is not an intellectual state but an emotional one. It is not hard for some to take a very, very small probabibility and turn it into, as far as doubts are concerned, into no doubt whatsoever -- human psychology is what it is.I am one of these people, it seems. I can acknowledge, intellectually, that the sun just might not come up tomorrow -- I am knowledgeable enough in science to know of possible not completely unreasonable science fiction scenarios where the sun may be prevented from shining. However, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the sun will in fact come up tomorrow. Such is my psychology.Now let us consider the case in the OP, namely whether the "God of the Bible" actually exits. I can imagine that a Very Powerful Being interacted with the societies of the Middle East during the Bronze Age, leading to the development of the Hebrew culture which then produced the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth. I can even acknowledge, intellectually, that this interaction occurred up to and including interaction with Jesus and the early Christian saints. In fact, even in regards to my beliefs (as opposed a purely intellectual acknowledgement of the actual possibility), I admit I am probably not 100% certain that a Very Powerful Being did not interact with various individuals in the Middle East from the Bronze Age until the early Christian era, with the Bible being a very inaccurate description of these interactions.However, if you try to give the hypothesis that a Very Powerful Being attempted to guide people to live a Good and Decent Life by not only interacting with individuals but also by indirectly inspiring writers to write the correct things, then my belief goes to zero. I can intellectually acknowledge the possibility that a Very Powerful Being was intent enough to guide the Middle East societies and later Roman Empire by indirectly inspiring various literary works, but now the possibility becomes so small that my mind turns it into 0 possibility as far as actual belief. I have no doubt whatsoever that such a thing did not occur.We have a further problem with the OP. The OP talks about the possibility of the existence of "the God of the Bible". The involves, I assume, such things as the creation of the universe, an interest in human beings and how they live, the promotion of some sort of moral code that includes worship of said being, the continued existence of a person after death and the ability of the god to affect the state of the person in the afterlife, the doling out of punishments and rewards based on whether one accepted the death of the incarnation of this god as a human sacrifice, and so forth and so on. Well, the sum of all of this is so fraught with contradictions and implausibilities that even purely intellectually, without regard to belief, I don't see how someone can accept this.So, I am 100% certain that the Abrahamic god does not exist. One may claim that it is irrational, but so be it. I can acknowledge that there is a very small possibility that a Very Powerful Being has attempted to guide Western Civilization by inspiring various literary works as well as interacting with various prophets and that the Bible is a very inaccurate description of this Being and its interactions; nonetheless I have no doubts that such a thing did not occur.The basic tenets of Christianity, at least as understood by traditional Christians, is, in my opinion, not even a starter. The most basic tenets of the tradition, conservative, evangelical Christians are so contradictory that even an intellectual acceptance of the basic tenets become unreasonable to the point that, for me at least, it is impossible.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

The opposite can also be said. But that is only further proof that God exists. I am not putting down anyones faith, or even trying to understand why they feel what they feel. But it is all evidence of supernatural stuff.I am also not relying on my own personal feelings. I have been through this numerous times before in this forum, and I have opened myself up for review. I am not a gullible person when it comes to spuernatural stuff, and for 38 years of my life, I did not believe any of it existed.But we are getting off topic, the topic is not whether or not God is provable, I never said He was. I don't need to discuss with others about my faith in God, but I know for myself that God exists. That doesn't make me anything more than you.This whole thread is based on the premise "if God exists" so it is pointless to discuss if The existance of God is provable.

Why not? We talk about it amoung each other all the time. We get the same "downloads" from God all the time. This is off topic anyway.We have had this conversation several times before, it is getting old. I know you don't accept it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.When you say stuff like that to me, you give me the impression that you think I am some kind of floozy air-head who just believes whatever. Please....

quote:

---

Why not? We talk about it amoung each other all the time.

---

You are not inside their mind with them, so you cannot know if you are feeling EXACTLY the same feelings as they are.That's just common sense. You can't feel EXACTLY what another person feels because you do not share their central nervous system, nor do you have any way to transfer their feelings to your own nervous system.You may talk together and get the impression from each other that the feelings you get are similar, just like people who experience other very emotional situations, like being in a car accident or watching an exciting sporting event. But that in no way translates to having EXACTLY the same feelings.

quote:

---

When you say stuff like that to me, you give me the impression that you think I am some kind of floozy air-head who just believes whatever.

---

Well, not quite, although I do think that you put far, far too much credence in the accuracy and truth of your own perceptions and resist critical examination and doubt of those perceptions. You generally tend to ignore bias and wishful thinking and communal reinforcement, especially in your own beliefs.IOW, you are a pretty typical human.

EXACTLY? LOL
I never said EXACTLYIf you were paying attention, I was saying that nothing can ever be proven, so there is no such thing as exactly anyway.
What's that principal?No two people could ever see this forum the same way, but that doesn't mean it exists or not.I have already explained how there are 6 billion stories on the planet, so from that statement you should not have claimed that I was saying EXACTLY to anything. Another reading comprehension problem on your part. Yes, this is my universe, and I am the only one who exists in it, any questions? Just the opposite. I base what I feel on what I know, and never admit to knowing everything, therefor..... I guess I'll take that as a compliment, unless you think you are above humans or something.

quote:

---

EXACTLY? LOL
I never said EXACTLY

---

Yes you did, in message #176. You even emphasized the word by using all-caps:

quote:

---

I know many people who feel EXACTLY the same thing I feel from God.

---

If you hadn't said "EXACTLY", I wouldn't have bothered to respond.Why didn't you go back to check what you had said yourself?You do this sort of thing all the time.You very clearly make some claim in a post, and then when you are called on it, you say you never made it, or that's not what you meant, or some such excuse.

Can a person who doesn't believe in Santa Claus know that Santa Claus does not exist?

I know what I said.
I said I know people who feel exactly the same thing I feel from God. This does not mean everything is the same, but certain things are EXACTLY the same. You turned it into EVERYTHING EXACTLY, when that was not what I meant, something you do all the time, twist words around, or just not understand what was meant. I never deny anythig, or lie.

quote:

---

I said I know people who feel exactly the same thing I feel from God. This does not mean everything is the same, but certain things are EXACTLY the same.

---

You cannot know that you feel anything EXACTLY the same as anyone else, for the reasons I have already given.

quote:

---

You turned it into EVERYTHING EXACTLY, when that was not what I meant, something you do all the time, twist words around, or just not understand what was meant.

---

You flatly denied using the word "exactly", and now that I have quoted your own words back at you, instead of saying "yes, I guess I did, in fact, say 'exactly'", you try to bullshit me.You used the word "exactly" to describe the nature of the similarity of the feelings you have and the feelings someone else had.You emphasized the word "exactly" further by using all-caps.Lastly, I am not twisting your words, I am using your exact words.I never said that you felt "everything" "exactly" the same as someone else, so it is a strawman to accuse me of doing so.Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you said this?:

quote:

---

I know many people who feel EXACTLY the same thing I feel from God.

---

What I said in reply was, and I quote from Message #210Furthermore, you defended this exact statement in the reply in message #213

quote:

---

Why not? We talk about it amoung each other all the time. We get the same "downloads" from God all the time.

---

Then I replied in Message #214But now, you say that I misunderstood?Nope.You made the claim that you can EVER feel EXACTLY the same things someone else can.You can't, unless you share their CNS or have found a way to do an actual Vulcan mind meld or something.

If at the end of a prayer service, someone says to me "I feel peace", and I to, also feel peace, we have both felt the same exact thing. Of course this is an oversimplification of other parellel feelings that we exprience. There is also the fact that this happens on numerous occasions.This of course does not "prove God" but it goes towards the evidence. But I did admit it, I also explained myself further, since you took it out of context a bit.So let me ask you a question, you feel it is impossible for two people to feel exactly the same thing?If there are 60,000 people at a footbal game, and the home team scores a touchdown, you don't think that a large percentage of people will all happy together?Let me guess, you are going to provide some abstract meaning of the word happy now?

quote:

---

If at the end of a prayer service, someone says to me "I feel peace", and I to, also feel peace, we have both felt the same exact thing.

---

But this is not what you said, nor defended, initially.You said, and emphasized with all-caps, that you knew that you felt EXACTLY the same thing as someone else.What you are describing is not exact at all, and you are only comparing similarities. You cannot possibly know that you feel the EXACT same feeling of peacefulness that another person feels. The EXACT feelings that you are feeling are still only your own.You may think that I am being unreasonably nitpicky, but remember, I am only responding to what you said, and the emphasis with which you said it.

quote:

---

Of course this is an oversimplification of other parellel feelings that we exprience.

---

It is an oversimplification of ANY feeling we experience.

quote:

---

There is also the fact that this happens on numerous occasions.

---

So? We are emotional creatures. We tend to be greatly emotionally affected by groups. That's part of why revivals and rock concerts and sporting events make people do wild, emotional things that they ordinarily wouldn't do.

quote:

---

So let me ask you a question, you feel it is impossible for two people to feel exactly the same thing?

---

I don't know.I do know that it is currently impossible for one person to know if they feel exactly the same thing as another.

quote:

---

If there are 60,000 people at a footbal game, and the home team scores a touchdown, you don't think that a large percentage of people will all happy together?

---

Sure. But are they feeling the EXACT same sort and intensity of happiness?How could you even begin to know this?If all you meant was that people who have similar emotionally-stirring experiences will tend to have similar feelings about them, then I have no argument.You may think that this is amazing and remarkable, but why would you think that?That a whole lot of people at a football game would collectively feel "happy" when their team scores, or "disappointment" when their team fumbles is not the issue.

quote:

---

Let me guess, you are going to provide some abstract meaning of the word happy now?

---

LOL!"Happy" is an incredibly vague, general term, rat.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

You initially mentioned kinship of feelings as evidence of an extraordinary shared experience that lent credibility--'beyond the shadow of a doubt'--to a particular religion. Now you say you were only talking about ordinary shared experience--nothing different in kind than fans experience at a ball game. Which is it?Florida State plays Penn State in the Orange Bowl. One team scores a touchdown. Half the fans are happy and half the fans are disappointed.Does the happiness of the happy fans indicate they have chosen the 'true' football team for their support? Do the disappointed fans support a 'false' team? If so, what does it mean if the lead changes? If not, can it be that either choice is valid? If either choice is valid, what is really being proven 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' when any fan feels happy?____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I am not going into detail because it really is off-topic for this thread. I have gone into detail about it before.All I can asy is that I do not base my belief on a the simple premise of two people feeling "happy" together. What shraf is doing is trying to nit-pick something apart, and that something is only a small fraction of the total picture.One must weigh all the evidence together. Isn't that what scientists do? Not all the evidence is completely subjective either.I could literally write a book about all the evidences, and shared feelings that I have experienced concerning God. You could then proceed to nit-pick apart every single experience, and give possible other explanations for them. But that wasn't example I gave. No, that fact that 100% of the people there felt something, means that there is indeed a football game going on.Not everyone that goes to church is going to feel something, not everyone is going to feel positive towards God. Some people even feel convicted, and run from the church, because they do not want to face the truth. Church and religion is only man's reflection of who and what God is. Just because opinions, and attitudes do not match, does not mean there is no God, just like the people at a football game.When people at a "prayer service" are all praying and worship God, then all feel the same feeling peace, it's pretty cool. Sometimes we can even just sit there and bask in the presence of all that peace. Sometimes a person can just walk in off the street, who wasn't even a participant of the service, and as soon as they enter the door, they get overwelmed with the feeling of peace. Again, this is only a small example of some of the things I experience, and by itself is not a good reason to believe in God (I guess) but it is part of a larger picture.Also wanted to tell you that believing in God, is never "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The nature of this world, and the nature of humans, will always have doubt. Even the bible explains about doubt. Look at the Jews who actually saw pillars of fire in the desert, and still they started doubting.

How does it go towards the evidence?The two of you go to Taco Bell. You each eat four Buritto Supremes. You each say "I feel full."Please show how that goes towards the evidence that God exists. Great explanation of why your feeling is NOT indicative of anything but human reactions.Those people who came in rooting for the Home Team will feel happy. But they had already placed their own bias into play.Your example

• preselects the participants.
• educates and indoctrinates the participants towards a desired response.
• provides the classic mob mentality reinforcement environment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Such an irrelevent question. What does taco bell have to do with God? But it is not a stand alone thing, yet you keep refering to it that way. The fact that all people there felt something is evidence that there was a game.You keep making these nonsense comparisons, when the comparisons you are making could be used as examples for or against. LOL