I have no doubt that you deeply believe the above statement is "true." But please consider the necessary distinction between belief and knowledge, and maybe apply the following self-test to assess your own willingness to follow truth "wherever it leads." If you really are willing to seek truth AT ALL COSTS, then that ought to also mean you are willing to overturn your current beliefs or supposed "knowledge" IF it can be demonstrated to be erroneous, or even probably erroneous. So, what would that evidence be? Can you propose ANY DEGREE of evidence that WOULD change your mind about God? I presume you (or at least most Christians) will say, "No, nothing can change my mind about who my God is." Yet I can propose dozens, or even just one simple bit of evidence that would in fact cause ME to completely overturn my conclusion--and I would stop saying that "probably no god exists." So who is really pursuing the truth wherever it leads, and who is leaning upon their own dogma?
Truth is truth regardless of who believes it. Or regardless of what any individual considers 'sufficient evidence'. What I consider sufficient evidence you may not. And vice versa. Therefore, we should not compare ourselves with ourselves, as that would be unwise.
FOR ME, the 'sufficient evidence' is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can find no rational explanation for existence of Christianity, other than that He actually rose from the dead. I am sure you are familiar with the resurrection apologetic, so I won't belabor the point.
You find 'sufficient evidence', on the other hand, that the Bible has irreconcilable contradictions, or that prayer is always unanswered, or that the variety of religious experiences claimed by Christians are explained by non-Christian reasons or causes.
Others find 'sufficient evidence' that all 'reality' is a mass hallucination, we're all in a Matrix of sorts (sangsara). Still others find 'sufficient evidence' that Odin or Thor is real, and they identify with them. And still others find 'sufficient evidence' that it doesn't matter what a person believes, they are all equally 'true and valid'.
So it all boils down to what is 'sufficient evidence' for the individual. Keeping in mind that one's criteria of 'sufficient evidence' may in fact be a bar to recognizing truth. For example, a person may demand evidence that is unreasonable. Or in another case, a person may demand evidence that is impossible. Or in yet another case, a person may demand evidence that is beyond sufficient but not efficient for them. (Sufficient, vs efficient.)
Thus, a person may demand some miraculous, 'undeniable proof' of God's existence, and God may very well just say 'they have Moses and prophets, let them hear them.'
Quote:
Most AFF apostolics probably side with the claims of christian apologist William Lane Craig, who freely admits his perceived "witness of the Holy Spirit" trumps everything else, no matter how compelling the "everything else" may be. For example, he says, "If in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." Interesting that his "witness" doctrine (upon further reading about WLC) is mostly used to claim a few basics, such as, that god exists, and that he (WCL) is a sinner who needs god; whereas Apostolics with HG Baptism use the same "witness" to claim a different set of claims (not necessarily contradictory set of claims, but definitely a different set of claims,) such as that Jesus and God are the same, and there is no Holy Trinity. Therefore, the variety of claims among the Christian world strongly indicate that the "witness of the Holy Spirit" is a subjective phenomena. And subjective phenomena have never accomplished any rigorously testable results on earth, such as to be able to go to the moon and safely return. Or for that matter, let's imagine expanding the "inner witness/feeling from god" to include that other faiths claim and experience (Jews, Hindus, Mormons, etc) and suddenly all your "inner witness knowledge" is indistinguishable from mere opinion, imagination, and wishes.
Yes, many people are deluded about their 'inner witness'. It was true in bible days, too, and it certainly is true today. Which is why 'we have a more sure word of prophecy'. The Scripture and the Resurrection are, in my humble opinion, much more reliable than any personal 'experiences'.
Quote:
When beliefs are conflated to be equivalent with knowledge, that is the practical definition of dogma.
I thought 'dogma' was an authoritative declaration of belief, not a conflation of belief with knowledge?
Quote:
Therefore, your claim that your prime directive is to seek truth at all costs is itself not true.
Ah, now you are able to tell if I'm lying? Pretty neat skill you have. My prime directive is to seek truth, at all costs. I can't help it if it offends you that I found a different answer than you did.
See what you are doing? You are saying, in effect, if I was 'really searching for truth', I would come to the same or similar conclusions as you. No different, logically, than someone who says to you, 'ah, if you were really seeking truth you'd be a (fill in the blank, Christian, Muslim, Pentecostal, Scientologist, UFOlogist, etc).'
Quote:
The bottom line is, if you can't show it, then you don't reallyknow it--rather, you believe it.
Nonsense. Knowledge is not dependent upon nor is it defined solely by 'physical demonstration'. How do you know you are even 'showing' anything? You don't, but you believe you are...
[quote] Furthermore, isn't "belief" really all your holy book asks for? Yes, that, along with behavior commensurate with your beliefs. Therefore you are safe to not even experiment with the real world of verifiable knowledge. [quote]
Who defines what is 'real world verifiable knowledge'? You? People who automatically rule out, de facto, certain possibilities? lol
Quote:
That is also a big reason very few Christians ever really dig into learn how science really works. For example, even many Christian apologists don't really understand how biological evolution works--why study a textbook about such heresy when you have God's Real Textbook about how life got here?
Modern atheists do not really understand simple logic or the concept of necessary truths or 'first truths of reason' and thus repeatedly deny the law of cause and effect, as in their spurious claims of abiogenesis.
Quote:
But if you can't SHOW it, then you don't really KNOW it.
Says who?
Quote:
I had a similar testimony.
However, the level of one's sacrifice, how much one has invested, and how deeply one believes has nothing to do with whether the belief is true. But the investment we have--and have paid for a belief--often makes us not seriously consider or accept its errors.
It is a direct evidence of the truth of the statement 'I am willing to pursue truth at whatever cost'. If a person is willing to give up all, it proves they are willing to give up all. That is all I claimed in my original post on this subject.
Correct, different standards exist about what is admissible evidence, at least in a courtroom. As it turns out, faith-based people have not been able to use any beliefs about an invisible Man in the sky to accomplish anything provable, demonstrable on earth. They can only make claims and excuses. [Claims are probably a tolerable thing to the critical-thinking world, provided faith-based people don't try to claim their version of the god and/or faith should be accepted by the world as really TRUE. The really true part may be only that you really believe it. We understand that your book tells you to proclaim it all as true, but our standards of evidence normally prevent claims such as that a talking serpent in an idyllic garden helped tempt and doom the original woman who in turn helped doom the original man into sin. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and not just more claims.]
Other people, however, who are actually tasked by society to accomplish or teach something demonstrable, are able to use principles of critical thinking to accomplish those same measurable, repeatable, demonstrable things or events, such as, "Build a bridge across this river that will hold 5000 cars per day." People who claim "our standards are different, we just can't prove it to your satisfaction" will not get the contract for the above bridge, thank goodness. But the educated, critical thinkers who can also show what they claim to KNOW, will get the contract (baring chicanery and the like.) It's a cop-out to say "That's just physics, other disciplines are different." No, the principle applies to every area humanity can know about, or can even hope to learn about.
You may have some reasons to go along with your faith, but faith and sound reasoning are not the same. I was hoping you would admit the essential difference, but no surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
I can find no rational explanation for existence of Christianity, other than that He actually rose from the dead.
Likewise, millions of believers can find no rational explanation for the existence of Mormonism, other than that Joseph Smith actually had the experiences he had and reported.
There is stronger historical and documentary evidence for Mormonism than for early or original Christianity. History was much better kept in 1830, obviously. Eleven witnesses went to their graves all testifying and publishing how that they personally SAW the angel holding the golden plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. They not only saw the golden plates, but HEARD the voice of God tell them that the book was translated under the power of God. They (all 11 men) proclaimed the same story to the day they died! They were persecuted for it, too. Why not accept that story? It's actually historically stronger than the story of how god supposedly gave you your holy bible (without even one original letter surviving--or even one verifiable copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.)
Are you a critical thinker? If so, please report your result in trying the test for evidentiary thinking verses faith-based "thinking".
Again, the test was, "Is there ANY possible body of evidence you would accept in order to therefore adopt an opposite viewpoint (ie, disbelief) about the bible being actually true?"
I'll bet there is not (but please show me wrong, if so.) You believe the bible HAS TO BE true regardless of any amount of evidence that can be, even theoretically, brought to bear against the bible being true. As for my taking the same test, I can propose LOTS of very simple happenings that could and would overturn my knowledge and conclusions about the magical god and your supposed holy bible.
<<Dan Reidy, who described himself to the Post as a Pentecostal Christian, said his wife was taken to a hospital and was evaluated by a psychologist before her release.>>
Just one evaluated this time....maybe 279 million to go.
Likewise, millions of believers can find no rational explanation for the existence of Mormonism, other than that Joseph Smith actually had the experiences he had and reported.
There is stronger historical and documentary evidence for Mormonism than for early or original Christianity.
There is no corroborating evidence of any golden plates, any angel Moroni (probably a secret hint there in the name...), etc.
As for 'stronger historical evidence' is that because the evidence itself is stronger, or because nearer in time to the investigator?
Any historical event will have 'stronger evidence' the nearer in time to the investigator by the very nature of the case.
There is, however, enough 'contemporary to the events' evidence that make as certain as can be (considering the nature of history) the following:
1. A teacher known as Jesus/Yeshua in Judea was killed, having attracted a following claiming him to be Messiah.
2. His followers shortly after his death claimed he had risen and appeared unto them, vindicating his and their claims.
3. The religious and political establishment had a vested interest in suppressing the new sect, and in fact attempted to do so.
4. The claimed witnesses were willing to suffer persecution and martyrdom in one form or another rather than admit they lied about his resurrection appearances.
5. The obscure Judean sect has impacted world history more than any other philosophy, ideology, religion ever known in history, which the sect members claimed was inevitable.
Looking at those facts (and others relating to the same events, in that same time period) I find the evidence convincing enough to conclude that the witnesses were sincere in that they believed he really did rise from the dead and appear to them.
And I find no rational explanation for their sincerity except that it actually happened.
Mass hallucination does not suffice as an explanation.
So, either they lied, or they told the truth.
(A third option, they lied but thought they were telling the truth, ruled out already as noted above.)
<<Dan Reidy, who described himself to the Post as a Pentecostal Christian, said his wife was taken to a hospital and was evaluated by a psychologist before her release.>>
Just one evaluated this time....maybe 279 million to go.
If you hear a voice that claims to be God, how can you tell if it really is God or if you're just crazy?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
If you hear a voice that claims to be God, how can you tell if it really is God or if you're just crazy?
Be fair, Timmy. (not being sarcastic this time.)
The two choices should not necessarily be "Hearing a god's Voice" vs. "being Crazy." There can be, have been, and are several reasons someone can hear a god's voice. Take these in combinations with each other, and the mystery is much smaller. And that's the point--mysteries exist but the supernatural does not exist, or at least cannot be shown to exist, therefore no good reason to believe in it. Add to my list, please, these are just what I can think of at the moment.
People may audibly hear or claim they audibly hear a god speak due to being,
--honestly MISTAKEN. (Our senses can make mistakes at both the mechanical/physical level and the interpretive level.)
--arrogantly MISTAKEN. (Someone who has developed their "gifts" and come to really like their gifts can develop a hair trigger for hearing their version of their god.)
--drunken.
--drugged and/or medicated.
--tricked by someone else doing the voice.
--tricked by mob psychology (such as IDing a witch.)
--a charlatan who makes money from hearing a god.
--a charlatan who gets 'da women by hearing from a god.
--a charlatan who controls people by hearing a god (such as writers of holy texts.)
--Pentecostal/charismatic/apostolic, IOW, culturally and religiously conditioned to hear from a god.
--clinically mentally ill. I've never personally known anyone clinically diagnosed as insane, but I started my apostolic faith-life in a poor church, and we didn't go to doctors for that sort of thing! We went to chutch instead.
Linear Mode
