Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

Absolutely

That is why I am a Christian

(I have also addressed the risk of believing that everything came into existence from purposeless unguided forces)

I doubt this. You don't even seem to know your Bible very well, so I'm suspicious of your having fully investigated the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt this. You don't even seem to know your Bible very well, so I'm suspicious of your having fully investigated the Koran, the Baghavad Gita or the Book of Mormon.

I am just baffled by the question. In evaluating whether I think something is true, the 'risk' of not believing it seems an entirely useless approach.

[Alan Burns]

What risk?

The risk of passing through this life without discovering the absolute joy of knowing God's love.

[Nearly Sane]

The risk of passing through this life without discovering the absolute joy of knowing God's love.

This your god that finds your contact lens, while watching children die of leukaemia? Your god's an evil prick.

[Gordon]

The risk of passing through this life without discovering the absolute joy of knowing God's love.

Very loving of your 'God' then to give me terminal cancer at a time when we have taken on formal responsibility for the welfare of two of our grandchildren (of primary school age). I'm not finding that very joyful.

[Alan Burns]

Very loving of your 'God' then to give me terminal cancer at a time when we have taken on formal responsibility for the welfare of two of our grandchildren (of primary school age). I'm not finding that very joyful.

As I have said previously Gordon, the inner joy of knowing God will not take away our earthly trials, but it certainly helps us through them.

[Nearly Sane]

As I have said previously Gordon, the inner joy of knowing God will not take away our earthly trials, but it certainly helps us through them.

Doesn't help the children dying of leukaemia while your god finds your contact lens. As ever you worship an insane thug.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As I have said previously Gordon, the inner joy of knowing God will not take away our earthly trials, but it certainly helps us through them.

But you have previously said the opposite. That God will take away earthly trials by curing cancer. It was one of the arguments you put forward for the existence of God.

I don't don't know how you expect people to take your claims seriously when you are not even consistent in them.

So a simple question. Has god ever cured anyone of cancer? If no then why have you claimed he has in the past? If yes, then why did you say to Gordon that he will not take away our earthly trials?

[Aruntraveller]

And furthermore, if he has cured some of cancer why hasn't he cured all?

[Sebastian Toe]

Absolutely

That is why I am a Christian

If the Qur'an is true, you being a Christian, are incorrectly worshiping a mere prophet as God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the Qur'an is true, you being a Christian, are incorrectly worshiping a mere prophet as God.

Do you think the Quran is more likely or less likely to be true than the New Testament....or equally likely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you think the Quran is more likely or less likely to be true than the New Testament....or equally likely.

In epistemic terms they’re equivalent.

Do you think that pixies are more likely or less likely to be true than leprechauns...or equally (un)likely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In epistemic terms they’re equivalent.

Do you think that pixies are more likely or less likely to be true than leprechauns...or equally (un)likely?

So epistemiology is incompetent for our purposes here.

Mention of Leprechauns is just the horses laugh fallacy as perpetrated by one of the forum’s most notorious “category f***ers.”

[Spud]

Don't be silly, Vlad - again.

The claim is Spud's, and by association yours. So, show us the provenance for the NT: who wrote it, when, and where, and explain how you guys have addressed the risks of mistakes or lies - hard to do in the absence of any substantive provenance.

Would knowing the provenance make you any more able to believe the miracles? As Wiki says, and despite (as you claim) having unknown provenance, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate, are widely accepted as historical by scholars. So again, when it comes to the miracles it isn't a matter of provenance, but internal evidence like I gave in 46509 that counts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So epistemiology is incompetent for our purposes here.

No, just for your purposes. If you want your various religious claims to be taken seriously and you think epistemology to be not up to that job, then it’s up to you find another approach.   

Mention of Leprechauns is just the horses laugh fallacy…

No it isn’t for the reasons that have been explained to you often here and that you routinely either fail to grasp or just ignore. The analogy (another concept you’ve never understood either by the way) is that two different sets of competing claims (NT vs Quran, pixies vs leprechauns, whatever) cannot be said to be more or less likely than each other when they have equivalent epistemic status – ie, unqualified guesses are just unqualified guesses no matter what their objects.

Try to understand this.   

The ana;ogy  as perpetrated by one of the forum’s most notorious “category f***ers.”

You’ve never managed to find an example of me making a category error here (including this time), so why bother lying about that?

Do you also think “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack” is a category error because men and needles are different categories of object?

Why not?     

[Nearly Sane]

Would knowing the provenance make you any more able to believe the miracles? As Wiki says, and despite (as you claim) having unknown provenance, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate, are widely accepted as historical by scholars. So again, when it comes to the miracles it isn't a matter of provenance, but internal evidence like I gave in 46509 that counts.

Not knowing the provenance makes your claim to winesses lying.

In order to have 'evidence' for miraculous claims you would need a methodology for establishing them. In the absence of that and some consistency between 2 documents, isn't a methodology, the claims are white noise.

[Maeght]

Would knowing the provenance make you any more able to believe the miracles? As Wiki says, and despite (as you claim) having unknown provenance, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate, are widely accepted as historical by scholars. So again, when it comes to the miracles it isn't a matter of provenance, but internal evidence like I gave in 46509 that counts.

Widely accepted as historically likely I would say. Historians make a judgement on what most likely happened. Doesn't make it a fact that it did. By this measure miracles are not likely to have happened. Just because one aspect of a story is considered most likely to have happened doesn't mean other aspects of the story most likely happened.

[Gordon]

Would knowing the provenance make you any more able to believe the miracles? As Wiki says, and despite (as you claim) having unknown provenance, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate, are widely accepted as historical by scholars. So again, when it comes to the miracles it isn't a matter of provenance, but internal evidence like I gave in 46509 that counts.

Even more stupid, Spud.

Sadly I'm not surprised that you probably can't see that what you've posted here is utter nonsense. For instance, what would 'evidence' for a miracle actually look like, and if you had robust 'evidence' acquired via a stated and appropriate method would it still be a miracle? An 'explained miracle' is an oxymoron.

You still haven't told me on what basis you've excluded the risks of mistakes, bias or outright lies in the NT accounts, but of course you can't since you know nothing about the provenance: if you don't know for sure any details about who wrote certain bits originally, or to what extent there have been revisions, and by whom, then in effect you really know nothing that can be accepted as being reliable.

That the NT may contain certain facts: such as that it is a fact that there was, and is, a place called Jerusalem but that does not imply that the bits about a dead man not staying dead are also facts. 

[Aruntraveller]

As Wiki says,

Are you taking Wikipedia's word as gospel (so to speak)?

If you are I have a thing or two to post for you to absorb. You may have to alter your worldview after reading though.

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you think the Quran is more likely or less likely to be true than the New Testament....or equally likely.

It is a risk assessment issue for Alan.

[Spud]

Not knowing the provenance makes your claim to winesses lying.

The gospels themselves claim to have eyewitness sources.

In order to have 'evidence' for miraculous claims you would need a methodology for establishing them. In the absence of that and some consistency between 2 documents, isn't a methodology, the claims are white noise.

The only methodology for establishing miraculous claims is multiple reliable eyewitnesses. If the gospels had been fraudulent, they would have been exposed as that because they claim that many of the inhabitants of Palestine witnessed miracles. This point depends on the accounts being written within the lifetime of these witnesses, which is evident from statements such as we find in Matthew 27 and Acts 1 that the Field of Blood was known by that name by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "to this day". This and other internal examples point to a date of writing before AD70.

[Nearly Sane]

The gospels themselves claim to have eyewitness sources.

The only methodology for establishing miraculous claims is multiple reliable eyewitnesses. If the gospels had been fraudulent, they would have been exposed as that because they claim that many of the inhabitants of Palestine witnessed miracles. This point depends on the accounts being written within the lifetime of these witnesses, which is evident from statements such as we find in Matthew 27 and Acts 1 that the Field of Blood was known by that name by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "to this day". This and other internal examples point to a date of writing before AD70.

Claiming eyewitnesses without provenance is worthless and lying

The rest of it is just idiocy, as you are already lying.

[Maeght]

The gospels themselves claim to have eyewitness sources.

Claim. Yes.

[Alan Burns]

If the Qur'an is true, you being a Christian, are incorrectly worshiping a mere prophet as God.

A prophet does not make the claims that Jesus made.
A prophet does not work miracles.
A prophet does not forgive sins.
A prophet does not rise from the dead.

I am quite confident that I am worshipping the one true God who made Himself known to us in the human form of Jesus Christ.

[Maeght]

A prophet does not make the claims that Jesus made.
A prophet does not work miracles.
A prophet does not forgive sins.
A prophet does not rise from the dead.

I am quite confident that I am worshipping the one true God who made Himself known to us in the human form of Jesus Christ.

How do you know Jesus actually make the claims though? That he actually work miracles? That he did he rise from the dead?