A Book?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well that's it isn't it EvF. It isn't JUST a book.

But it is a BOOK though. The stuff the bible says, how does it give any evidence (non-empirical or WHATEVER) that God actually exists? It's just stuff written down about God - it's a book. Show me otherwise that it's any more than that.

How does the stuff the bible says give any more ( or less) evidence to God actually exsting than any other book does(n't)?

It's a seriously refined & concise collection of the evidence of God's working in this reality.

But how is this 'collection' evidence? How does it give evidence of God's actual existence? It says stuff about God, etc, - how do you interpret that to give evidence (non-emprical, whatever!) that God actually objectively exists?

Not just any book qualifies as this, because not every book has gone through the process of selection that this has gone through.. and I'm not referring to the council in 400AD that decided the final canon we know now, I' talking about the Judaic Rabbinical system of selection and approval.

Process of selection and approval means nothing if it doesn't actually count as evidence towards God actually existing (Non-empirical, whatever! Shall I just say NE?).

What it is actually about has to count as evidence - it's no use being approved and going through a selection if it's not actually evidence. How does this approval and process count as evidence (N-E, whatever!) towards God actually existing exactly?

Jews over the centuries have recorded what could justifiable be added to this work. You can call it magic. The truth is far more mundane. It's simple and practical and has functioning application for your life now.

Well ideas, advice and 'tools' that help my life practically. That's a different matter whether they help or not. When talking about if God actually EXISTS - we're not talking about our lives being helped.

Sure, if "God" can help our lives...BUT - he CAN'T help our lives if HE doesn't exist in the first place can he! So we need evidence for this "God" FIRST.

How does recorded records and all this stuff in the bible give any evidence (of any form) that God actually objectively exists, exactly??

Practical functioning for my life. God doing that for 'us' has no effect whatsoever if this "God" doesn't even exist! You need evidence for God FIRST before you can use him to help your life and then use THAT as evidence for him - that's circular.

Whether belief in God helps practically or not is irrelevant to the actual question: Does God actually exist?

We need evidence for him first. We're not talking about helping our lives practically here (well I dunno if YOU are, but I'm saying there's no use if God doesn't actually exist). First we need evidence for God.

How are these 'records' this 'process' and the 'approval' count as evidence torwards God actually existing? How does it count AT ALL whatsoever?

If the FSM went through a 'process' and got 'approval' and had plenty of 'records'...would the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster count as evidence torwards the FSM?

Because if not according to you, then how come these things support the BIBLE?

It's a book - how can the words in it give evidence that a "God" actually exists?

Merely reading it will get you to the position that the reasoning for the existence of God is possible.

I don't see how words in a book (whatever they mean) could give evidence for the existence of "God" (NE) existing. I mean it's not like there's a mathematical equation in there that somehow 'proves God' where is the evidence? It's stories. Everyone interprets it differently - how can you say that what YOU interpret is evidence?

Where is the evidence exactly? On every page? Many disagree - how are these 'words' in this 'book' evidence? (NE (non-empirical) whatever)

Still it won't fulfil it's full potential because that requires belief to do so. Belief transforms it into full truth, as the pieces of the puzzle then truly fit together.

Oh I see. So you believe without evidence FIRST and then because you already believe then you reason that you have evidence? Because the belief ITSELF makes it work (it 'transforms it into full truth') like the belief is evidence, so even if you believe WITHOUT evidence, then that's ok because the belief itself is a form of evidence?? ( I personally suggest taking a look again (and a good hard look) because you know it IS possible you could be actually believing without evidence you know (NE included! 'Reasoning' included!))

EvF