Theists: would you view the truth?

[PETE_ROSE]

Hey Rob, just found your post. Winter has finally made it here. Looks like half of Gatlinburg TN burned down last night.

To respond to your post, absolutely there are several events I would love to observe. Many regarding my faith, more perhaps that do not. How awesome would it be to have front row seats to historical events. As for truth, I suppose that would still depend on our individual perceptions and observations.

Within the context of Christianity, I would personally like to see the creation events described in Genesis. The building of the ark, and the flood that followed. The construction of the Tower of Babel. Solomon's temple. Of course Christ's birth, ministry, trial, crucifixtion, and most importantly the resurrection . I would take my camera for sure. Selfie!

Would viewing these events alter my perception of what truths I base my life on? Absolutely. If my observations were contrary to what I hold to be true today.

I suspect the question for any of us is are we so beholden to our lifestyles and the way we live our lives, would we alter that if we were shown irrefutable personal observations that are contrary to what we hold to be "truth". Some would, some would not based on my observations here.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is no evidence that could exist that could prove divine intervention anyways. That's what it means for something to be unfalsifiable. We could never prove that it wasn't superintelligent aliens pretending to be gods... and that something godly had evolved naturalisticly will always be more probable than a supernatural being 'outside of the universe' that had been there 'since before the beginning' or some such shit.

[Doubting Thomas]

Instead of viewing through a wormhole, how about being able to teleport to any place or time, and throw in a Star Trek universal translator while you're at it. That way one could actually interact with what's going on (with obvious rules as to not change anything) and talk to people to find out about this Jesus fella. Or if the possibility of interacting too much is uncomfortable, then perhaps the old TV/movie trick of being present but nobody can see or hear you would work. You could still totally observe and feel like you are actually there, but not interfere with what's going on.

Of course I think most Christians would be disappointed when they try to find Bethlehem year 1 to witness Jesus' birth, and likely unable to find him nailed to the cross 32 years later.

[PETE_ROSE]

Total BS there Hammy. You are saying that if you (through Rob's magic truth viewing porthole to history) personally witnessed the creation of the universe, God bringing the Earth into existence, and God himself walking and conversing with man in the garden of Eden; God laying out his instructions for man, Adam naming the animals, the list goes on; you would hold to the same positions you do today because of natural explanations?

---

[quote='Doubting Thomas' pid='1459141' dateline='1480438548']
Instead of viewing through a wormhole, how about being able to teleport to any place or time, and throw in a Star Trek universal translator while you're at it. That way one could actually interact with what's going on (with obvious rules as to not change anything) and talk to people to find out about this Jesus fella. Or if the possibility of interacting too much is uncomfortable, then perhaps the old TV/movie trick of being present but nobody can see or hear you would work. You could still totally observe and feel like you are actually there, but not interfere with what's going on.

Of course I think most Christians would be disappointed when they try to find Bethlehem year 1 to witness Jesus' birth, and likely unable to find him nailed to the cross 32 years later.
[/quot

Disappointed would be an understatement. Conversely, how would you feel if you found them to be as the Bible state? Could be an uh oh moment.

[John V]

Here's a question for religious theists who have some sort of story associated with their religion. If you had the chance, would you view the events for yourself, to see once and for all what really happened? There's a worm hole open, let's say, that you could look through. Maybe it happened just like you think, maybe it was a bit different, or maybe it was nothing like it.

Would you stick with whatever faith/confidence you have now, or would you check the facts to confirm? Why?

Sure, I'd check. Would you? If you saw miracles as in the bible, would you become a Christian?

[Edwardo Piet]

Total BS there Hammy.  You are saying that if you (through Rob's magic truth viewing porthole to history) personally witnessed the creation of the universe, God bringing the Earth into existence, and God himself walking and conversing with man in the garden of Eden; God laying out his instructions for man, Adam naming the animals, the list goes on; you would hold to the same positions you do today because of natural explanations?

Lol @ witnessing the creation of the universe.

I'm saying if I went back to Biblical times and God showed himself it would be far more plausible that it was an alien.

As for "witnessing the creation of the universe", lol--I think if I seem to be witnessing the creation of the universe it's far more likely that I'm hallucinating or even being tricked by aliens than I'm floating around in space witnessing God create a universe when I can't even survive to witness it until it is created, lol.

---

"Wait... if you're God and I'm watching you create stuff... how come I was able to watch you create oxygen when I need it to breathe? Makes perfect sense. You're shitting me. What drugs did you slip me with faker?"

---

Furthermore:

[Cyberman]

I once saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. I also had an uncle who could make sweets appear from my ear. Should I worship them as gods, or stone them to death as witches?

[Faith No More]

Would you not do as many on AF say and attribute any apparent miracles to mass delusions or extraterrestrials? Seems to me from my time here that any explanation, no matter how implausible, is preferred over divine intervention.

And just how dismissive are you of the miracles attributed to Allah and other gods?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Would you not do as many on AF say and attribute any apparent miracles to mass delusions or extraterrestrials? Seems to me from my time here that any explanation, no matter how implausible, is preferred over divine intervention.

And just how dismissive are you of the miracles attributed to Allah and other gods?

I find them fascinating. Even after one tacitly accepts a supernatural explanation, the difficulty of forming some kind of doctrine around such events remains. Was the entity that dictated the Koran to Mohammed truly an angel of God (versus a demonic entity, for example)? Hearing of the works associated with YHVH is it possible that is He a corrupted demiurge? Personally, I have a very ecumenical attitude towards other religions. The Divine cannot be comprehended, only conceived by limited creatures.

---

I once saw David Copoerfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. I also had an uncle who could make sweets appear from my ear. Should I worship them as gods, or stone them to death as witches?

It depends. Do they weight as much as a duck?

---

I'm saying if I went back to Biblical times and God showed himself it would be far more plausible that it was an alien.

And so there you have it, folks!

[Crossless2.0]

And just how dismissive are you of the miracles attributed to Allah and other gods?

I find them fascinating. Even after one tacitly accepts a supernatural explanation, the difficulty of forming some kind of doctrine around such events remains. Was the entity that dictated the Koran to Mohammed truly an angel of God (versus a demonic entity, for example)? Hearing of the works associated with YHVH is it possible that is He a corrupted demiurge? Personally, I have a very ecumenical attitude towards other religions. The Divine cannot be comprehended, only conceived by limited creatures.

---

I'm saying if I went back to Biblical times and God showed himself it would be far more plausible that it was an alien.

And so there you have it, folks!

There we have what, exactly? Oh, right. Your 'every atheist is a metaphysical naturalist' hobby horse.

Alasdair is simply stating that a natural explanation for his experience is more plausible than a supernatural one. Having never, to my knowledge, experienced the supernatural either, that strikes me as reasonable. Of course, that would be the start of the inquiry, not its terminus. Are you saying that 'supernatural' would be your go-to assumption before the inquiry began? Do you have first-hand experience with the divine, Chad? I don't mean to ask whether you have experienced a sense of the uncanny or quailed before the immensity of the cosmos or got the warm fuzzies while praying or reading the Bible. I mean, have you experienced your god in any way similar to what is often described in the OT? Is there some set of criteria one can use upfront to distinguish between 'this is highly unusual but probably natural' versus 'definitely a god'?

The funny thing, Chad, is that you seem to want to say that Hammy is unreasonable to prefer a possible natural explanation to a supernatural one. But if he had written instead, "I'm saying if I went back to Biblical times and 'God' showed himself, I would have trouble deciding if it was really God or Satan," you would probably find that eminently reasonable.