(November 29, 2016 at 9:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 5:30 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Not really, no. What is bothersome about that?

Thank goodness the world does not have to rely on your driving curiosity for progress.

Ha! You're right about that! 

But you didn't ask me if I was curious about the vagueness (I am curious about it). You asked if it bothered me. It doesn't.

If Jesus actually died and rose from the dead as the Gospels and Christians claim, then whether it happened in 30 ad or 33 ad is accidental to the import of the claim. I'd be curious about which year it actually happened, but knowledge of the exact year wouldn't be necessary for the meaning of the events reported. Not knowing the exact year wouldn't bother me.

It is rather non-likely, such that theists shall observe truth; for it is FACTUAL that the RELIGIOUS are inferior in intellect:
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

(November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 11:45 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 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.

What would it take to convince you that you'd met an omniscient and omnipotent being?  Suppose I'm claiming to be God, what evidence would I need to provide you with for you to conclude that I am God?

Coming from anyone else I would have ignored this question.

You are not presenting your self-professed divinity to a skeptic but rather to a believer who already has established criteria for the reception of such claims. (I am here assuming that my encounter with you does not engender some kind of spiritual gnosis or theophany that removes all doubt. Which of course it hasn't.)

So in your case weighted against the 5W of Aquinas, it is immediately clear that as a limited and finite creature you satisfy none of the necessary and sufficient conditions of general revelation. Your being is not fully in act nor is your existence necessary nor is your being foundational to causation. (Don’t even begin to try comparing yourself to Christ in His Glorified State, because if you do then I would expect you to also present a compelling Christology, something I doubt you are remotely prepared to submit.)

All that said, that does not exclude you entirely from laying claim to other manifestations of the divine. In that case you would have to define your relationship to the God as either a minor deity, avatar, an angel or other holy host, or perhaps some kind of prophet. These types of special revelation are considered in the context of prior special revelation. Whatever message you present would be compared with Holy Scripture for continuity of the tradition. Your prophetic utterances, however cryptic, would be evaluated to confirm that they are not contradicted by the actual events and the events of your life would express the condition of the Word in our time. Whatever actions you perform would be compared with the express purposes found in prior revelations. And although it is not a requirement, the time, place and circumstances of your appearance could be relevant depending on the specifics of your claim. Having satisfied all the above criteria then I would be prepared to acknowledge that you were in some sense divine.

But of course, neither you nor any of the previous AF members presenting this juvenile objection in the form of a smart-ass schoolboy question meet any of those conditions. Unlike the stubborn incredulity of the typical atheist, I can at least say I am open to the possibility and armed with the tools to make an informed evaluation.

Lmfao.

I'm already superior to Christ because I definitely exist and at least I can live up to the claims about me. Furthermore I didn't have an entire religion started after me that caused a lot of death in my name.

---

(November 30, 2016 at 10:44 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: But of course, neither you nor any of the previous AF members presenting this juvenile objection in the form of a smart-ass schoolboy question meet any of those conditions. Unlike the stubborn incredulity of the typical atheist, I can at least say I am open to the possibility and armed with the tools to make an informed evaluation.

Lol. You're the one thinking a supernaturalistic explanation is more plausible than a naturalistic one.

(November 30, 2016 at 10:44 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What would it take to convince you that you'd met an omniscient and omnipotent being?  Suppose I'm claiming to be God, what evidence would I need to provide you with for you to conclude that I am God?

Coming from anyone else I would have ignored this question.

You are not presenting your self-professed divinity to a skeptic but rather to a believer who already has established criteria for the reception of such claims. (I am here assuming that my encounter with you does not engender some kind of spiritual gnosis or theophany that removes all doubt. Which of course it hasn't.)

So in your case weighted against the 5W of Aquinas, it is immediately clear that as a limited and finite creature you satisfy none of the necessary and sufficient conditions of general revelation. Your being is not fully in act nor is your existence necessary nor is your being foundational to causation. (Don’t even begin to try comparing yourself to Christ in His Glorified State, because if you do then I would expect you to also present a compelling Christology, something I doubt you are remotely prepared to submit.)

All that said, that does not exclude you entirely from laying claim to other manifestations of the divine. In that case you would have to define your relationship to the God as either a minor deity, avatar, an angel or other holy host, or perhaps some kind of prophet. These types of special revelation are considered in the context of prior special revelation. Whatever message you present would be compared with Holy Scripture for continuity of the tradition. Your prophetic utterances, however cryptic, would be evaluated to confirm that they are not contradicted by the actual events and the events of your life would express the condition of the Word in our time. Whatever actions you perform would be compared with the express purposes found in prior revelations. And although it is not a requirement, the time, place and circumstances of your appearance could be relevant depending on the specifics of your claim. Having satisfied all the above criteria then I would be prepared to acknowledge that you were in some sense divine.

But of course, neither you nor any of the previous AF members presenting this juvenile objection in the form of a smart-ass schoolboy question meet any of those conditions. Unlike the stubborn incredulity of the typical atheist, I can at least say I am open to the possibility and armed with the tools to make an informed evaluation.

You didn't actually answer the question. The question was not what reasons do you have for concluding that I am not God, the question was what evidence you would require to conclude in the affirmative. There's no trick question here. Just a simple request for the same thing you've asked of atheists, what would constitute proof that you have met an omniscient and omnipotent god. Suppose you're walking home from the store and a voice boomed out from the clouds. Would that be enough for you to conclude you had heard from God? What is your minimum criteria for positively concluding that you've come face to face with the Almighty? Suppose a man appeared in your bedroom at night, claiming to be Jesus Christ. Would you just believe? Refuse to believe period? Would you require the performance of a miracle? What would you do?

(November 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm)alpha male Wrote: If you saw miracles as in the bible, would you become a Christian?

That is an awful big "if."

(November 30, 2016 at 5:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 10:44 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You are not presenting your self-professed divinity to a skeptic but rather to a believer who already has established criteria for the reception of such claims.

---

(I am here assuming that my encounter with you does not engender some kind of spiritual gnosis or theophany that removes all doubt. Which of course it hasn't.)
So in your case weighted against the 5W of Aquinas, it is immediately clear that as a limited and finite creature you satisfy none of the necessary and sufficient conditions of general revelation. Your being is not fully in act nor is your existence necessary nor is your being foundational to causation. (Don’t even begin to try comparing yourself to Christ in His Glorified State, because if you do then I would expect you to also present a compelling Christology, something I doubt you are remotely prepared to submit.)
All that said, that does not exclude you entirely from laying claim to other manifestations of the divine. In that case you would have to define your relationship to the God as either a minor deity, avatar, an angel or other holy host, or perhaps some kind of prophet. These types of special revelation are considered in the context of prior special revelation. Whatever message you present would be compared with Holy Scripture for continuity of the tradition. Your prophetic utterances, however cryptic, would be evaluated to confirm that they are not contradicted by the actual events and the events of your life would express the condition of the Word in our time. Whatever actions you perform would be compared with the express purposes found in prior revelations. And although it is not a requirement, the time, place and circumstances of your appearance could be relevant depending on the specifics of your claim.

---

Having satisfied all the above criteria then I would be prepared to acknowledge that you were in some sense divine.

You didn't actually answer the question. The question was not what reasons do you have for concluding that I am not God, the question was what evidence you would require to conclude in the affirmative. There's no trick question here.

---

Just a simple request for the same thing you've asked of atheists, what would constitute proof that you have met an omniscient and omnipotent god. Suppose you're walking home from the store and a voice boomed out from the clouds. Would that be enough for you to conclude you had heard from God? What is your minimum criteria for positively concluding that you've come face to face with the Almighty? Suppose a man appeared in your bedroom at night, claiming to be Jesus Christ. Would you just believe? Refuse to believe period? Would you require the performance of a miracle? What would you do?

---

I think I was pretty clear in listing various considerations: conformity with prior traditions or revelatory expectations, uncanny accuracy of prophetic statements, and reliability of witness testimony.
Evidence means that which is evident. Of what it is evidence requires judgment and discernment. If an everyday person makes an uncanny deathbed prediction I would consider it a real example of precognition whereas I would consider the same coming from a professional mentalist a clever stage trick.

(November 30, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 5:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You didn't actually answer the question.   The question was not what reasons do you have for concluding that I am not God, the question was what evidence you would require to conclude in the affirmative.  There's no trick question here.

---

 Just a simple request for the same thing you've asked of atheists, what would constitute proof that you have met an omniscient and omnipotent god.  Suppose you're walking home from the store and a voice boomed out from the clouds.  Would that be enough for you to conclude you had heard from God?  What is your minimum criteria for positively concluding that you've come face to face with the Almighty?  Suppose a man appeared in your bedroom at night, claiming to be Jesus Christ.  Would you just believe?  Refuse to believe period?  Would you require the performance of a miracle?  What would you do?

---

I think I was pretty clear in listing various considerations: conformity with prior traditions or revelatory expectations, uncanny accuracy of prophetic statements, and reliability of witness testimony.
Evidence means that which is evident. Of what it is evidence requires judgment and discernment. If an everyday person makes an uncanny deathbed prediction I would consider it a real example of precognition whereas I would consider the same coming from a professional mentalist a clever stage trick.

So confirming what you already believe and some stage magic is all it takes for you? I'm surprised.

(November 27, 2016 at 6:17 am)robvalue Wrote: 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?

I would definitely go and see. Not necessarily because I feel as though I need "confirmation", since I feel really confident in my faith, but because it'd be really interesting to go back 2000 years ago and see Jesus in action.

---

(November 27, 2016 at 11:36 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 27, 2016 at 10:22 am)Ignorant Wrote: Yes, I'd love to see the  way things happened, 1st hand.

And in the likely event that they didn't happen as you currently believe what then?

It would be shocking, devastating, and confusing. I'd feel pretty lost. But I'm not the type of person who just tells myself things that I know aren't true just to make myself feel better. If I went back in time and saw that Jesus never really existed, or that he wasn't who he said he was, I'd be honest with myself and accept it.

(November 29, 2016 at 1:17 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 27, 2016 at 6:17 am)robvalue Wrote: 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?

Sure, I would love to see.

No I wouldn't become Christian. I find religion irrelevant regardless of its truth.