Well the example was used to show that there can be evidence for the person who believes/trusts - well that's how I understood it anyway. From the persons perspective it is evidence, it is indicative of the truth of the matter - but that doesn't make it so of course, that doesn't make the evidence at all valid.

EvF

I like starbucks example too. I don't see why we have to separate human : human from human : deity. The one side still feels the commitment.. and their commitment is what is important - whether the other side is lying etc is irrelevant. With human : human relationships both parties can change. With human : God only one side is changeable.

(February 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: With human : God only one side is changeable.

How do you verify that?

(February 11, 2010 at 3:31 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: How do you verify that?

Very easily with a fixed reference.

Yes that'll do. So what is your fixed reference that tells you that god is unchangeable?

God, unchangeable? Certainly not!

Tada!

Isn't that the book which has been revised many times over? The book with the many interpretations? The book that went from literal instrument of middle age clergy to metaphorical bliss in modern times. The book re-invented over and over. The book which was written not at one time? The book with the old part that differs considerably from the 'new' part? The book of which there are many versions? The book of which the origins are unknown and shrouded The book on which was decided by man more than once which part should be in it?

I'll say my ass is a better point of reference than that.

Still if it is your point of verification, your religious best effort at the analogon of the 19th century aether that permeates the cosmos througout as a fixed frame of reference, than it would mean you claim that your god is verified by it. So make up your mind, is your god verifiable or not?

That book says he isn't verifiable PR. That book also says that God is unchanging... which is the simple answer to your question.

I'd like to make one correction if I may.. the book went from correct to literal interpretation in the Dark Ages, and then back again once released from that anti religious era. The rest of your points I see as great strengths.

So in essence you want to verify the idea of god by the book that states the idea. It seems like a process of self-referential verification to me, aka circular reasoning.

The peculiar thing is that we started this dialogue from two bible quotes claiming various attributes of god. You claimed that god is non-verifiable and that that statement is in the bible. But if that statement is in the bible, and you want to use the bible as verification, than the statement contradicts itself. Than you as a believer either have the choice to claim that your god is unverifiable which results in sheer fabulation of your god and having no basis to even connect the bible and your god or to accept that the bible contradicts itself leading to refutation of the god concept by your own standard (“god pertains to logic”).

Either way you’re belief system is in dire straits. Go figure.