My naive questions

[vorlon13]

Hello, i`m new here, but i`m motivated

I have a question for christians, but it`s valid for every religious person.

Let`s assume you become convinced there has to be a God who watches over everything you do. Before you choose your faith, wouldn`t it be reasonable to research every single belief in the world before choosing?

No, it wouldn't be reasonable at all. There are far too many. There's no way to research every single belief in the world.

Seems like a compelling interest might be apparent in pruning the list a bit. There are quite a few, right off the bat, while acknowledging the authority of Scripture, for instance, that aren't particularly pious or regular in comporting themselves accordingly. We could easily note all of them to no longer being in the running for the title of "The One True Faith".

It would certainly speed things up for the 'seekers' if 25,000 to 30,000 of the various and sundry christer schisms could be weeded out.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Don't need to, when God speaks to you, you know you've come to the true God. No other God has ever reached out to me.

GC

So you only have one voice in your head?

[Cyberman]

Any religion that teachs love and compassion has something of value.

Why? By which moral standard do you judge this?

[Cyberman]

I call bullshit! Les Paul Standard would be your religious view if you had follwed your own advice.

Les Paul? Why the plural article with a singular noun?

[John V]

And what of the divorce rate?

What of it? People change religions, too.

And what of folks who study one thing at school, and decide they hate the career only after entering the workforce?

They're either miserable at work, or they change careers.

[DeistPaladin]

By analogy, there could be a better spouse for you than the person you're engaged to. You don't need to date every single eligible potential mate in order to make a decision. By that logic you'd never get married.

You don't need to research every single career in the world in order to select one. By that logic you'd never have a career.

I can prove my wife exists.

I can prove my job exists.

A better analogy for your choice of the Christian religion is if you married a woman but you've never met her. No one else you know has ever met her either. You don't know for certain where she lives exactly but you believe she's out there somewhere. You have some letters allegedly written by her that were handed to you by someone else. That's the only "evidence" you have that this person you married is even real.

You also have a job too but you don't know where it is that you work. You believe that your job exists and someday you'll get paid for it. Someone told you that you've been hired by some other mysterious character that they in turn have never met but you have no evidence that you're really employed.

[Godscreated]

Don't need to, when God speaks to you, you know you've come to the true God. No other God has ever reached out to me.

GC

Weird, I hear the EXACT SAME THING from Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Etruscan Penis Worshippers, Pastafarians, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, and a whole heap more.

What makes YOUR testimony special ???

I do not know what the others hear but the Methodist and Seventh Day Adventist are Christians and would hear from the same one true God.

GC

---

Don't need to, when God speaks to you, you know you've come to the true God. No other God has ever reached out to me.

GC

Maybe they haven't got your phone number. You're sure, you have provided them with all your details?

If I have to provide them with anything they can't be worth my time. My God reached out to me and I accepted, the others have been silent.

GC

---

Don't need to, when God speaks to you, you know you've come to the true God. No other God has ever reached out to me.

GC

So you only have one voice in your head?

Do I need more, it's hasn't seemed necessary to have more than one?

GC

---

By analogy, there could be a better spouse for you than the person you're engaged to. You don't need to date every single eligible potential mate in order to make a decision. By that logic you'd never get married.

You don't need to research every single career in the world in order to select one. By that logic you'd never have a career.

I can prove my wife exists.

I can prove my job exists.

A better analogy for your choice of the Christian religion is if you married a woman but you've never met her. No one else you know has ever met her either. You don't know for certain where she lives exactly but you believe she's out there somewhere. You have some letters allegedly written by her that were handed to you by someone else. That's the only "evidence" you have that this person you married is even real.

You also have a job too but you don't know where it is that you work. You believe that your job exists and someday you'll get paid for it. Someone told you that you've been hired by some other mysterious character that they in turn have never met but you have no evidence that you're really employed.

What makes you think we have never met God, could it be because you haven't so that means it's not possible for us. What kind of logic is that.

GC

[DeistPaladin]

What makes you think we have never met God, could it be because you haven't so that means it's not possible for us. What kind of logic is that.

It's the same logic we use in every other area of our lives, outside of our favorite religion. It's called "the burden of proof". If you claim X exists, it's up to you to prove X exists. It's not up to me to prove X does not exist.

I could announce that 100 winged monkeys just flew out of my ass. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it didn't just happen to me. But you wouldn't believe me without proof, would you?

Another feature of this common use of logic outside of religion is the doctrine of ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required to meet the burden of proof. If I told you I had lunch with my wife today, you'd accept that on my testimony alone. If I told you I had lunch with my late father, deceased over 10 years now, who's ashes from his cremated body reconstituted themselves into a living body and he's feeling much better now, I'd need a mountain of evidence.

I suspect four witnesses would not be sufficient for my lunch-with-my-late-father claim.

That's how logic works.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And what of the divorce rate?

What of it? People change religions, too.

And what of folks who study one thing at school, and decide they hate the career only after entering the workforce?

They're either miserable at work, or they change careers.

Exactly, thanks.

---

So you only have one voice in your head?

Do I need more, it's hasn't seemed necessary to have more than one?

GC

The question is, do you need any?

[Godscreated]

Do I need more, it's hasn't seemed necessary to have more than one?

GC

The question is, do you need any?

Yes, God's voice is a great comfort and leads me to many decisions and understanding of many things.

GC

---

What makes you think we have never met God, could it be because you haven't so that means it's not possible for us. What kind of logic is that.

It's the same logic we use in every other area of our lives, outside of our favorite religion. It's called "the burden of proof". If you claim X exists, it's up to you to prove X exists. It's not up to me to prove X does not exist.

I'm not trying to prove God exists to you or anyone else, I know He does and for my life it's what matters.

I could announce that 100 winged monkeys just flew out of my ass. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it didn't just happen to me. But you wouldn't believe me without proof, would you?

Didn't you just scold Alpha Male for using physical examples in a spiritual argument. You would have to prove to me that any monkeys have wings, you're big enough of a butt that I could believe that 100 monkeys...

Another feature of this common use of logic outside of religion is the doctrine of ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required to meet the burden of proof. If I told you I had lunch with my wife today, you'd accept that on my testimony alone.

Not necessarily, you could be using that as a deception to hide the fact you were some where you should't have been.

If I told you I had lunch with my late father, deceased over 10 years now, who's ashes from his cremated body reconstituted themselves into a living body and he's feeling much better now, I'd need a mountain of evidence.

I suspect four witnesses would not be sufficient for my lunch-with-my-late-father claim.

That's how logic works.

That also depends on what might of happened right before lunch, if Christ had returned and I knew your father was a Christian I would find that statement quite believable.
Just because you or anyone else doesn't believe something doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Nor does it mean I have to prove it to you.

GC