A practical definition for "God"

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I haven't conversed with you for a while, Rob.  I hope last weekend went well.  It sounds like a cause we can both agree upon.  This we can't agree upon.

If I knew Jesus when he walked the earth and I saw him heal the sick, raise the dead, and rise from the dead himself, then declare he was God, I would believe him.  In the same way I believe the written and oral testimony of those who did.  I also believe the testimonies of trusted people who profess to have had personal experiences with God.  This is not just based on wishful thinking or whatever.  Because these reasons are not good enough for you, doesn't mean they are not good reasons.

Actually, that’s what he’s saying Lek.

To go back to the laws of nature, I assume for example gravity will keep working. Why would I not? It always has. But as soon as I see evidence of gravity not working anymore like it used to, my assumption is challenged and must be altered. This is the crucial part. The assumption in God never gets challenged because it doesn't tell us anything. We wouldn't notice this assumption failing in the way an assumption about gravity suddenly fails, because it has no bearing on reality.

If, I, and many others saw all of those things jesus did in the gospels, that would be decent evidence to believe at least something supernatural was going on (after trying all we could do to disprove it). He’s saying that we don’t, and he would change his beliefs accordingly, if there was evidence to suggest that he was wrong. That’s called being intellectually honest, something many theists, when arguing for their religion, can’t say that they practice. That story is in a book. That’s not enough of evidence, period. That analogy could be used with his gravity bit. If he had seen gravity change in a way not observed by man ever, he would change his views on what he knows about gravity. If the world saw jesus come down and do all the things in the bible, we would actually have to change our views to where the evidence leads us. If, we thought it was something that could be debunked, we would have reasons to doubt the miracles. However, if the events happened repeatedly, couldn’t be explained, and were witnessed by many people in person, then we would change our views if the evidence was good enough. Something written in a book, with no evidence to support its claims, is just a story.

You are as justified in your beliefs just as much as anyone else practicing any other religion. It’s a guess at best. You’re taking a story at face value, instead of questioning it. We’re going by reality, and what we’ve observed throughout life. Rob and I would change our views for good reasons, you do everything you possibly can to stick with your beliefs against all reason, logic, and evidence.