Misconceptions of Christian theology

[Esquilax]

Minimalist, what makes that dictionary authoritative? Why should the concept of proof be authoritative. A dictionary definition is not philosophically authoritative. Proof is one cultural concept that is related to certain methods of evidence collection. The fact that that particular dictionary includes 5 separate definitions of proof illustrates this.

Once you can explain to us how any one thing in a language can be authoritative, or even what that means beyond a little linguistic "nuh uh!" on your part, then we'll talk.

First I would ask this: prove to me that the english language concept of proof, as expressed in the dictionary that minamalist listed, has some sort of absolute epistemological authority, without using swear words and referring to masturbation.

Look, I'm not Min, okay? I can't be held up to what he says, and frankly I don't care either. I'll evaluate your evidence claims based on their merit, not the level to which they conform to a dictionary definition. Stop stalling and actually show me something real.

The concept of God has power to explain a variety of problems. The question of the ultimate origin of life is explained by the God hypothesis (the cosmological argument). The question of the order of nature is also explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the seemingly overpowering need for morality is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the life of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection as well the miracles that followed in the church age is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the relationship between Old Testament prophesy and the life of Jesus Christ is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the overpowering might of western civilization (without justifying its errors), which has dominated a lot of the world is explained by the God hypothesis. The question of the extremely pervasive belief in spirits and testimonies of spirits is explained by rejecting a materialistic view of the world. The question of the role of religious belief in promoting order and good character for thousands of years is explained by the God hypothesis. Personally, the question of the many supernatural miracles as well as occult involvement that I have experienced is explained by the God hypothesis.

Nah. God has no explanatory power, it's just a lazy justification from people who don't really care about the truth. All you're really saying, when you use the "God hypothesis" to explain something, is that magic did it, and then you're shrugging.

By contrast, real things that actually exist actually explain things. You know, like science, and history, and sociology. Things with actual explanatory power. That's why the bible is routinely proven wrong on a variety of its claims.

Whether any of these things in itself can actually prove that God exists, according to your definition, I really doubt it. But there are very few things that can be proved in science or in a courtroom or anywhere else definitively. When you add up all the evidence, I am not sure that it will be compelling, but that is really not the point. The point is to see that if it might be possible if God exists, and if it is possible, than people should seek God to find out.

Swap out the word god for literally anything else, and you'll see how silly this line of reasoning is:

The point is, if it might be possible that Yog Sothoth exists, and if it is possible, then people should seek Yog Sothoth to find out.

You're making a very general claim with very general expectations, but then demanding that we restrict our view of it to just your pet deity alone. What's to stop that being true of any kind of entity one can imagine?

I know that God exists because of personal experience testifying the reality of God. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God without having this experience, but any doubt that God is real will be erased if you actually experience the Holy Spirit. It is a fact that the Holy Spirit is real, I am sensitive to psychological manipulation and am a skeptical witness. I bear witness to the reality of the Holy Spirit.

It's perfectly reasonable to believe in god without either real evidence or any form of personal experience? Believing... just because? How can that possibly be reasonable?

Beyond which, your own personal experiences are certainly not justification for anyone else to believe.

I do not think that theology is less rigorous than science, and do not think that theology is based mostly on blind faith. Faith, understood in the the sense of blind trust, is really only a bigger factor in determining religious belief in immature believers, just as reciting mathematical formulas would be an issue in education for younger students of math, but older students would learn proof.

So you'd better start displaying that rigorous proof, then. I mean, so far you've given next to nothing.

If you want proof, you have to grow up!

This is not an argument. It is a dirty, dishonest trick.

I doubt you would be able to prove that God exists to anyone after you saw God though, just as someone who witnessed a murder would not necessarily be able to prove what He saw. But with theology you can have something that is stronger than an epistemological proof, you can actually be a witness to the truth of theology. God will draw you in. I prayed "show me Your glory" and God displayed many supernatural signs, miracles and many amazing things to me. God showed me how He knows everything and how God knows each event in my life. I saw the majesty of God's judgements.

So, so long as I have a presupposition that god exists, I can find highly personal, possibly hallucinatory proof that he exists? Well shit, why wouldn't I find your dubious claims to personal revelations compelling!

I have something better than proof, I am a witness.

So you have no proof at all. Why not just say that at the beginning?