(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't believe anything without a basis of evidence. Most atheists aren't willing to allow all types of evidence into consideration, and rightly so. Where would science be today without such high standards of evidence? God isn't science though, I believe there are things outside the explination of science, outside the tangible, and it's evident to me.
The claim of God and religious ideology traverses every facet of science. It would be purely disingenuous to say that his existence isn't subject the same amount of scrutiny, since it would be a pretty damn big deal in the scientific community if he existed.
It's not that it's outside the explanation of science, it's outside the explanation of logic, representing that a belief of anything without sufficient evidence is illogical. The way faith works is belief first, then find supporting arguments later, effectively putting the cart before the horse. This doesn't make sense because no where else in your life would you do the same.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm grateful for all of scientific studies and pursuits and agree that elimination of variables and faith is a detriment to that pursuit. Variables and faith are however very relevant to reality, as is subjective perspective.
How are they relevant to reality if they focus on unfounded intangible ideology that BY THEIR VERY NATURE cannot be proven or disproven?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't claim to know why God wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were God.
That's such a cop-out.
"I don't claim to know why Santa Claus wouldn't present himself as evidence, I would if I were Santa Claus"
Same principle, same realm of plausibility.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: However my perception is within the confines of the laws of nature and his isn't. Perhaps our existance is but a fleeting second of fiery self-destruction from his POV, similar to a firework. Perhaps if we focus on him he takes the time to focus on us, putting him in sink with our spacetime allowing him to work miracles in our day-to-day lives. Our perception works that way, what we focus our will on is what consciously manipulate. After Jesus we have subjective verifiability in the holy spirit.
Reality isn't about subjective verifiability. It's objective verifiability. You say God's actions can be seen in reality (read: what is REAL), but can provide no evidence for such a claim. You make speculations about his actions and intentions to perhaps backtrack a bit and justify your belief in defense of the claim that the existence of God is illogical. None of which you can back up with more than subjective emotional experiences that can be caused by a variety of stimuli.
There are no personal truths. Truth is truth. Religious people make the claim that God is an absolute truth. If he was absolute, his existence wouldn't require faith, as it would be so apparent that to question him would be purely idiotic. As you can see, this is definitely not the case.
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm sure someone born that time was named Jesus, I'm sure there were lots of people born that time with lots of different names. That's the problem with a literalist and scientific realist approach. I don't worship a man named Jesus.
I worship God, I know about some aspects of God and can recieve redemption through the Son of God.
So you realize that the story of Jesus could have been a fabrication or at best an allegorical claim, yet you KNOW you can receive redemption through the son of god by the same merit? Does that make sense to you? Really?
(February 13, 2010 at 3:02 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't care if the Son of God was named Jesus, Yeshuda or dwight. They may have just slapped a name on the most controversial speaker of the time, but the deeds of the Son of God answer the prophesies of the OT and we'll never know if it was him till he comes back. I think that answers all of your questions from above.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is not a valid one. The mere fact that people COULD replicate it lends great notions of doubt on the whole thing. For example: The bible said the Jews would return to the promised land. They did, but it was because the bible said for the jews to return to the promised land. The bible was the catalyst. The prophecy was self-fulfilling and therefore your argument is moot.
Again, you're assuming his existence to examine the possibility of his existence. This is purely illogical and psychologically defunct. It is a form of confirmation bias and nothing more.
