RE: Supernatural Evidence?
October 20, 2016 at 1:29 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2016 at 1:33 am by Soldat Du Christ.)
Of course, i found this article posted earlier to be the most sufficient refutation of the bibles divinity. I havn't quite dug into it yet, but it should be pretty good!
Somthing you all have to realise is that at the end of the day it all comes down to beleif. And that is hard for me to say, given i see it being such a clear answer. But if this was so, we wouldn't see such a massive split in belief systems. This is all because of the rise of emericism. Some people could be slapped in the face with proof, and still not beleive. Ironicly this was born out of the idea that our minds are not reliable sources for intel gathering, which ends up in a vicious downwards sprial with the end game being litteral insanity.
Now this isn't to say i don't understand that extra ordenary claims, demand extra ordenary evidence. This, i think rests only on the reliability of the bible. On all accounts. Historical accuracy, consistency, scientific statements, etc. I have seen plenty skeptical claims of contradictions, and all sorts of attacks on the source material. I simply don't buy it outright. But we'll see how my opinion changes after look further into this article
Also understand, when people get in there comfortable zone surrounded by people who agree with them, it's easy for them to just drop off there arbitrary comments. I will not entertain ones claims who do not put the same resepect, and care into their objections as i do.
And seriously, they arn't even high standards, even a link will do.
Somthing you all have to realise is that at the end of the day it all comes down to beleif. And that is hard for me to say, given i see it being such a clear answer. But if this was so, we wouldn't see such a massive split in belief systems. This is all because of the rise of emericism. Some people could be slapped in the face with proof, and still not beleive. Ironicly this was born out of the idea that our minds are not reliable sources for intel gathering, which ends up in a vicious downwards sprial with the end game being litteral insanity.
Now this isn't to say i don't understand that extra ordenary claims, demand extra ordenary evidence. This, i think rests only on the reliability of the bible. On all accounts. Historical accuracy, consistency, scientific statements, etc. I have seen plenty skeptical claims of contradictions, and all sorts of attacks on the source material. I simply don't buy it outright. But we'll see how my opinion changes after look further into this article
(October 20, 2016 at 1:01 am)Jesster Wrote:(October 20, 2016 at 12:50 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Yes, that's an inquiry. I asked IF, not TO. I want to seperate those who dismiss supporting evidence (wouldn't even beleive if amputees are healed) from those who are reasonable (testable, observable, repeatable, falsifyable). But by no means am i pleading for all to listen. Notice i ignore an awfull lot of comments. Not only for the interests of time, but for my own sanity, i refuse to run around in circles with individuals who have dogma glasses on.
Then my question still stands. Are you open to evidence contrary to your beliefs?
The reason I ask is that it is important if you are looking for a discussion here. If you just want to pick out people who are easy to manipulate and ignore the rest, then nothing is being accomplished.
Also understand, when people get in there comfortable zone surrounded by people who agree with them, it's easy for them to just drop off there arbitrary comments. I will not entertain ones claims who do not put the same resepect, and care into their objections as i do.
And seriously, they arn't even high standards, even a link will do.
