A closer look at demonstration

[Aaron]

How do I know that’s gold? In order to answer that question I have to know something about gold. I could know that its shiny gold color and soft and heavy compared to other metals. If I wanted to get more specific I could measure its density or do an acid test or test for ferromagnetic properties or do a conductivity test. There are many ways that I could demonstrate that some block of matter is gold (Au), or that it is some other material and therefore not gold. But in order to do any of those demonstrations I have to have a good understanding of gold and its properties.

So it is clear then. In order for a demonstration to be useful in any meaningful way the people interested in the demonstration must understand the subject of the demonstration well enough to know whether or not the demonstration is apposite* for the subject at hand.

So on to the subject of God. It seems perfectly reasonable based on the discussion above that in order to have a valid demonstration a person must first understand the subject of the demonstration, that is they must understand God. The only place I know of to understand anything about God is by reading about him in the Bible so that’s where I’ll look.

In the Bible we read that God call everything into being and chose Abraham and rose up the nation of Israel and did lots of awesome miracles. Certainly those can be considered demonstrations, a problem is they happened a long time ago so they are weaker in the sense that they are historical, no one living today was around to see them (although it is interesting to note that it was recorded that even people that lived through the miracles often had no change of heart toward God and still lacked belief toward his promises for them).

The demonstrations are not all historical, however. In the Bible we also read about how we can know if we’re in Christ and that’s through the kind of life that we have after he is in us. Jesus said this as well as his apostles. If we have really been saved by Christ our lives will change. We will begin to desire to read his word, we will begin to hate sins that never bothered us before, we will begin to see our priorities change from self centered to others centered. Our lives will begin to look closer to how Jesus lived.

I find this to be true in my own life as well in other people’s lives that I read or hear about. People who have lived with an addiction all their life and when finally they see that all hope in themselves is lost they cast themselves on God and he changes them, genuinely changes who they are. I’m not saying that once a person is saved their lives are totally changed and they act exactly like Jesus, for that is simply not how it works. But I am saying that if Christ truly lives in a person they will begin to show his characteristics.

Looking at this in big picture mode I find that this makes a lot of sense to me. God provided awesome external demonstrations of his power and it achieved little in terms of changing people’s hearts toward him. So God fixed that inability of ours to change our dark hearts by providing the most awesome miracle ever, Jesus. Now Christ is able to enter the heart of the individual and save them from themselves and give them a new heart with new desires, His desires. For it seems to me the purpose of all this was not to make it plain that God existed and was really in charge by performing all kinds of awesome miracles, but it was to genuinely and fully rescue people from their sin which had held them as captives with no hope for escape. That is really what is at stake here.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps we should understand what God is really about (that is the salvation of mankind by removing their sin and changing their hearts) before we seek a demonstration. I contend that we could very well be trying to prove something is gold by checking to see if it sticks to the kitchen ceiling, it just doesn't make sense. So what do you all think of this?

*Hyperlink for those of you like me who had never seen this word before.

[Rhino]

I think I a missing something here.
When testing gold don't you also have to know with an equal or greater understanding what your testing the gold with or against.

[Aaron]

I think I a missing something here.
When testing gold don't you also have to know with an equal or greater understanding what your testing the gold with or against.

No I don't think so. If someone tries to sell you something you only have to test for whether or not its gold, your test does not depend on whether or not you can identify what it is, just that you know its gold or its not gold and if its not gold then its not necessary to find out what it is. But maybe I'm missing something here?

[Keep The Reason]

The only place I know of to understand anything about God is by reading about him in the Bible so that’s where I’ll look.

Demonstrate why the bible is any kind of authority on the subject.

In the Bible we read that God call everything into being and chose Abraham and rose up the nation of Israel and did lots of awesome miracles.

In the Bhagavad gita, Lord Krishna and the Pandava prince Arjuna have a discussion which takes place in the middle of the battlefield before the start of the Kurukshetra War with armies on both sides ready to battle. Responding to Arjuna's confusion and moral dilemma about fighting his own cousins who command a tyranny imposed on a disputed empire, Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince, and elaborates on yoga, Samkhya, reincarnation, moksha, karma yoga and jnana yoga among other topics, like the creation.

Why should we dismiss this story as inaccurate or untrue-- why does the bible trump the Bhagavad gita?

If we have really been saved by Christ our lives will change. We will begin to desire to read his word, we will begin to hate sins that never bothered us before, we will begin to see our priorities change from self centered to others centered. Our lives will begin to look closer to how Jesus lived.

My life changed for the better by leaving Christ's message. My priorities became far less self-centered by becoming an atheist and recognizing that people only have 1 shot at life, and they had as much a right to happiness as did I, so what's good for me is likewise -- and in that context -- good for them. Now what?

Looking at this in big picture mode I find that this makes a lot of sense to me. God provided awesome external demonstrations of his power and it achieved little in terms of changing people’s hearts toward him.

Oh, so the Jews don't really believe in god is that it (even though ass a culture they double the length of time in which they believe in him, compared to how long Christians have believed in him)?

And god's methods -- providing miracles -- failed?

And god didn't realize his first method would fail, so he had to adopt a different method, called "Jesus"?

Who in turn -- provided miracles, or so says the story?

For it seems to me the purpose of all this was not to make it plain that God existed and was really in charge by performing all kinds of awesome miracles, but it was to genuinely and fully rescue people from their sin which had held them as captives with no hope for escape.

I think the Bhagavad gita's message is far better as a plan towards salvation. You get a lot of attempts, and you dictate where your journey will take you until you finally do it enough times to attain enlightenment.

The biblical god is just a bloodthirsty mess. Now what?

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps we should understand what God is really about

Now we're back to "Sure. Simply demosntrate him." That was a fun (not really) meaningless trip we went on.

"Believe in god without any demosntration, and by doing so, you shall have your demosntration in your belief!"

Well, there you go. Believe, and that way, you'll believe. So you can, you know... believe.

I contend that we could very well be trying to prove something is gold by checking to see if it sticks to the kitchen ceiling, it just doesn't make sense

Well, you've made a few contentions here, none of them particularly logical. You're suggesting a way to define demonstration, which not only do you fail to do, but you simply make empty contentions again, wihtout being able to demonstrate them. You simply think it's okay to "believe", as if belief itself is a button you turn on. (Maybe it is for you. For me, belief has to be grounded in something that makes sense).

Contentions which become supported by demonstration have validity. But merely assuming your goal in your attempt to reach it your goal does not have any validity. It is just called "begging the question".

So what do you all think of this?

Up above, I made red the words that answer your question here. You answered your own question.

[Aaron]

Demonstrate why the bible is any kind of authority on the subject.

First of all it says it is (which is not circular, its just doesn't get you very far by itself). Secondly like I said it talks about what Jesus did to save us. I believed it, Jesus came into my life, I felt the changes, saw the changes, see the changes in my life. What more needs to be said.

Why should we dismiss this story as inaccurate or untrue-- why does the bible trump the Bhagavad gita?

There may be truths in the story. If it is found to be in conflict with the Bible I would then personally say it is false because I have found what the Bible says to be true. But what you do is up to you.

My life changed for the better by leaving Christ's message. My priorities became far less self-centered by becoming an atheist and recognizing that people only have 1 shot at life, and they had as much a right to happiness as did I, so what's good for me is likewise -- and in that context -- good for them. Now what?

Hey I don't know what to say except that I have to guess you never met the Jesus that I did. I feel like if you did you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

Oh, so the Jews don't really believe in god is that it

No that's not it. There were many Jews who were saved by God. Jesus has always been God's plan, at least that's what I've gathered over my reading of the Bible.

I think the Bhagavad gita's message is far better as a plan towards salvation. You get a lot of attempts, and you dictate where your journey will take you until you finally do it enough times to attain enlightenment.

The biblical god is just a bloodthirsty mess. Now what?

I don't share your views. That seems to be what.

I don't think we're connecting very well Keep The Reason. Maybe I'll try another angle tomorrow. Have a good night!

[Rhino]

Off to do some research on this word demonstration, me thinks it might mean, something other than what I think it might mean.

[Keep The Reason]

First of all it says it is (which is not circular, its just doesn't get you very far by itself).

So what? The book of Mormon says it's the truth. So does the Quran. Are they?

Secondly like I said it talks about what Jesus did to save us. I believed it, Jesus came into my life, I felt the changes, saw the changes, see the changes in my life. What more needs to be said.

How about life changes are well within the scope of abilities anyone can achieve. Leaving Christianity changed me for the better. I quit a 2 pack a day smoking habit with some will power and the "Patch". So what?

There may be truths in the story. If it is found to be in conflict with the Bible I would then personally say it is false because I have found what the Bible says to be true. But what you do is up to you.

Sounds like you haven't read it. Have you? If not, how is it you came to your god choice without checking the other options? Like most people in the west, you're almost certainly a cultural Christian and the bible is the convenient mythology that you went towards. But if you were born and raised n India, it might have been the Bhagavad Gita, and you'd be saying "Lord Krisha came into my life and changed me".

In fact, you changed you, whether you're willing to admit it or not. By the way, I applaud whatever positives changes you made in your life. I know you want to offer the credit to the imaginary god, but its better that it goes to the person who actually did it. That would be you, of course. Good job!

Hey I don't know what to say except that I have to guess you never met the Jesus that I did. I feel like if you did you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

What do you mean you "met Jesus"? You mean you and he sat down across from one another like two guys at lunch? Physically actually met him?

No that's not it. There were many Jews who were saved by God. Jesus has always been God's plan, at least that's what I've gathered over my reading of the Bible.

If you haven't read the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran, how do you claim you know what the plan is? Maybe you're being duped by some evil force, which is keeping you from the real message. And any good you think you've gotten now is really a dupe, a cover, so you think you've gotten the right choice, but when you die-- oh boy, will you find out what the real choice was supposed to be!

I don't share your views. That seems to be what.

Well, the god in the bible kills almost everyone in a flood, he generates numerous wars where he commands men women children and animals to be slain, he had animals slain for him by the millions over thousands of years, he has his own self/son beaten to a pulp, flogged, whipped, speared, and nailed to a tree, and he will unleash the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse upon the rest of humanity at some point in the future. All of these are god-directed, I.e., commands from god to man, not just man messing around.

What would it take for you to define something or someone as "bloodthirsty" if not all of that?

II don't think we're connecting very well Keep The Reason. Maybe I'll try another angle tomorrow.

Well, you're the one asking if you're missing anything here. I'd say you were missing a lot in your post, primarily some kind of basic logic. You're certainly missing the many spiritual texts that have cropped up -- and you have no idea what they say, so you've made a choice based on ignoring most of the choices available. And you'll defend it of course, but you still are missing that information, so I am answering the question you put forth.

You just don't like the answer, which is why you suggest we aren't "connecting well". What would be connecting well? Me ignoring the shaky foundation of your claims so you feel your claims aren't shakey? Well, no, I wouldn't disrespect anyone to the point where I wouldn't truthfully point out the shakiness of their premise just to make them feel good. Even if you told me you'd prefer to be patronized, I wouldn't do that to you. So from me, you'll get what I conclude is the truth. Even if you don't like it or disagree with it.

Have a good night!

Take care.

[Aaron]

So what? The book of Mormon says it's the truth. So does the Quran. Are they?

If something says that it is truth then I don't think its wrong to take that position until you have reason to believe its false.

How about life changes are well within the scope of abilities anyone can achieve. Leaving Christianity changed me for the better. I quit a 2 pack a day smoking habit with some will power and the "Patch". So what?

That's really good, I'm glad for you. But what I'm trying to say is I and many other people have come to the end of themselves unable to change who they are and then by totally surrendering to God he does what we were powerless to do.

Sounds like you haven't read it. Have you? If not, how is it you came to your god choice without checking the other options?

No I haven't, but even if I did there are an infinite amount of other things I haven't read, things that were written long ago that no longer exist and things that do not exist yet. I don't think it makes sense to say in order for a person to take action, or use a piece of information, or believe something or do any life function, that they have to have first explored and considered every possible action. I think when a person finds truth as I have found it in Christ they can know that they've found real solid truth and you don't need to have considered every other possible option.

What do you mean you "met Jesus"? You mean you and he sat down across from one another like two guys at lunch? Physically actually met him?

Nope. It means I reached then end of myself, read God's word, understood it to be true, believed that Jesus was the only way I was going to get out of my self made pit and believed in Him and He was real to me. I felt his forgiveness, I felt the burden of sin, guilt and shame that was weighing so heavily on my heart lifted away. I met Jesus, in a most wonderful way.

If you haven't read the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran, how do you claim you know what the plan is? Maybe you're being duped by some evil force, which is keeping you from the real message. And any good you think you've gotten now is really a dupe, a cover, so you think you've gotten the right choice, but when you die-- oh boy, will you find out what the real choice was supposed to be!

Again you seem to be saying I can never really be sure of any choice I make unless I'm sure that I've had a chance to consider every possible option. I simply don't agree with that.

What would it take for you to define something or someone as "bloodthirsty" if not all of that?

I don't share your view. You seem to paint this picture where humans are essentially innocent of all crimes and God is basically terribly unjust spilling blood for no just cause. I don't share that view. I think God makes justice happen. As he said in Ezekiel 35:6, "therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". So its not as though God just kills people for no reason at all. Thankfully along with being a just God he is also merciful and provided a substitute, Jesus, for the justice that we should have received. That's how I view what is going on here. I know we won't agree though.

Well, you're the one asking if you're missing anything here. I'd say you were missing a lot in your post, primarily some kind of basic logic.

Alright lets take it in baby steps. What do you find logically wrong with my first bit?

How do I know that’s gold? In order to answer that question I have to know something about gold. I could know that its shiny gold color and soft and heavy compared to other metals. If I wanted to get more specific I could measure its density or do an acid test or test for ferromagnetic properties or do a conductivity test. There are many ways that I could demonstrate that some block of matter is gold (Au), or that it is some other material and therefore not gold. But in order to do any of those demonstrations I have to have a good understanding of gold and its properties.

So it is clear then. In order for a demonstration to be useful in any meaningful way the people interested in the demonstration must understand the subject of the demonstration well enough to know whether or not the demonstration is apposite* for the subject at hand.

[Keep The Reason]

If something says that it is truth then I don't think its wrong to take that position until you have reason to believe its false.

I'm asking you if you have read them and if you have how do you know they aren't the truth, and if you haven't read them, how do you know they don't relate the truth?

That's really good, I'm glad for you. But what I'm trying to say is I and many other people have come to the end of themselves unable to change who they are and then by totally surrendering to God he does what we were powerless to do.

Obviously you weren't powerless to do it. You did it, didn't you? Now, if your belief helped you are a crutch, then fine, I'm glad it inspired you. But you actually did the work yourself.

No I haven't, but even if I did there are an infinite amount of other things I haven't read, things that were written long ago that no longer exist and things that do not exist yet. I don't think it makes sense to say in order for a person to take action, or use a piece of information, or believe something or do any life function, that they have to have first explored and considered every possible action. I think when a person finds truth as I have found it in Christ they can know that they've found real solid truth and you don't need to have considered every other possible option.

Well, it's not my problem that your model doesn't allow it to be easy for you to do the research. That's on your side to conquer. No, one doesn't have to do such amount of research on mundane decisions, but you folks insist this has something to do with your ETERNAL Dispositions. It seems that most people comparison shop between cars and homes with far greater focus than they do for their religious convictions.

If all you've done is read the bible (or even a couple of other texts), that defines the amount of comparison shopping you did. In other words, you may have looked at one house, and bought it, or maybe 2. But you are not able to state that you've done any sort of deep drilled research on your IMMORTAL SOUL. Far less than you would do when buying a car or a house.

Nope. It means I reached then end of myself, read God's word, understood it to be true, believed that Jesus was the only way I was going to get out of my self made pit and believed in Him and He was real to me. I felt his forgiveness, I felt the burden of sin, guilt and shame that was weighing so heavily on my heart lifted away. I met Jesus, in a most wonderful way.

That's not "meeting him". Everything you say here is about "feeling". People who have Allah / Islam or Krishna / Hinduism in their lives say precisely the same thing about their gods. Why does yours have any authority over theirs? In fact, none of you have actually met anyone despite using this verbiage. What you do is "have feelings" about it. Which is quite different.

Again you seem to be saying I can never really be sure of any choice I make unless I'm sure that I've had a chance to consider every possible option. I simply don't agree with that.

Hey, it's your immortal soul, not mine. If you don't want to know the other options that are available, well, that's your choice, isn't it? I'm just noting that you put less interest in the disposition of your immortal soul -- than most people (probably you included) put in finite choices, like their homes, cars, and choice of schools.

I don't share your view. You seem to paint this picture where humans are essentially innocent of all crimes and God is basically terribly unjust spilling blood for no just cause.

I said nothing about whether it is "just" or not. I'm saying he does require lakes of blood. That's bloodthirsty by definition, regardless if you want to argue if there's some "just cause".

I don't share that view. I think God makes justice happen. As he said in Ezekiel 35:6, "therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". So its not as though God just kills people for no reason at all. Thankfully along with being a just God he is also merciful and provided a substitute, Jesus, for the justice that we should have received. That's how I view what is going on here. I know we won't agree though.

Now I will say something about the "just" aspect. Because the slaughter that god allows for is not just. It condemns the righteous and unrighteous alike (I don't feel like finding the verse for it right now, and you know what I'm refering to). But yeah, because some adults do something god doesn't like doesn't mean you skewer the kids at home on swords. That's not just, period. And suggesting "god's new way" (i.,e., Jesus) doesn't magically remove the acts done in the past, if you choose to believe them, which by the way, I don't in any particualr way believe.

That you would actually have the weakness to want to EXCUSE such bloodthirstiness tells us a lot about your moral character doesn't it? See, as an atheist, I have to say that there is no deed any human could do that would justify the wanton murder and slaughter of people. For instance, I do not accept as a viable reason that the actions of some people in the city transfers to all other people and therefore you even put the children to the sword. That's not justice-- that's genocide. But your god not only condones it, he commands it. But there is no deed anyone could do that would deserve such a fate. None. You cannot come up with an act that would make me think, "Oh, sheesh, all humans need to die because of that." I cannot think that way because it's morally bankrupt, disgusting, offensive and sickening.

Now-- apparently, you are different. Apparently, such unimaginable evil is excusable in your mind. It's apparently okay for you to say, "Well, people do bad things so -- therefore it's okay to drown them all."

Now I know more about you, and you know more about me. Now you know why I would never, ever, ever adopt such a hateful, repulsive, offensive, disgusting, sickening, and mentally broken model as what you seem to have no concerns with.

Alright lets take it in baby steps. What do you find logically wrong with my first bit?

Regarding this:

How do I know that’s gold? In order to answer that question I have to know something about gold. I could know that its shiny gold color and soft and heavy compared to other metals. If I wanted to get more specific I could measure its density or do an acid test or test for ferromagnetic properties or do a conductivity test. There are many ways that I could demonstrate that some block of matter is gold (Au), or that it is some other material and therefore not gold. But in order to do any of those demonstrations I have to have a good understanding of gold and its properties.

So it is clear then. In order for a demonstration to be useful in any meaningful way the people interested in the demonstration must understand the subject of the demonstration well enough to know whether or not the demonstration is apposite* for the subject at hand.

One of the things theists are forced to do is to compare these non-material things to material ones. For instance, one day a person in ancient times is walking along, sees gold, finds it pretty, and thus a value is placed upon it. Then others go looking for more gold and it's discovered there are other gold-like-looking things that are not gold. So various tests are created to confirm that gold is actually gold.

But first, someone has to find the gold to pick it up and that's where your analogy leaps to its death out of the 85th floor.

There is no "god" to pick up. Ever. Despite the occasional story in an old book written by people who are demonstrably superstitious and who actively didn't understand basic concepts of how reality actually works, there are no examples of gods walking around with people. The various gods consistently just don't bother to do this. So your very first premise, that we "need to know what it is we are talking about" in order to demonstrate it, is specious. I can pick up a piece of gold and start making tests on it. You cannot do anything with a god to start doing tests. In fact, you're not even willing to research the various vibrant competitive views at all before you come to a conclusion. So your analogy breaks down.

So this is not a "MP" (my problem). It's a YP (your problem). You are the one who has to figure out a way to present your model in a coherent and consistent way if you want others to accept it as a reality. So far, you're saying, "You first need to know god to demonstrate god."

Well, I can't know what is undemonstrated. First demonstrate him, and then I'll be able to do the work that tells me if this is gold, or pyrite.

[Aaron]

There is no "god" to pick up. Ever. Despite the occasional story in an old book written by people who are demonstrably superstitious and who actively didn't understand basic concepts of how reality actually works, there are no examples of gods walking around with people. The various gods consistently just don't bother to do this. So your very first premise, that we "need to know what it is we are talking about" in order to demonstrate it, is specious.

Yeah I'm not saying you can know God like you can know gold. That's kind of my point. They cannot be demonstrated in the same way. But my point is also that that doesn't mean that God can't be demonstrated. He says if I'm really in you then the way you live your life will reflect that. I and many others have found that to be true.

Well, I can't know what is undemonstrated.

First of all I don't think that is true, there is self evident knowledge. Secondly I have offered some evidence for God, the historical miracles and his miraculous work inside of the human heart, and you have dismissed them. It seems to me that this demonstration thing is quite subjective. Its only good evidence if I say it is, kind of thing.

[Yuri]

How do I know that’s gold? ...

The "look at it from my perspective and you'll understand" argument.

The trouble is, your perspective is based on fundamental values of deeper perspective that many do not share.

For example, you take the authority of the Bible as sufficient proof that "lots of awesome miracles" happened. What if the Bible is a book of fairy tales?

When you casually mention these awesome miracles without the slightest hint that it may be that no such miracle ever happened, then you lose from your audience everybody who knows that the universe has laws of nature that have never been demonstrated to have been broken, except in these rather unlikely fairy tales that have innumerable explanations more likely than "miracle".

Do you remember making the choice to believe that God exists?

Rather than trying to create a logical argument for the existence of God, you would be more effective in persuading atheists that whether or not God actually exists really isn't the point. Faith is nothing whatsoever to do with truth. Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority. Take the Biblical view of homosexuality for example. It is not possible to explain why homosexuality is immoral without reference to an authority source such as the bible. Any such explanation can only be justified by saying "according to the bible". So, by claiming belief in God, the faithful can justify their intolerance of something they find to be a disgusting thought. In reality there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of religion. There is such a thing as morality but in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with god or the bible; morality is a purely subjective issue.

If biblical morality is so hopelessly flawed, the only reason remaining to believe in God is fear of death. This is how to trap new members into faith: concentrate on their fear.

[Keep The Reason]

Yeah I'm not saying you can know God like you can know gold. That's kind of my point. They cannot be demonstrated in the same way. But my point is also that that doesn't mean that God can't be demonstrated. He says if I'm really in you then the way you live your life will reflect that. I and many others have found that to be true.

"He says" indicates he actually says something. Well, he hasn't "Said anything" to me. And other than handing credit over to this (non)entity, how do you think you live your life differently from, say, me?

Do you treat people with courtesy? Are you helpful? Do you care about them? Do you love some of them? Are you a parent who raises their children? Are you responsible? Do you obey society's laws? Do you refrain from rape, theft, murder, and abuse? Do you have integrity? Is your word to be trusted?

If so, then there's little difference between us. So, how is it that this reflects god in you, and it merely reflects me, in me?

First of all I don't think that is true, there is self evident knowledge.

Such as what? Name something that is "self evident knowledge". If you mean an "Experience" well, you'll find once again that materialism allows for real experiences to be shared / repeated by others. Spoiritual ones however, we have no way of knowing what's going on with others. If we all get on a roller coaster and we all enjoy it and scream anbd whoop and laugh and after it's all over we exchange information about how awesome it was -- that's a shared experience based on a material event-- the ride itself.

But the same doesn't cross over to some private claimed experience. If god "came into you" then either it's true or it's false. If it's true, then the world is way different than it seems to be on the surface. If it's ifalse-- well, then you are either being duped, are delusional, or purposely lying. You think it's the first -- i.e., true. I think it's one of the second-- i.e., false.

Secondly I have offered some evidence for God, the historical miracles and his miraculous work inside of the human heart, and you have dismissed them.

What have you offered? Stories that you yourself are hearing thousands of years later, in the form of hearsay? What miracles are these? Because a book says "Jesus wlaked on water" that means a guy named Jesus actually walked on water? You know, I hear tell that Mohammed ascended to heaven too. I read this in a book. It must be true. I also read in a book that the angel Moroni came to Joseph Smith and gave to him the tablets of gold that told the story of the Mormons. I read that in a book too. I guess it must be true.

It seems to me that this demonstration thing is quite subjective. Its only good evidence if I say it is, kind of thing.

So you agree then that you cannot actually demonstrate god? It's quite easy to admit the obvious. You cannot demonstrate god exists, and that's fine. Have whatever belief you want I suppose, but don't expect me to accept it, and don't go around as if your assertion is some grounded reality, when it's not.

[Aaron]

"He says" indicates he actually says something.

Yeah, indicating Jesus said it around 2000 years ago and it was written down in the Bible.

And other than handing credit over to this (non)entity, how do you think you live your life differently from, say, me?

Do you treat people with courtesy? Are you helpful? Do you care about them? Do you love some of them? Are you a parent who raises their children? Are you responsible? Do you obey society's laws? Do you refrain from rape, theft, murder, and abuse? Do you have integrity? Is your word to be trusted?

If so, then there's little difference between us. So, how is it that this reflects god in you, and it merely reflects me, in me?

Before I was a christian I thought those same things were wrong. The difference now is that I see new desires growing in me. Instead of me trying not to lust but never really being able to get rid of that part of myself, I depend on God to give me his desires and to live a completely new life through him in purity. Its a different life, a new life. I can't compare me to you, but I can compare myself to who I was and I would be lying if I said there have not been changes in my life.

Such as what? Name something that is "self evident knowledge".

1+1=2, a=b and b=c so a=c, logic is valid... aren't there a good number of things we must simply accept as self evident?

If we all get on a roller coaster and we all enjoy it and scream anbd whoop and laugh and after it's all over we exchange information about how awesome it was -- that's a shared experience based on a material event-- the ride itself.

But the same doesn't cross over to some private claimed experience. If god "came into you" then either it's true or it's false.

What does something either being true or either being false have to do with this? I experience God in response to his gospel and I find that others (many many others, in many cultures, throughout all age groups and throughout the last 2000 years) have experienced the same thing. How is that not valid. We hear the gospel, it's truth and power is made utterly certain to us and we believe it to be true and find that in Jesus our lives are changed.

What have you offered? Stories that you yourself are hearing thousands of years later, in the form of hearsay? What miracles are these? Because a book says "Jesus wlaked on water" that means a guy named Jesus actually walked on water? You know, I hear tell that Mohammed ascended to heaven too.

Well from the beginning I acknowledged in my first post that the biblical accounts of miracles are weaker in a sense because they are historical. Personally I would expect someone to hear the gospel, become certain that if anything in life is true it is, and then experience the transforming work of Jesus and after that then find the other accounts of miracles have become more plausible. But that's just a view I've had on things.

It seems to me that this demonstration thing is quite subjective. Its only good evidence if I say it is, kind of thing.

So you agree then that you cannot actually demonstrate god? It's quite easy to admit the obvious. You cannot demonstrate god exists, and that's fine. Have whatever belief you want I suppose, but don't expect me to accept it, and don't go around as if your assertion is some grounded reality, when it's not.

No that's not what I was trying to get at. What I'm really trying to get at here is the fact that things aren't as you've painted them to be. The Bible records that the gospel has a power to convict, save and change people. I've found that to be true in my own life and so have many others. That is demonstration. It is not as though we are simply living in pure fantasy with no grounding at all for our beliefs, like you seem to be suggesting.

[Aaron]

The "look at it from my perspective and you'll understand" argument.

What other kind of argument is there? If you don't think your argument is understandable then why even try to explain it to someone else.

The trouble is, your perspective is based on fundamental values of deeper perspective that many do not share.

For example, you take the authority of the Bible as sufficient proof that "lots of awesome miracles" happened. What if the Bible is a book of fairy tales

As I recall I straight off submitted that the miracles recorded in the Bible are weaker because they are historical. I never expected to prove anything to anyone by mentioning them.

When you casually mention these awesome miracles without the slightest hint that it may be that no such miracle ever happened, then you lose from your audience everybody who knows that the universe has laws of nature that have never been demonstrated to have been broken, except in these rather unlikely fairy tales that have innumerable explanations more likely than "miracle".

Well I think in a sense you're right which is why I made it a point not to do that.

Rather than trying to create a logical argument for the existence of God, you would be more effective in persuading atheists that whether or not God actually exists really isn't the point.

I am trying to argue that this world we live in is not utterly devoid of all possible reason to believe there is a God (like the kind of world KTR likes to frequently purport). I am trying to point out that we do have demonstration of God and its by the miracle of the changed life of a Christian, the very power of the gospel itself. I fully admit its not like the kind of demonstration one would use to show that something is gold, but that doesn't mean it is somehow invalid or inferior.

Faith is nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

I don't agree. How could a person honestly have faith in something they believe is false? I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of faith.

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death.

This doesn't describe my belief in God.

It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority. Take the Biblical view of homosexuality for example. It is not possible to explain why homosexuality is immoral without reference to an authority source such as the bible. Any such explanation can only be justified by saying "according to the bible". So, by claiming belief in God, the faithful can justify their intolerance of something they find to be a disgusting thought. In reality there is no such thing as sin. It is an invention of religion. There is such a thing as morality but in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with god or the bible; morality is a purely subjective issue.

This is going off topic. I don't think you really believe morality is a purely subjective issue. In order for morality to have any meaning whatsoever it must be objective, at least in part. For if it was purely subjective and assuming you avoided hypocrisy you would have no claim against a person who did not agree with homosexuality. What response can we give to the person who is born with what they claim to be a lust for fresh human blood? What response can we give to someone who is born with what they claim a natural hatred for people of another race? What response can we give to someone who simply cannot get rid of there desire to have sex with young boys? Morality must have an objective component or it becomes utterly meaningless. No, I don't think you actually believe what you're saying.

[Rian]

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion. They are a method of soothing the fear that there is a more powerful being out there than you, and he can see what's in your innermost heart and will call you to account for your choices. It is a way of trying to get rid of guilt over things you have done that you know are wrong.