How God works (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 18:40 (4113 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: If a hundred scientist all wrote papers in a particular field, and they all agreed with each other as to the overall big picture, and they were all verified repeated by outside experiments, would you question the credentials of each and every one?
 
What experiments? The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
 
TONY: The criteria that we impose on science is much less rigorous than the scrutiny to which the bible has been subjected, and for the bible has been under such scrutiny for thousands of years. Yet, you seem much more trusting of a bunch of scientist whose hypotheses and theories have been overturned on a regular basis.-Science is an ongoing study of the material world. When scientists explain natural phenomena, and their explanations are confirmed by experiment and observation, I trust them. When they hypothesize and theorize on subjects that probably can't be confirmed (e.g. abiogenesis, multiverses, universes that spring from nothing), I am sceptical. If I were to read a book by a hundred atheist scientists rubbishing the notion of God, I would be sceptical. If I read a book by a hundred believers, (selected by a hundred believers), praising or excusing the conduct of their hypothetical, theoretical version of God, I am sceptical.
 
DHW: God has the last word. And supposing ... purely for argument's sake, of course ... he decides that murderers, fornicators and agnostics are equally deserving of eternal death, I can't argue. That's why it's scary.
TONY: It is only scary if you are afraid of death. I don't WANT to die, but it holds no fear for me. Sadness, sure; fear, not at all.
 
Agreed. I only referred to "eternal death" in order to avoid another discussion with you about the lake of fire and brimstone! My point, of course, is that I see reason to be afraid of an almighty God who may have different moral criteria from my own.
 
TONY: ...let me pose this question to both you and David: What would you accept as valid evidence? What brings you from the non-belief to the point of belief, regardless of the subject being discussed? -It can't be "regardless of the subject being discussed"! The (non-)existence of God is a unique subject. But I will try to answer each of the following arguments:-TONY: When I have presented quotes from historians, they historians credentials and sources were discarded. When I have presented fulfilled prophecies, they have been discarded. When I have presented archaelogical evidence, it has been discarded. When science provides evidence, it is discarded. So, the question becomes, what is acceptable as valid evidence if not history, science, archaeology, or an accuracy rating that smashes the Law of Probabilities?-Do you, then, like the Rev. E.B. Pusey, think all non-Christian historians, archaeologists and scientists are prejudiced, trying to delude others, and "know well" that they are ignoring historical truths? History and archaeology: No doubt some events reported by some biblical authors are historical. Our historians and archaeologists agree that the English defeated the French at Agincourt in 1415, and I believe them. But when in Shakespeare's play Montjoy says to Henry V: "The day is yours," and Henry replies: "Praised be God, and not our strength, for it!" I do not take it as proof that God won the Battle of Agincourt. History may be fact, but presentation and interpretation of history depend on subjective, fallible historians. Even eye-witness accounts vary considerably, and when the historian is not an eye-witness, he/she can only rely on the unreliable subjectivity of others. Prophecies: I'm in no position to judge the authenticity of the biblical texts that contain prophecies, or the extent to which prophecies have come true, but (a) I have an open mind on many psychic matters, and would by no means dismiss experiences authenticated by independent third parties (as in NDEs and OBEs); (b) even if Gipsy Rose gets it right, I do not see that as proof that Gipsy Jane will also get it right. Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.-What would I accept as valid evidence? I suspect that BBella is right, and it would need a personal experience to convince me. The overriding impression that has emerged from all our discussions is that arguments relating to the existence and nature of God are based on subjective interpretation of whatever information is available to us. You have agreed that belief is a matter of faith, and yet you get frustrated when someone tells you that your subjectively interpreted "evidence" requires faith to be believed!