How God works (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 19:34 (4324 days ago) @ dhw

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?
> 
> DHW: What experiments? The only "big picture" in the bible is the story of one version of God, which cannot be verified by outside experiments.
> -Not at all. The "Big Picture" is a chain of events as well. The hypotheses were the prophecies, which were tested in the laboratory of life, and confirmed. The repeat experiments are in the form of archaeology and history which confirm that these are true, despite the attempts of nay-sayers to poo poo them. - --> 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:
> -The non-existence of god is no more unique than Abiogensis, String theory, Evolution, or any other theory for which we have no DIRECT OBSERVATION. So, again, what is your criteria?--> DHW: 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? -Not all, certainly, but some most definitely. I have actually quoted non-christian/non-jewish historians and archaeology that confirms my points. Why would I do that if I thought all of them were biased or trying to delude others?->DHW:History and archaeology: No doubt some events reported by some biblical authors are historical. 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. -
Aside from the obvious fact that Shakespeare was not writing a history, I understand your point. However, when such rich details of accounts have been verified by multiple accounts from respectable sources, do you not give them credibility?->DHW: 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. -
But if Gipsy Rose has a perfect track record for all the ones that have happened already, shouldn't you be more inclined to perk up when she is telling you what is going to happen in the future?->DHW: Science: Please give me one piece of objective, scientific evidence that God exists.
> -David has given us so much evidence that it would be near insulting for me to try and top his efforts. The most basic though, is the Law of Biogenesis that has never been disproven, and the fact that without information, physical life can not exist(i.e. information must proceed physical life)->DHW: 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!-It is faith insomuch as I have not directly observed God. You are correct in that. I have also never directly observed an atom, or a strand of DNA. I've never seen Jupiter with my own eyes or walked on the surface of the Red Planet to take air samples. Instead, I must rely on the reports and interpretations of data that other people that have, who may or may not have their own agenda or bias that is slanting their views. So much of our lives is relegated to trusting someone else's subjective interpretation. I am always surprised when that is thrown up as a defense. There is no response to that argument, and there never can be.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.