Do you believe in miracles?

[wmrs2]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

That's the definition of faith. You have evidence for something and each time you check the result is the same. When you've checked enough times without any deviation it's safe to assume it'll always be the same, we call it faith. It's the same for scientific or religious faith. When I'm out walking I don't go running between lamp posts and grabbing them tightly just in case gravity might give way. I have faith in that it'll keep working. Even when I'm not watching. I'm a man of faith.

But you're leaving out the most interesting detail. How did you reach this conclusion that "God is absolute truth"? How did you work it out? How can you be sure that it isn't just in your head?

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life.

I didn't get this? Are you talking about how much evidence you need for faith in God?

To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Are you saying that "intuition" is the same thing as "self evident truths"? I wouldn't mind you explaining this. How do we know when a truth is self evident? My intuition tells me God doesn't exist. If intuition is self evident truths, then is my brain broken?

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

But Artistotelian logic can prove Christian theory of God has logical inconsistencies, (ie the Christian paradoxes). How do you reconcile that? How can the theory of God be true and false at the same time? How can God be good when there is evil in the world? Once again, what I think you're doing is removing the content of the "Scientific method" and "Aristotelian logic" and treating them as empty abstractions, because it looks good in a sentence. I'll grant you that it saves you the effort of understanding it, but doesn't add to your argument. You cannot apply the scientific method to something that cannot be measured. Some say this is proof God doesn't exist. Some say it's down to nonoverlapping Magisteria, but if that is the case your Christian faith cannot teach you anything about science. What you mean with "historical approach" I'm not sure? Hegelian dialectical reading of history perhaps? It's the standard method today of interpreting history.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

You'll have no argument there. But there's a world of difference between living your life as Christian because that's what sounds the most plausible to you, and having faith. One is arrogant and the other one is an educated guess.