[_ Old Earth _] How is the Christian god detected?

[Godfrey]

I think one can detect the Christian God in the life of George Muller.

At least, I would invite anyone to try to emulate his life without the Christian God

Can you please summarize why you think the life of George Muller permits us to reliably detect the Christian god?

Gladly. Perhaps I might set the scene by instancing a couple of experiences from my own life first.

Some 20 years ago, in a prayer meeting before the start of the college day, I said, “Lord, I’d like £30,000 so we can run short IT courses for industry.†– I don’t know why, the words just popped out. That afternoon, a piece of paper was on my desk inviting us to apply for funding to run short IT courses for local industry, up to a maximum of - £30,000. Which we got, and ran a training centre which generated about a quarter of a million income over the next 3 years in the teeth of the ‘90s recession.

Last year, I heard a minister recount something similar. On the first Sunday in November 2008, the Lord had told him to speak on a certain issue that needed addressing in his church, and had said to him, “If you do, I’ll start to release the funds you need.†He duly spoke on the matter, and within the week £120,000 had been given to his ministry, completely unexpectedly, from sources outside it.

A fair proportion of which was a bequest by an elderly lady who had died the previous March. I know, because I was an executor of her will, and so I saw the process from the other side. We didn’t immediately notify any of the charitable legatees because we had to sell a house in order to pay off the inheritance tax, and who knew how long that would take in the property market of ’08? Then the Revenue – unlike them – dragged their heels over telling us how much tax to pay; a cash buyer for the house appeared – rare last year – but twice held us up for no apparent reason; the Revenue again delayed granting probate. And the sum of all these odd hangups and manoeuvres was that the house sale was completed on – the Monday, the day after the minister spoke; and the next day I rang his office to notify them of the bequest.

So I can testify to two occasions when God provided money, on the nail, even though the process of getting it there was a long time in preparation.

… your Father knows what you need before you ask him. – Matt.6.8

Well, Muller’s life was like that writ large. He started it as a minister in Teignmouth by refusing his salary. He trusted in the Lord to provide. A box was put out, people could put donations in – or not – and someone would periodically bring the contents to him. People of course forgot, the box bloke sometimes didn’t bring it because he was ashamed of the meagre contents – but it didn’t matter: money or provisions always arrived from somewhere. On occasions when he ventured away from Teignmouth, complete strangers would give him money in the street.

And in Bristol, he began his orphanage project in exactly the same way: he announced he was going to start an orphanage – and that was the total sum of his fundraising. No events, no appeals for cash, no begging letters, no advertisements, no nothing. No collection was taken the evening he made the announcement. He never revealed to anyone his current financial needs. He kept meticulous records of his finances, and at year’s end published a report which could be bought for a few pence. That was it. He just lived in faith that the money would be provided.

And over a period of 60 years, he received the equivalent of around £100 million in today’s money without ever asking anyone for funds. Any money given to him personally, he gave away, keeping only the minimum for his needs. When he died, he had just £60 in cash and even that was earmarked to be given away. There were days which started with not a penny or a loaf of bread for the orphans, but money or food would always arrive from somewhere – a local, a stranger from 200 miles away, a letter from the other side of the world.



I can only think of 3 options:

• He was the most successful hoaxer in history, operating in the spotlight, managing to forge a completely bogus but consistent set of books for 60 years while maintaining a real set which has never been found, organising a huge shadowy team of fundraisers (imagine the turnover of staff over 60 years – and not one of them ever grassed him up), ensuring that not a single begging letter survived – and maintaining his sanity; Donald Crowhurst went mad after 6 months from the strain of trying to forge a single logbook. I picked Muller because his life and work are so well documented, and because it was well known at the time what he was doing. No-one ever in his lifetime was able to show that he once solicited money; no-one has been able to do it in the 110 years since his death.
  [/*:m:1eksyfgh]
• He was the beneficiary of the most staggering set of coincidences in history.
  [/*:m:1eksyfgh]
• Divine providence. He relied on his God, and his God answered. (As you're asking about the detectability of the Christian God - I've not heard of any adherent of any other god doing this.)[/*:m:1eksyfgh]

(Just for completeness - the ministry to which that bequest went works on the same principle as Muller - they never ask for money.)

 

[AAA]

So I can testify to two occasions when God provided money, on the nail, even though the process of getting it there was a long time in preparation.

The following 2 videos underscore why anecdotes, especially those involving "the power of coincidence', can never be sufficient evidence to support supernatural claims. Other corroborating evidence is always required (and in my experience, never provided).

[youtube:16ldygfj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c[/youtube:16ldygfj]

[youtube:16ldygfj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16E-4avtddE[/youtube:16ldygfj]


So we have:

(1) someone who recently spoke with Jesus in his bedroom and thinks that this is good enough to warrant belief in the Christian god.
(2) someone who says that the question I posed implies a pattern of "looking for the kingdom of god in strange places". One need only "open their heart to let Jesus in"
(3) someone who says that personal experiences are enough to believe
(4) someone who says that one should believe in Jesus because the heart of man is not scientific (which is a non-sequitur)
(5) and someone who wants to have a discussion about determinism, which doesn't really address the original question.
(6) Someone who thinks there is no reliable way to detect the Christian god.
(7) Someone who thinks anecdotes about "financial gifts" are reliable ways of detecting the Christian god.

I think these videos take care of (1)(3) and (7), while (2)(4)(5) and (6) are either cryptic, non-sequiturs, or do not require refutation.

I hope that the discussion can carry on from my response to Free's last post.

 

[AAA]

I can only think of 3 options

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

I can think of a fifth. There was a fundraising campaign but it was covert and by word of mouth only. Let's say it was an "oral tradition".

I can think of a sixth. A small group of very wealthy benefactors who were partial to his ministry were responsible for large or majority portions of the contributions.

But I don't want to get bogged down in this particular anecdote, which simply cannot be considered to represent a reliable method of detecting the Christian god.

I do hope that the discussion can carry on along the lines of my last response to Free (Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:11 pm), which ultimately addresses the relationship (or incompatibility) between science and faith.

 

[Steve76]

I can only think of 3 options

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

I can think of a fifth. There was a fundraising campaign but it was covert and by word of mouth only. Let's say it was an "oral tradition".

I can think of a sixth. A small group of very wealthy benefactors who were partial to his ministry were responsible for large or majority portions of the contributions.

But I don't want to get bogged down in this particular anecdote, which simply cannot be considered to represent a reliable method of detecting the Christian god.

I do hope that the discussion can carry on along the lines of my last response to Free (Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:11 pm), which ultimately addresses the relationship (or incompatibility) between science and faith.

Hi AAA..
Don't know if this has been mentioned here yet and it could be one to add to your 'Atheist' list..
but how about trying to detect God through the prophecies in the Bible? If you have already, what do you make of them?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I can only think of 3 options

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

I can think of a fifth. There was a fundraising campaign but it was covert and by word of mouth only. Let's say it was an "oral tradition".

I can think of a sixth. A small group of very wealthy benefactors who were partial to his ministry were responsible for large or majority portions of the contributions.

But I don't want to get bogged down in this particular anecdote, which simply cannot be considered to represent a reliable method of detecting the Christian god.

I do hope that the discussion can carry on along the lines of my last response to Free (Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:11 pm), which ultimately addresses the relationship (or incompatibility) between science and faith.

If you feel there is an incompatability between science and faith then why are you asking believers to "prove" it using scientific terms and criteria?

 

[Steve76]

I can only think of 3 options

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

I can think of a fifth. There was a fundraising campaign but it was covert and by word of mouth only. Let's say it was an "oral tradition".

I can think of a sixth. A small group of very wealthy benefactors who were partial to his ministry were responsible for large or majority portions of the contributions.

But I don't want to get bogged down in this particular anecdote, which simply cannot be considered to represent a reliable method of detecting the Christian god.



I do hope that the discussion can carry on along the lines of my last response to Free (Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:11 pm), which ultimately addresses the relationship (or incompatibility) between science and faith.

If you feel there is an incompatability between science and faith then why are you asking believers to "prove" it using scientific terms and criteria?

LOL!

 

[Orion]

Not to answer for AAA, but without evidence, any religion's claims are just as valid as the next. SO, if a religion makes claims that hint at physical harm (the unsaved being tortured), it [said religion] must then handle the onslaught of such people who demands proof of THIS religion's ascertion "that this will happen to the unbeliever". "Faith" isn't going to be the evidence needed. So, I guess one CAN LOL at the question of "why ask for natural evidence for the supernatural", but if it can't be produced, then one can't expect the atheist to just "fall to their knees and accept Christ". Further more, if said deity exists, then morally/ethically, they shouldn't be able to hold such a mindset against that person, because it is true for that person. If any religion can be as true as the next, then "truth" is too variable to make a reasoned decision.

 

[Steve76]

Not to answer for AAA, but without evidence, any religion's claims are just as valid as the next. SO, if a religion makes claims that hint at physical harm (the unsaved being tortured), it [said religion] must then handle the onslaught of such people who demands proof of THIS religion's ascertion "that this will happen to the unbeliever". "Faith" isn't going to be the evidence needed. So, I guess one CAN LOL at the question of "why ask for natural evidence for the supernatural", but if it can't be produced, then one can't expect the atheist to just "fall to their knees and accept Christ". Further more, if said deity exists, then morally/ethically, they shouldn't be able to hold such a mindset against that person, because it is true for that person. If any religion can be as true as the next, then "truth" is too variable to make a reasoned decision.

Exactly!
It is supernatural Orion, and religion, as quoted in scripture is:

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

I do understand why people want Proof of God because I was of the exact same position before April 2009..
All I can do is share my Testimony and try to be a good witness...but then... the sarcasm and attacks ..

 

[kenmaynard]

There was a girl I knew in my hometown who would always go out of her way to help people. She traveled with her church to do missionary work. One of her neighbors had financial problems and couldn't afford daycare all the time so in the summers she would babysit for free so the family could save money for the rest of the year. While it isn't scientific proof of supernatural existence. It is evidence of the trans formative powers of the words of Jesus. 2000 plus years later he is still making the world a better place.

 

[ChattyMute]

There was a girl I knew in my hometown who would always go out of her way to help people. She traveled with her church to do missionary work. One of her neighbors had financial problems and couldn't afford daycare all the time so in the summers she would babysit for free so the family could save money for the rest of the year. While it isn't scientific proof of supernatural existence. It is evidence of the trans formative powers of the words of Jesus. 2000 plus years later he is still making the world a better place.

Hardly.
This girl, if she is truly caring, would do this without Jesus Christ.
If she does it only because someone tells her to (the Bible/Jesus Christ), then she is superficial and not truly caring.
You have no reason to claim it is because of your religion. She could jsut as likely be doing the same if she were Jewish or atheist.

 

[kenmaynard]

There was a girl I knew in my hometown who would always go out of her way to help people. She traveled with her church to do missionary work. One of her neighbors had financial problems and couldn't afford daycare all the time so in the summers she would babysit for free so the family could save money for the rest of the year. While it isn't scientific proof of supernatural existence. It is evidence of the trans formative powers of the words of Jesus. 2000 plus years later he is still making the world a better place.

Hardly.
This girl, if she is truly caring, would do this without Jesus Christ.
If she does it only because someone tells her to (the Bible/Jesus Christ), then she is superficial and not truly caring.
You have no reason to claim it is because of your religion. She could jsut as likely be doing the same if she were Jewish or atheist.

I didn't claim it because of my religion. I claimed it because of her religion. Also, not to many superficial non caring people go out of their way to help others.

 

[ChattyMute]

I didn't claim it because of my religion. I claimed it because of her religion. Also, not to many superficial non caring people go out of their way to help others.

That is my point. She is doing that because it is her personality. Not because of her religion or some fear of hell.

 

[AAA]

If you feel there is an incompatability between science and faith then why are you asking believers to "prove" it using scientific terms and criteria?

Thanks for asking this and for the opportunity to clarify.

Your use of the words "scientific terms and criteria" makes it sound as if I am asking for something special, or setting the bar at a "scientific" height. Am I really? All I am asking for is intellectual honesty, which we all ask for in every other sphere of conversation, though apparently not where religion, or "faith" is involved.

I do think that science is the only game in town for learning about our world. As I mentioned before, I use the word science here in its most broad sense to include what we can conclude in an intellectually honest way about information that we have. This would include social sciences, even history. The key words are intellectual honesty.

If the supernatural is beyond our world, then how can we know anything about it? I think the answer is that we can't know anthing about it: it is pointless to talk about it.

If the supernatural somehow interacts with this world, then there ought to be a way to detect that. If there isn't, then how can we say that these interactions happen? So my question then becomes how can one detect these supernatural encounters or events? Are there intellectually honest ways of doing so?

If so, then we are going to be talking about the assessment of evidence. From your responses in other threads, I know that you do appeal to evidence when you can. I'm suggesting that the only thing that matters is evidence, and that we just need to be intellectually honest about how we assess that evidence.

Got insufficient evidence for your claim? You should drop the claim. (Nothing stops you from continuing to gather evidence, of course)

Got a claim for which it is impossible to gather evidence? You should drop the claim because it is a pointless claim.

Claims of the reliable detection of the Christian god never have adequate evidence to support these claims, and always rely on the magical entity called "faith".

Well "a leap of faith" is just drawing conclusions with insufficient evidence then isn't it?

Why should we ever make conclusions based on insufficient evidence?

Should I believe "on faith" that the holocaust is fake? Should I believe "on faith" that I can see the future, or that Steve67 really did talk to Jesus in his bedroom? Should you believe "on faith" that you have eternal life? Should the hijackers believe "on faith" that flying their plane into the World Trade Towers will land them in paradise? Should I believe "on faith" that Jesus will heal my 3 year old daughter's pneumonia?

In the absence of sufficient evidence, these claims should all be rejected shouldn't they? I mean, what's so legitimate about "faith"?

I'm not asking you to "prove your [theism] with scientific terms and criteria". The claims of your theism are extraordinary, yet the evidence for these claims is poor. I'm asking this: if you don't have sufficient grounds for your beliefs, why don't you reject them? Why do you accept the lower bar of "insufficient evidence" and dress it up with the word "faith", as though that somehow legitimizes it? (Apologies for that sounding harsh)

"Faith" somehow magically legitimized the beliefs of Mother Teresa (but boy, did she have doubts!), but it also legitimizes the beliefs of suicide bombers, and the witch burners, and the leaders of the Inquisition, etc. It drives the desperate beliefs of those who send thousands of dollars to Benny Hinn, who make pilgrimages to "Holy Lands" at great cost, who want the healing powers of the limbs of murdered albinos in Africa, who drive the trade in bear bile at the cost of immense suffering in caged bears, who sacrificed virgin girls for a good crop. Your theism can (and I would argue, should) be lumped in with all the preposterous things that people believe on insufficient evidence...on "faith".

How can anything other than sufficient evidence matter? Isn't that the only intellectually honest thing to accept? Why accept claims on insufficient evidence, and how isn't that intellectually dishonest? That's what I'm really asking. Sorry I took so many words to answer.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

You threw a lot out there so I know right off the bat that this post will probably be insufficient and not answer everything in your post. I do have some random thoughts.

- I disagree that science is the "only" way to learn anything about our world. I am not a scientist nor do I always use scientific methods and I learn things about our material world everyday. What I learn does not always come from intellectual honesty as you describe it.

- I think we would all agree that the concept of a God is absolutely supernatural. Your assertion that there is nothing we could know about that world and therefor we shouldn't talk about it I feel is false. Just because I do not understand something completely does not mean I should not talk about it and my experiences with it. In my experience with faith it is 100% experiential and at a very personal level. As a result, it cannot be measured, analyzed nor put under scientific scrutiny. If one can be intellectually honest with themselves and admit that there are some things we will never completely understand I think this is easy to grasp.

- My "leap of faith" was partially based on evidence. I do not find the "evidence" insufficient in the slightest. This is only one piece of the puzzle for me and I had many others that I fit together to come to God but evidence is one of them for me. I am sure that you and I could debate this evidence until the cows come home and your view would be different from mine. I'm alright with that but your disagreement with me would not change my mind since I have probably heard these arguments before.

- Evidence is not the gold standard on faith and belief in God. Personal experience is. My personal experience with my faith fills me with peace, hope and joy. It tells me that most of the things that people worry about day in and day out just don't matter. There are bigger and better things out there. It is not about me and what I want, it is about what the world needs and what I and other believers can bring to the world in small doses that will hopefully make a difference.

- Faith does not have the monopoly on all of the evil in the world. Considering Stalin murdered millions of Orthodox Christians due to their beliefs and his desire to purge the world of religion it is easy to see this. There are more deaths in this world over power, money, drugs and other materialistic pursuits to put religion to shame in our present day.

I've been on both sides. I became a believer this April after 20+ years of being an atheist / agnostic. I understand the arguments for and against Christianity. I used to think believers were delusional and just plain naive. My challenge to you would be to try it. Live like a Christian for 60 days. Do what believers do for awhile and honestly experience it. Consider it a scientific experiment to test believers from an experiential standpoint. I dare you not to at least obtain a different perspective on things as a result. If not, at least you can say you had the guts to test it out and see for yourself.

Aero out.

 

[Godfrey]

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

Whatever he ministered about, he never asked for money. Just one instance would have destroyed his reputation for ever.

I can think of a fifth. There was a fundraising campaign but it was covert and by word of mouth only. Let's say it was an "oral tradition".

I can think of a sixth. A small group of very wealthy benefactors who were partial to his ministry were responsible for large or majority portions of the contributions.

I think I covered those adequately in my first bullet point.

But I don't want to get bogged down in this particular anecdote, which simply cannot be considered to represent a reliable method of detecting the Christian god.

Muller’s ministry is not anecdote, it’s history, and pretty well-documented history too.

The following 2 videos underscore why anecdotes, especially those involving "the power of coincidence', can never be sufficient evidence to support supernatural claims.

I watched them. The only point in the first that needs addressing is that hits are remembered and misses forgotten. In Muller’s case there were no misses – in 60 years. (I enjoyed the bit about the monkeys, though.) In the second, as I said above, we are not dealing with anecdote but history (funny how the speaker uses anecdotes to demolish anecdotes.)

Other corroborating evidence is always required (and in my experience, never provided).

Well, there are some good primary sources online:

Narrative of the Lord’s dealings with George Muller
Biography by his son-in-law

I can’t find the journals, annual reports and account books online, but they are still in existence, presumably in the possession of The George Muller Foundation. I know, because they are quoted in a good secondary source, Roger Steer’s Delighted in God(though sadly, it lacks both an index and a bibliography), as are many letters to and from Muller.


As an obituary of Muller put it:

“[thousands of children] have been fed, clothed and educated out of funds which have poured in without any influential committee or organisation, without appeal or advertisement of any sort … how was this wonder accomplished? Mr Muller has told the world that it was the result of “Prayerâ€. The rationalism of the day will sneer at this declaration; but the facts remain, and remain to be explained. It would be unscientific to belittle historical occurrences when they are difficult to explain â€â€

 

[nadab]

Here is some evidence of God's existence to consider that our senses can detect.

Consider: Your tongue—as well as other parts of your mouth and throat—includes clusters of skin cells called taste buds. Many are located within papillae on the surface of the tongue. A taste bud contains up to a hundred receptor cells, each of which can detect one of four types of taste—sour, salty, sweet, or bitter. Spicy is in a different category altogether. Spices stimulate pain receptors—not taste buds! In any event, taste-receptor cells are connected to sensory nerves that, when stimulated by chemicals in food, instantly transmit signals to the lower brain stem.

Taste, however, involves more than your mouth. The five million odor receptors in your nose—which allow you to detect some 10,000 unique odors—play a vital role in the tasting process. It has been estimated that about 75 percent of what we call taste is actually the result of what we smell.

Scientists have developed an electrochemical nose that uses chemical gas sensors as an artificial olfaction device. Nevertheless, neurophysiologist John Kauer, quoted in Research/Penn State, notes: “Any artificial device is going to be extremely simplistic in comparison to the biology, which is wonderfully elegant and sophisticated.â€

Did our sense of taste come about by chance? Or is this evidence of design?

The Wonder of Human Touch: The human hand has a particularly refined sense of touch. According to Smithsonian magazine, researchers found that our hand can detect a dot just three microns high. (A human hair has a diameter of 50 to 100 microns.) However, by “using a texture rather than a dot, the researchers found the hand can detect roughness just 75 nanometers highâ€â€”a nanometer being one thousandth of a micron! Such remarkable sensitivity is attributed to about 2,000 touch receptors in each fingertip.

Our sense of touch also plays a key role in our health and well-being. “The caress of another person releases hormones that can ease pain and clear the mind,†says U.S.News & World Report. Some believe that when a child is deprived of the loving touch of others, its growth will be impeded.

Did our sense of touch come about by chance? Or is this evidence of design?

What about earth's perfect "address"? Consider our solar system, the Milky Way. It is in what scientists call the galactic habitable zone. This zone is about 28,000 light years from the center of the galaxy and contains just the right concentrations of the chemical elements to support life. Farther out, those elements are too scarce; farther in, it is too dangerous because of the greater abundance of potentially lethal radiation. Scientific American magazine (2001) said that "We live in prime real estate".

What about the earth itself ? Because the earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, this orbit is in what scientist call the circumstellar habitable zone, where life neither freezes nor fries. Moreover, earth's path around the sun is almost circular, keeping us roughly the same distance year-round.

The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect "powerhouse", being stable, ideal size, and emits just the right amount of energy. For good reason, it has been called "a very special star".

What about our moon ? If one had to chose a "next-door neighbor" for the earth, the moon could not be better. Why ? It's diameter measures just over a quarter of the earth's. Thus, when compared with other moons in our solar system, our moon is unusually large in relation to it's host planet. Was this by coincidence ?

Because of the moon's size, it is the principal cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in our earth's ecology.The moon also contributes to earth's stable axis spin. Without the moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, perhaps even tipping right over and turning on it's side, as much as 85 degress. The resulting climatic, tidal, and other changes would be catastrophic.

Earth's tilt of 23.5 degrees causes the annual cycle of seasons, moderates temperatures, and enables a wide range of climatic zones. The book Rare Earth - Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe stated: "Our planet's tilt axis seems to be ' just right.' "

Also just right is the length of day and night, a result of earth's spin. If the rotation were substantially longer, the side of the earth facing the sun would bake while the other side froze. Conversely, if days were shorter, perhaps just a few hours long, earth's rapid spin would cause relentless gale-force winds and other harmful effects.

Hence, from earth's perfect "address" to it's rate of spin to it's lunar neighbor, gives evidence of thoughtful design by a Creator. Says physicist and evolutionist Paul Davies: "Even atheistic scientists will wax lyrical about the scale, the majesty, the harmony, the elegance, the sheer ingenuity of the universe."

Thus, did our earth come about by chance? Or is this evidence of design?

 

[AAA]

-I learn things about our material world everyday. What I learn does not always come from intellectual honesty as you describe it.

-Your assertion that there is nothing we could know about that world and therefor we shouldn't talk about it I feel is false.

-In my experience with faith it is 100% experiential and at a very personal level.

- Evidence is not the gold standard on faith and belief in God. Personal experience is.

- My personal experience with my faith fills me with peace, hope and joy. It tells me that most of the things that people worry about day in and day out just don't matter. There are bigger and better things out there.

Aero, it seems that your faith is mostly based on experiential evidence that is internal, mystical, and personal. Here's how Luke Muehlhauser puts it: "People who rely on these methods regularly come to contradictory conclusions about the nature of the supernatural. Their supernatural inferences are clear delusions to everyone as often as they are heralded as legitimate by fellow believers in the same kind of supernatural reality." These methods cannot reliably indicate anything about the supernatural, yet you think they are the "gold standard".

I guess that my relationship with Theo, the one-armed supernatural dragon I find in my garage is based on the "gold standard".

Don't you see how preposterous this way of thinking is, no matter how good it makes you feel?

-As a result, it cannot be measured, analyzed nor put under scientific scrutiny.

I'm not asking for "scientific scrutiny" in the sense of doing a controlled experiment. I'm just saying that "faith" is intellectually dishonest. Science is just one strict form of intellectual honesty.

- If one can be intellectually honest with themselves and admit that there are some things we will never completely understand I think this is easy to grasp.

All I'm saying is that if these things can't be grasped, or reliably demonstrated, we should put them on the backburner of human knowledge until they can. What we do in fact, is the opposite: we elevate these claims to where they are considered the most important pieces of knowledge that we have about the universe, important enough to organize our lives around, and important enough to regularly kill and die for. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, this irony is frightening enough that we cannot laugh at what would otherwise be so absurd as to be hilarious.

Humans love their mystical beliefs about the supernatural. We have worshipped literally thousands of gods, all based mostly on the type of internal, experiential, mystical evidence you say is the "gold standard". Beliefs based on these methods divide our species and are at least one important barrier to sustained mutual respect and interdependence. When are we going to accept that there's just no reliable validation for any of these beliefs at this point in time and until there is, we should just put them aside and focus on what we do and can know? I'm open to the possibility that one day, we will be able to know about the supernatural if it exists. What a find that would be!

-Live like a Christian for 60 days. Do what believers do for awhile and honestly experience it. Consider it a scientific experiment to test believers from an experiential standpoint. I dare you not to at least obtain a different perspective on things as a result. If not, at least you can say you had the guts to test it out and see for yourself.

Been there and done that already. I started out as a Christian.

 

[AAA]

Here is some evidence of God's existence to consider that our senses can detect...

Questioning whether the tongue and the hand came about by pure chance reveals an enormous misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution, probably addressed in most of the threads in the Christianity and Science Forum, and which I do not want to go into here.

Even if the fine tuning of the universe pointed to a supernatural intelligent designer (and I'm not saying that it does), that would not in any way imply the truth of Christianity. Our designer could be 3 or 4 malevolent gods sitting around a table in a cosmic casino betting on the outcome of the millions of struggles occurring in our world, or relishing in the suffering that we experience. Or the designer could be dead - no longer in existence. Or the designer could be Allah.

The entire post is void of reliable methods of detecting the Christian god.

 

[AAA]

I can think of a fourth. He was a minister. Presumably he was charismatic. Even without a retrospectively identifiable fundraising campaign, word of mouth can be powerful. Besides, what do you think he ministered about? Selfishness?

Whatever he ministered about, he never asked for money. Just one instance would have destroyed his reputation for ever.

Why is it such an incredible point that he didn't ask for money? Don't you think that it is possible for an honest, good, and charismatic leader, who is accepting money that ultimately goes to valuable community projects, to motiviate people to donate money without having to ask for it?

Do little old ladies who get on the bus have to ask people to give them their seat?

 

[AAA]

- Faith does not have the monopoly on all of the evil in the world. Considering Stalin murdered millions of Orthodox Christians due to their beliefs and his desire to purge the world of religion it is easy to see this.

Stalin's regime was not one that encourage free, open, intellectually honest thinking. He wanted to replace religious dogma with other dogmas.

Dogma, or beliefs based on insufficient evidence, particularly those that discourage further intellectual honesty, are a real source of evil.