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

[AAA]

If convicted of being a Christian, a prisoner was not necessarily to be punished. He was given the chance of casting a few grains of incense upon the pagan altar; and if he refused this, he might be subjected to the scourge and the rack. But the Roman magistrates were, as a class, humane, and the number of martyrs was inconsiderable.

There was always the opportunity to recant, except during a relatively short period of time in which Nero was using Christians as scapegoats.

Thanks. You did make that point one post earlier in this thread, and I don't understand why you feel you have to make it again.

Notice that my question was aimed at understanding the quality of the evidence behind the claims that the Apostles (by this, I mean the Disciples) were martyred after refusing to recant. The link you provided doesn't offer references or sources nor a discussion of the quality of the evidence behind its historical claims. All it does is repeat the historical claims that Aero has already advanced, but it doesn't even do that well, since Aero's claims relate to the Apostles, who are not even mentioned in your link.

 

[Orion]

AAA, they may not be able to give what they do not have. It is of no value to know that others sacrificed themselves for the cause. That just means that they were convinced enough, and desired Heaven over Hell enough that they would die for it. But we get into the problem with "believing a doctrine enough to die for it", and that has happened in other religions as well. The case of how the actual disciples died is what's in question, and there IS no definitive information other than tradition, which isn't true evidence.

 

[AAA]

Science is humanity's humble and intellectually honest method of learning about the world.

It should be clear to everybody that both (1) what our senses detect, and (2) our perceptions of what our senses detect, can be deceiving. Science helps us to recognize when that is the case.

The spectacular success of scientific thinking (intellectual honesty) in teaching us about our world is undeniable.

My question is this: given that there is no reliable way to detect the Christian god, why should anybody believe in his existence?

From scientific standpoint? Absolutely no reason.
But religion isn't scientific. It's about faith. If you have a personal experience that leads you to beleive, then that is usually good enough for most religious people.

The heart isn't scientific either.
Can one use science to detect the soul? Yet, many believe the soul exists without proof of detection.
Much has been written about the distinction of heart/soul and the logic. One needs only to review many Star Trek episodes to know there's something about the heart of man that defies reason and logic. We want to know our purpose in life and the reason things exist... why we exist on an individual level. We have enough intelligence to question the undetectable, to ponder on it, to choose whether to embrace an idea, a dream, a need or any other abstract thought.
The heart of man isn't scientific.

I've heard many attempts at defending experiential evidence before, but not this reference to Star Trek.

The fact that man has emotions and can think irrationally doesn't for an instant support the existence of a triune, creator judging, personal deity, nor does it provide support for the verity of experiential evidence as a route to knowledge of such a deity, nor does it detract from the intellectual honesty that is the bedrock of science. The brain, the organ of emotion, has been well protected from scientific enquiry, but I wouldn't be surprised if science doesn't make significant progress in understanding emotions and experiences with the advent of non-invasive imaging like functional MRI. The science of the mind is really only beginning...

The fact that Star Trek has been raised to support man's irrationality as some defense for Christian theistic beliefs seems somewhat ironic to me, since Gene Roddenberry, the show's visionary creator was an atheist and thought the world would be a better place if everybody was too. I'm not aware of the show ever defending superstition or religion in any way. In fact, if I remember correctly, Kirk, Spock, & McCoy doubt and question a callous, selfish god whose image is suggestive of the Abrahamic deity before disabling him with a photon torpedo in Star Trek V - The Final Frontier.

RickW: while we disagree on the Christian deity, I'm glad that we share a passion for our beliefs, and a love of Star Trek.

 

[AAA]

As Jesus said, don't go looking for the kingdom of God in strange places. It's within you.

If you open your heart and let Him in, it is.

Barbarian,

Can you explain what you mean by this? How do I find the Christian deity "within" me? How does opening my heart allow me to detect the Christian deity, and how do I "open my heart"? And what if I open my heart and I find Allah, or Thor? Should I follow that to knowledge?

Do you simply mean that I must have an open mind?

If so, what if my mind has always been open but I have experienced nothing? Then isn't the suggestion that my mind isn't sufficiently open just an ad hominem?

 

[AAA]

As for the apostles dying, it is part of the historical record. Of course, the Bible provides some accounts as well as historians. We know that Paul was executed as well as Peter, Stephen and many others. The list goes on and on.

Well Aero...any progress on supplying some evidence of the historical record to substantiate this?

 

[Barbarian]

Can you explain what you mean by this? How do I find the Christian deity "within" me? How does opening my heart allow me to detect the Christian deity, and how do I "open my heart"? And what if I open my heart and I find Allah, or Thor? Should I follow that to knowledge?

Luke 17:20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Do you simply mean that I must have an open mind?

No.

If so, what if my mind has always been open but I have experienced nothing?

That happens. I don't know why, but some are honestly open to Him, and never get it. They aren't necessarily condemned to hell, BTW:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
Lumen Gentium
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Then isn't the suggestion that my mind isn't sufficiently open just an ad hominem?

Would be. That's not what I was suggesting. But if you find the Kingdom of God, that is where it will be.

 

[AAA]

Can you explain what you mean by this? How do I find the Christian deity "within" me? How does opening my heart allow me to detect the Christian deity, and how do I "open my heart"? And what if I open my heart and I find Allah, or Thor? Should I follow that to knowledge?

Luke 17:20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

[quote:2xzmkfex]Do you simply mean that I must have an open mind?

No.[/quote:2xzmkfex]

Then what do you mean?

And what would you say if I told you that to find the answer to the question of whether Iraq harboured WMD's that threatened the safety of America, careful observation would not be required. The answer would be within you.

Or what if I said that the answer to the question of whether it was or wasn't right for Paul Bernardo to rape and murder teenage girls was within him?

On what basis do you put any weight on statements like these, like the one found in the gospel according to Luke?

On what basis do you put any weight on experiential evidence to reveal the most important information in the universe?

 

[Barbarian]

And what would you say if I told you that to find the answer to the question of whether Iraq harboured WMD's that threatened the safety of America, careful observation would not be required. The answer would be within you.

I would say you did not understand the difference between science and faith.

Or what if I said that the answer to the question of whether it was or wasn't right for Paul Bernardo to rape and murder teenage girls was within him?

Sadly, it was, but he closed himself off from it. You don't have to be a Christian to know the Golden Rule. We call it "natural law" and even those who don't know Him are bound to follow it.

On what basis do you put any weight on statements like these, like the one found in the gospel according to Luke?

It is the way I orient my life.

On what basis do you put any weight on experiential evidence to reveal the most important information in the universe?

For the universe, science works better than anything else we can do. For God, you need something different.

 

[AAA]

Barbarian,

It seems to me that you have not addressed my first and most important question, which was, "Then what do you mean?".

You've also avoided the following important questions that I asked you in a previous post: "How do I find the Christian deity "within" me? How does opening my heart allow me to detect the Christian deity, and how do I "open my heart"? And what if I 'open my heart' and I find Allah, or Ahura Mazda, or Thor, as billions of others almost certainly have?"

 

[AAA]

And what would you say if I told you that to find the answer to the question of whether Iraq harboured WMD's that threatened the safety of America, careful observation would not be required. The answer would be within you.

I would say you did not understand the difference between science and faith.

You may be right. I suspect that we can agree on what science is, so my deficiency, according to you, is in my lack of understanding what faith is. Perhaps if you answered the questions in my post above, I would have a better understanding. Please feel free to amplify or expand as necessary to help me understand.

On what basis do you put any weight on statements like these, like the one found in the gospel according to Luke?

It is the way I orient my life...You don't have to be a Christian to know the Golden Rule. We call it "natural law" and even those who don't know Him are bound to follow it.

You've previously pointed out that a man called "The Pope" indicated that he was somewhow of the knowledge that ultimate outcomes are similar even for poeple who do not come to believe that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within them". (Why do you believe this man called "The Pope"?) Furthermore, your words above indicate that one need not believe that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within oneself" in order to understand how to live one's life (morality). So you are really begging the question of why you orient your life around the proposition that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within you" at all?

On what basis do you put any weight on experiential evidence to reveal the most important information in the universe?

For the universe, science works better than anything else we can do. For God, you need something different.

But if the Christian deity is "within you", and if the Christian deity is involved in our lives and our world, then surely this knowledge is part of our knowledge of the universe, so I do not understand your distinction, nor do I understand what you mean by the "something different" required to arrive at this knowledge.

 

[Barbarian]

And what would you say if I told you that to find the answer to the question of whether Iraq harboured WMD's that threatened the safety of America, careful observation would not be required. The answer would be within you.[/quiote]

Barbarian observes:
I would say you did not understand the difference between science and faith.

[quote:14ncgu1j]You may be right. I suspect that we can agree on what science is, so my deficiency, according to you, is in my lack of understanding what faith is. Perhaps if you answered the questions in my post above, I would have a better understanding. Please feel free to amplify or expand as necessary to help me understand.

I'm still not sure what it is you don't understand.

On what basis do you put any weight on statements like these, like the one found in the gospel according to Luke?

Barbarian observes:
You don't have to be a Christian to know the Golden Rule. We call it "natural law" and even those who don't know Him are bound to follow it.

You've previously pointed out that a man called "The Pope" indicated that he was somewhow of the knowledge that ultimate outcomes are similar even for poeple who do not come to believe that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within them".

Well, he's just making clear the tradition of the Church.

(Why do you believe this man called "The Pope"?)

He follows the magesterium.

Furthermore, your words above indicate that one need not believe that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within oneself" in order to understand how to live one's life (morality).

All men, except those with certain neurological deficits, know natural law.

So you are really begging the question of why you orient your life around the proposition that the kingdom of the Christian deity is "within you" at all?

Not at all. I love God, and glorify Him and seek to do His will.

On what basis do you put any weight on experiential evidence to reveal the most important information in the universe?

Barbarian observes:
For the universe, science works better than anything else we can do. For God, you need something different.

But if the Christian deity is "within you",

The Kingdom of God. That's within us.

and if the Christian deity is involved in our lives and our world, then surely this knowledge is part of our knowledge of the universe, so I do not understand your distinction,

Think of Stephen Gould's nonoverlapping magesteria.

nor do I understand what you mean by the "something different" required to arrive at this knowledge.

[/quote:14ncgu1j]

I know. For some reason, some people can't. It's what the church means by those people who "invincibly ignorant." It's not meant to be an insult, it means a person who is unable, for whatever reason, to find God and believe.

I truly wish I could make it easier. But I can't.

 

[AAA]

I'm still not sure what it is you don't understand.

I don't understand what you mean when you write: "don't go looking for the kingdom of God in strange places. It's within you."

As I have written before: What does "open you heart mean", and how does one do this? All you've told me is that you do not mean being open to ideas or concepts...

How do I find the kingdom of the Christian deity "within" me - what am I looking for that I might recognize it, for I don't understand what you mean by the "kingdom of the Christian deity".

I mean, imagine that I told you to "open your liver to find the kingdom of Theo the invisible one-armed dragon within you". Would you have any idea what I meant by any of that?

I'm asking you to transform the mumbo jumbo of "look within yourself for the kingdom of the Christian god" into something that actually means something.

 

[Barbarian]

You're looking for a scientific way to investigate these things. And it won't work. If you're of the opinion that nothing exists but nature, then it's not logically inconsistent to think of God only in terms of the natural, if at all.

But that's not all there is. I can't show it to you as I can show you global warming. If that seems to you as though it rules out God, then we'll just have to disagree about it.

 

[AAA]

You're looking for a scientific way to investigate these things. And it won't work. If you're of the opinion that nothing exists but nature, then it's not logically inconsistent to think of God only in terms of the natural, if at all.

But that's not all there is. I can't show it to you as I can show you global warming. If that seems to you as though it rules out God, then we'll just have to disagree about it.

1. I'm asking you to address the straightforward questions in my previous post: to give the sentences you create a meaning.

2. Its not the fact that you can't show god the way you can show global warming that rules out god. Nor is it the facts that your sentences on the topic have no meaning, and that you avoid answering straightforward questions aimed at providing them some meaning, that rule out god. God cannot be ruled out, but that's no reason to believe in him. Your failure doesn't rule out god, it only completely fails to explain why you or anybody should believe in him.

Have you looked at the accommodations you require for this world view that includes the Christian deity to make sense? You have to believe in the perfect ability of a renewing group of men (never women) called the Pope and the Magisterium to interpret the will, intentions, and desires of the Christian deity, and you even have to believe that belief in the Christian deity itself makes no difference, since even those who do not believe in the Christian deity have a natural moral sense to guide them anyways and are equal candidates for eternal life in the kingdom of the Christian deity. Why bother?

So let me ask you: why do you believe in the Christian deity?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You're looking for a scientific way to investigate these things. And it won't work. If you're of the opinion that nothing exists but nature, then it's not logically inconsistent to think of God only in terms of the natural, if at all.

But that's not all there is. I can't show it to you as I can show you global warming. If that seems to you as though it rules out God, then we'll just have to disagree about it.

I'm asking you to address the straightforward questions in my previous post: to give the sentences you create a meaning.

I thought that's what I was doing.

2. Its not the fact that you can't show god the way you can show global warming that rules out god. Nor is it the facts that your sentences on the topic have no meaning, and that you avoid answering straightforward questions aimed at providing them some meaning, that rule out god.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that my sentences are meaningless, and I'm being evasive, and this rules out God. I don't think He's dependent on my behavior at all.

God cannot be ruled out, but that's no reason to believe in him. Your failure doesn't rule out god, it only completely fails to explain why you or anybody should believe in him.

Since I don't agree with your premises, can you see why your conclusion isn't very convincing?

Have you looked at the accommodations you require for this world view that includes the Christian deity to make sense?

Never had to worry about that. It all seems to fit rather nicely.

You have to believe in the perfect ability of a renewing group of men (never women) called the Pope and the Magisterium to interpret the will, intentions, and desires of the Christian deity,

Right, but how many organizations do you know that have always gotten it right?

and you even have to believe that belief in the Christian deity itself makes no difference, since even those who do not believe in the Christian deity have a natural moral sense to guide them anyways and are equal candidates for eternal life in the kingdom of the Christian deity. Why bother?

That's a bit like the Inuit hunter, who when told by the preacher that he would go to Hell if he didn't worship God after he knew about him. His response "then why did you tell me?" But it isn't really a concern. You see, it's a lot easier to do His will, knowing Him. And He promises us that we will be happy if we do it. And He's kept that promise.

So let me ask you: why do you believe in the Christian deity?

For me, it's pretty much experiential. Faith and experience. I can't give you that; maybe you are familiar with Freud's "oceanic experience." It was his way of trying to make sense of belief that he could not, for some reason obtain for himself.

 

[AAA]

2. Its not the fact that you can't show god the way you can show global warming that rules out god. Nor is it the facts that your sentences on the topic have no meaning, and that you avoid answering straightforward questions aimed at providing them some meaning, that rule out god.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that my sentences are meaningless, and I'm being evasive, and this rules out God. I don't think He's dependent on my behavior at all.

While you have constructed at east one meaningless sentence and you have been evasive, that wasn't what I was saying at all. You cut my quote off before the most important sentence.

I'm beginning to sense that you and I will probably just go 'round and 'round and never get anywhere, so I will try to conclude.

Basically, I don't think you have good reasons for your belief(s). You certainly haven't provided any good reasons for your belief. That doesn't make you belief false. It's just, in my opinion, not justified.

All you've told me is what you believe (sometimes with sentences that are meaningless), such as in the infallibility of a man called the Pope and a group of men called the Magisterium in understanding the will of the Christian deity, the truth of gospel stories like Luke, that all people have a moral sense called "natural law" by some sort of supernatural influence, etc.

As far as the reasons for your belief, you cite experiential evidence, and faith. I see no reason to consider the former a reliable route to knowledge of the supernatural (see my post in Can God's Existence Be Proven Through Science? under Apologetics) and the latter just means you don't have reasons.

 

[Barbarian]

While you have constructed at east one meaningless sentence and you have been evasive, that wasn't what I was saying at all. You cut my quote off before the most important sentence.

It wasn't my intention to be so, but again, you seem unhappy that I don't share your conclusions, without giving me a reason to do so.

I'm beginning to sense that you and I will probably just go 'round and 'round and never get anywhere,

I think so.

so I will try to conclude.

Good idea.

Basically, I don't think you have good reasons for your belief(s).

Yes, I got that.

You certainly haven't provided any good reasons for your belief. That doesn't make you belief false. It's just, in my opinion, not justified.

Got that, too. I hope you understand why that's not really a concern for me.

All you've told me is what you believe (sometimes with sentences that are meaningless), such as in the infallibility of a man called the Pope and a group of men called the Magisterium in understanding the will of the Christian deity, the truth of gospel stories like Luke, that all people have a moral sense called "natural law" by some sort of supernatural influence, etc.

Actually, the Pope is fallible except under some very restricted circumstances. And infallible human only happened once.

As far as the reasons for your belief, you cite experiential evidence, and faith. I see no reason to consider the former a reliable route to knowledge of the supernatural (see my post in Can God's Existence Be Proven Through Science? under Apologetics)

I understand that is your belief, but I see no reason to think it is a reliable guide to the truth.

and the latter just means you don't have reasons.

Or at least they don't seem so to you. Enjoyed discussing it with you.

 

[AAA]

Enjoyed discussing it with you.

Same here, and I enjoy your posts on evolution around here a great deal.