I wonder how belief in my earthly father arose.
Well, apparently no one thinks there are any parallels to how we came to believe in our earthly fathers’ existence and “how God belief arises.”
The first that comes to mind is our being childlike, being like little children, and not demanding things from him. Demanding things like birth certificates and marriage licenses, some kind of proof. What little child does that?
One more childlike attribute is the believing of testimony, and another is not denying empirical evidence.
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Honestly not so much an argument more than a statement I have stumbled upon were someone mentioning that they have done a comparative study on the Bible and other religious texts and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, along with someone else saying they have read the Bible two and a half dozen times and have come to the same conclusion. (Granted the source of these claims come from quora which is imo a questionable source at best) really i just want the truth, although whatever it may be has no regards for one’s feelings.
There has been objective evidence presented (and irrationally ignored by some).
There is Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic too, to which I subscribe pretty thoroughly, I think:
(Repetitive reading in itself does not garner or guarantee a correct perspective.)
If by objective evidence you mean Maggie and rich sterns testimony, wouldn’t that be more subjective since that was their experiences alone and no one else’s?
Dale, you need to move on here. Learn to recognize when receptivity to your repeated overtures about something have long passed their “best use” date. After that there is no point continuing to berate somebody with it when they are just tired of hearing it (even if it was true - and all the more tragic then for having given it non-user friendly packaging). At that point, I think you can safely conclude that further conversation between you and X will serve no good purpose for either of you.
I wasn’t looking for conversation with only ‘X’. He has just been the only one to reply, however, and clearly refuses to recognize objectivity. That’s on him.
That in itself may be telling. When a “conversation” is almost more with yourself (and replying to yourself) than it is anyone else, that should also be a clue for you. Take delight that somebody cared enough to disagree with you, count yourself blessed with the now-added knowledge of where they stand on something, and move on if they don’t appear to be interested in your continued replies. If you want to keep discussing this further (with me), make it a private message.
No, because there are objective facts involved that others can see, and the meaning that ties them together is also objective, not just feelings or imagination.
You want another reply?
Complete and total garbage and nonsense.
Where? I cannot see any such thing, and I am a believer. Trippy doesn’t see it. Billions of people don’t see it!
Objective evidence for evolution! Absolutely. Written procedures anyone follow to get the same results, NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT OR BELIEVE.
Objective evidence for God? NONE! No written procedures that will give you the same result no matter what you want or believe. Heresay and testimony IS NOT OBJECTIVE evidence!
Objective evidence for historical veracity of the Bible? Well depends on what part… Israel did exist… does now. Genesis? No objective evidence. Exodus? No objective evidence. Solomon and David? Limited. Gospels? Almost no objective evidence. Historicity of Jesus. Not bad. All scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.
BUT this is not very important to me when it comes to my religious beliefs. For example scholars think the gospel of John is less historical. Objectively speaking? Maybe so. But I think it tells many of the historical details which the synoptic gospels missed out on!
Firsthand factual reporting is. It is not scientific in the sense that situations can be reproduced at will, but it is about objective facts and objective meanings linking the facts. They reveal a forensic M.O. recognizable to the open and honest investigator.
I will let that stand. It is an interesting reply!
The horse is very much alive, in reality. (You shouldn’t keep beating it. ; - )
The major problem is your misunderstanding of how basic, logical arguments work. You seem to think that if you claim something is factual it makes it objective and empirical. That’s not how it works.
Hey, I omitted the word ‘empirical’, didn’t I?
(Claiming that I’m claiming doesn’t make what I’m claiming false. ; - )
A scientist’s notebook recording such an event before the advent of satellite photography (or even photography itself) would not be considered legitimate, and evidence for the ‘M.O.’ of glaciers and icebergs?