So, You Don't Believe In Sasquatch

@moonbus said
Rather than sidetracking into a discussion of whether the Bible has any more credibility than any other ancient text, let's return to the OP, shall we?

Suppose some prophet, not Jesus, claims to speak with the authority of God, and he says if you don't believe what that prophet says, his God will torture you for all eternity. And now some third prophet, also not Jesus, say ...[text shortened]... ide not to believe all three, just to 'cover all the bases' in case at least one of them is correct?

Jesus not any prophet spoke about hell in detail, the one dying for our sins did that. Hell hardly at all came up in the OT and it is only touched upon by Paul and all of the writers of the NT. The doctrine of Hell is spelled out by God, making it something God didn't give to any Prophet or Apostle.

There are many who claim to speak with the authority of God, in OT times those guys could have been killed, today those who speak in error draw large crowds that like what they hear. Truth is exclusive, if there is a right than all others are wrong.

@kellyjay said
Truth is exclusive, if there is a right than all others are wrong.

Prove it.

@kellyjay said
Truth is exclusive, if there is a right than all others are wrong.

It is your personal opinion that the "truth" about supernatural and spiritual things that you believe in is right and all others are wrong.

@moonbus said
Prove it.

The sum of 2+2 is 4, if that is true any other answer other than 4 is wrong.
You don't see this, what can prove to you anything is right, and if nothing can be right there isn't a wrong.

@kellyjay said
The sum of 2+2 is 4, if that is true any other answer other than 4 is wrong.
You don't see this, what can prove to you anything is right, and if nothing can be right there isn't a wrong.

"The sum of 2+2 is 4" is not a supernatural or spiritual "truth".

We do not speculate about whether "2+2 is 4" is true.

Things like 'There is a divine lawgiver' and 'There is a creator being' and 'I have been "forgiven" for my "sins" by a supernatural being' and 'I am going to go on, after my death, to an afterlife' and 'Non-believers are going to be tortured forever and ever', these are all things that, in your personal opinion, are "true" because that is the belief that your speculation and your learning have resulted in you holding to be "true".

Speculation and opinionating about such things has got nothing to do with "The sum of 2+2 is 4".

@kellyjay said
The sum of 2+2 is 4, if that is true any other answer other than 4 is wrong.
You don't see this, what can prove to you anything is right, and if nothing can be right there isn't a wrong.

Where is your undeniable 2+2 equation that your particular God exists to the exclusion of all others?

The fallacy of your position is the pretext that your sums add up. They don't.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Where is your undeniable 2+2 equation that your particular God exists to the exclusion of all others?

The fallacy of your position is the pretext that your sums add up. They don't.

One step at a time, right now people are even arguing truth is exclusive.

@kellyjay said
One step at a time, right now people are even arguing truth is exclusive.

I stated clearly that 'truth' is unaffected by opinions. (For example, if 'in truth' an apple was green, this would not be affected by your opinion that it was red or mine that it was yellow). - So, if 'the truth' was that God did 'not' exist, nothing you post here would change that. And yes, if God did exist, nothing I say would change that either. So far so good. - But you don't stop there. You take it as a given that God 'does' exist, even though there is no possible way you can assert that with certainty. You may 'believe' it to be the underlying truth but can absolutely 'not' provide the math to prove it, any more than I could to the contrary.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I stated clearly that 'truth' is unaffected by opinions. (For example, if 'in truth' an apple was green, this would not be affected by your opinion that it was red or mine that it was yellow). - So, if 'the truth' was that God did 'not' exist, nothing you post here would change that. And yes, if God did exist, nothing I say would change that either. So far so good. - ...[text shortened]... truth but can absolutely 'not' provide the math to prove it, any more than I could to the contrary.

Well lets examine your assertion that there is no way that can be proven and we can use math for some of this!

Let us look at the number of ways we can have this universe.
1. God created it. This is my personal favorite and the one I believe in. There is some science that suggest the universe has a beginning and that it couldn't be here forever. There of course could be competing views on who created it, but one thing at a time.

2. It created itself out of nothing, for no reason.
Stephen Hawking said, in a statement that contradicts itself.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

3. The universe always was. I believe this is the camp you fall in. This is more or less the most unproveable position there is, steady state or whatever isn't backup by a whole lot I'm aware of, but I'm willing to look at anything.

We can look at the how life started.
1. God did it. Another of my personal favorites and the one I believe in.

2. Nothing outside of natural forces acting with no design, no plan, without intent, or purpose strung together what was needed and maintained it all and even improved it all over time. Lots of assumptions, but NO ONE has can even suggest a way this could happen that could be tested.

3. Space aliens did it. I think Richard Hawkins spoke about this among others.

By the numbers can we even agree in both groups of questions there are 3 choices and among those 3 there are a variety of types of those three. Can we limit things here rule some out and some in?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I stated clearly that 'truth' is unaffected by opinions. (For example, if 'in truth' an apple was green, this would not be affected by your opinion that it was red or mine that it was yellow). - So, if 'the truth' was that God did 'not' exist, nothing you post here would change that. And yes, if God did exist, nothing I say would change that either. So far so good. - ...[text shortened]... truth but can absolutely 'not' provide the math to prove it, any more than I could to the contrary.

If you said it was green and I disagreed you showing me the apple would prove your point.

@kellyjay said
Can we limit things here rule some out and some in?

In short, 'no.'

@kellyjay said
If you said it was green and I disagreed you showing me the apple would prove your point.

Great. Can you show me God?


Look Kelly, we are bound and severely limited by our finite nature. We will never do the math. We simply don't have all the numbers.

@kellyjay said
If you said it was green and I disagreed you showing me the apple would prove your point.

The colour of an apple is not a religious belief regarding a supernatural being or phenomenon. Unlike the colour of an apple or "2+2 = 4", a religious belief regarding a supernatural being or phenomenon is not something you can demonstrate to be true to someone who does not hold the same belief. A religious belief regarding a supernatural being or phenomenon is speculative.

@moonbus said
By examining the evidence.

Which evidence could that be?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In short, 'no.'

Why?