WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[POI]

(In response to post #136)

For some reason, the formatting got wonky? I'm going to provide a series of bullet points. I trust/hope these bullet points (and/or) questions satisfy your well thought out response

- You've already expressed that you cannot prove anything. (I would have to agree). You've already stated that you have a really good idea for your current conclusion. You've also already stated the 'good idea' is not simple for you to explain. You've already stated indoctrination, conformation bias, or cognitive dissonance are irrelevant to what is true; which already goes directly back to me agreeing with you; that we cannot actually prove any of these Bible claims.

- Please remember what this thread is attempting to capture. I'm ultimately asking Christians why they believe? I'm curious and wish to explore them. Sure, you have agreed with some of my statements made in the OP, and also told me it is not that simple to explain yourself. I have no beef with that. But I would imagine that a well thought out Christian, like yourself, would be able to offer a topic; which seems to be of great importance for discussion? You know, like WLC has done. Is this topic complex? I'm sure it is... But can you at least list a topic? Is it indeed the resurrection claim itself, other?

- What exactly counts as 'evidence' for a claim? Does there exist a standard for 'evidence'?

- How can you determine if you are committing a type 1 error here, verses not? Meaning, you think a god indeed exists. He either does or doesn't. This means you are either invoking intentional agency, where there actually is no intentional agency - (which by the way is harmless or benign if incorrect), <or> you are inferring an intentional agency, which is indeed there... This is a dichotomy I'd like to explore. (i.e.) God is there (vs) God is not there. And please bare in mind, I'm not lumping you in with WLC or Venom here. You already made clear that "God no longer communicates, like He once did (etc)". I'm already aware you thought about this long and hard, and did not make a snap judgement, merely like (wind v. predator). BTW, I wanted you to ignore the title of the given video, as it may be (off-putting).

- I've already expressed to you, and/or Venom, that indoctrination is what kept me in the 'faith' for a long time. It wasn't until I finally read the Bible for myself, and investigated the claims myself, that I started to doubt the claims. But the indoctrination, that you already told me to "get over", is always there lurking - (not by choice).

- I never felt the "Holy Spirit" speaking to me in prayer, or other. After a few decades of this, it makes one say, hmmm... Maybe this is another big reason I do not believe -- (the topic of divine hiddenness)? If I do not feel anything in prayer, is He actually there listening? If so, why would He never make Himself known to me, like He apparently seems to with some? Are Venom and WLC really receiving communication from a Holy Spirit, or are they delusional? You stated the Bible does not speak about this topic? Thus, are WLC and Venom pulling these conclusions out of their keister?

I'll stop here. Please do let me know if I missed a topic for further discussion

[We_Are_VENOM]

This topic is asking why you really believe.

I am aware of what the topic is asking.

My interest is to explore the main topic which drives your god belief. Though I'm sure 'first cause' and 'the resurrection' are near and dear to your heart, I have my doubts this is the lynch pin to your god beliefs.

And I have my doubts that any of these probing questions is going to get you any closer to belief, which is ultimately the goal (from my perspective), beyond trying to satisfy an unbelievers curiosity as it pertains to a religion that he/she simply don't believe in...which continues to blow my mind.

We are just starting to touch upon a topic, for which may be the actual driving force for your god belief.

Oh, are we?

1. Did you always agree with the Bible's position on slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, and the gays, (or) did you need to be persuaded about any of these topics by the Holy Spirit?

I have no personal issues with the Bible's position of slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, or slavery.

So I need not be persuaded about any of these topics by the Holy Spirit.

2. When you feel a 'heat wave', I guess this is the Holy Spirit?

Yes, I presume.

If so, how do you know 'heat wave sensation' is His method of communication?

I don't "know". I "presume".

3. Does this mean, when a Christian is whipping their child, keeping a slave, telling a woman not to lead in church, or telling a gay person (s)he is going to hell, and this Christian feels a 'heat wave', this means the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding or rewarding them too?

I can't speak for others in this regard. I know what I felt, and what I presume this feeling to be.

Maybe other people have different feelings.

To further stress this point (my feelings). I recall having a dream that I was in prison (why was I in prison, I don't know).

All of the inmates were in the cafeteria, and we were sitting at the lunch table. And a religious debate began to arise involving me and a fellow inmate...and I began to proclaim Jesus Christ, professing that he is Lord (to the inmate).

And I remember feeling that SAME heat wave, a heat wave with an additional butterflies in my stomach feeling.

What was remarkable about the feeling was, I felt the feeling both in my dream, and in my physical body as I slept.

And when I woke up, the feeling in my body slowly began to wear off...as if I was coming off of a high.

It was truly remarkable, and I contribute it to being filled with the Holy Spirit..God's presence within me.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #141]

You've already expressed that you cannot prove anything. (I would have to agree).

Oh, but there are certain things I can prove. Maybe a better word would be, "demonstrate". I can prove, and or demonstrate we do in fact have the 4 different disconnected sources which all report upon the same exact resurrection. Therefore, while it would be correct to say, I cannot prove a resurrection occurred, I can prove, and demonstrate there would be evidence to support the claims. Because you see, whether you, or others would like to admit it or not, the 4 disconnected reports are indeed evidence. There is a difference between proof, and evidence, and the 4 accounts would be classified as, testimonial evidence, which just so happens to be the most common form of evidence used in a court of law. These reports do not demonstrate, or prove the resurrection, but it would indeed be evidence. The question you are not answering is, what reason do I have to doubt the reports?

You've already stated that you have a really good idea for your current conclusion.

I think the way in which I worded it would be, "I am convinced with great certainty". You know, sort of like Dawkins whom you referred to, and you did not seem to care to dumb down the way in which he stated it?

You've also already stated the 'good idea' is not simple for you to explain.

I do not recall using the words, "good idea"? I will say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

You've already stated indoctrination, conformation bias, or cognitive dissonance are irrelevant to what is true; which already goes directly back to me agreeing with you; that we cannot actually prove any of these Bible claims.

I do not understand what "indoctrination, conformation bias, or cognitive dissonance" being irrelevant, would have to do with being able to prove anything? I mean, one does not have to prove anything in order to be extremely confident in what they believe.

But I would imagine that a well thought out Christian, like yourself, would be able to offer a topic; which seems to be of great importance for discussion?

I believe I have done this, by pointing to the 4 disconnected sources, who report the same exact resurrection, and asked you to explain to me what reason I would have to doubt the claims?

You know, like WLC has done. Is this topic complex?

You seem to want to pin me down to some sort of internal witness which would be my main reason for belief? This is not going to happen, because I do not operate in such a way, as should be evident.

What exactly counts as 'evidence' for a claim? Does there exist a standard for 'evidence'?

I have explained above. We can begin with the evidence I have supplied as far as the 4 accounts. The ball is now in your court, in that you need to explain to me why I should doubt the claims?

How can you determine if you are committing a type 1 error here, verses not?

This is really the first I have heard of a type 1 error. From what I have gathered thus far, type 1 errors have to do with statistics. We are not dealing with statistics. I do however understand what a false positive would be, so if this is what you are talking about, allow me to put it this way. I am not making a false positive, when I proclaim we have 4 different sources which report the same resurrection. I am not making a false positive when I say we have letters written under the name of the Apostle Paul. I am not making a false positive when I go on to say, the overwhelming majority of scholars, no matter their position as far as Christianity is concerned, would agree we do have genuine letters authored by Paul. I am not making a false positive when I say, Paul was opposed to Christianity in the beginning. I am not making a false positive when I proclaim that Paul converted to Christianity. I am not making a false positive to know Paul would have traveled greatly, from town to town, and was responsible for planting a good number of Churches. I am not making a false positive, in order to be certain Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. I am not making a false positive when I am certain Paul would have known, and conversed with the original followers of Jesus, who would have had very close relations with Jesus, who claimed to have been witnesses. I here to tell you, I can continue on, and on. None of these things I have listed would be false positives, because these things would be things I can know beyond any reasonable doubt.

A false positive I could be making would be to believe all these things above I can know (plus many others) point to the resurrection being fact. Well, I think we both agree that there is not a whole lot of things we can know with absolute certainty. However, just as you have pointed out, your friend Dawkins, claims to have a great amount of certainty concerning what it is he believes concerning God, and I did not hear you complain that he could be making a false negative? Sort of strange, isn't it? So then, like Dawkins, I could be making some sort of error. However, just like Dawkins, I have a great amount of certainty in the position I hold.

I can tell you this, all the facts I have supplied above, along with many, many more, point to something. The way I see it is, there must have been those who orchestrated all the facts, in some sort of way in order to deceive, and it was a tremendous success, in that it fooled a good number of folks who would have been alive at the time, along with millions, upon millions of folks down through the years, even to this day. Or all these things just happened to come together. Or all these facts do indeed point to a resurrection. Either way you go here, I think you would have to agree, we are dealing with the extraordinary, unless of course you can supply me with an option I have not thought of which would not include the extraordinary? There are those who seem to simply exchange one extraordinary explanation, in order to except another extraordinary explanation. Or they simply reject what they believe to be the more extraordinary.

- I've already expressed to you, and/or Venom, that indoctrination is what kept me in the 'faith' for a long time. It wasn't until I finally read the Bible for myself, and investigated the claims myself, that I started to doubt the claims. But the indoctrination, that you already told me to "get over", is always there lurking - (not by choice).

You refer to your indoctrination a lot. When you claim you were indoctrinated, are you simply referring to what you were taught as a child? Or are you suggesting there was some sort of brainwashing involved? I was certainly brought up in a Christian home, along with attending a Christian Church, but I do not refer to this as being indoctrinated. The only reason I shy away from referring to it as indoctrination, is because this word carries with it some bad connotations. The word indoctrination can mean, "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically", or it could also simply mean, "teaching; instruction". However, there are those who take it even further than this, as to mean they were somehow forced to accept certain things to be true. Therefore, I would like to know exactly what you mean by indoctrination? Because you see, I was certainly taught, and instructed, but I was never under the impression that I should accept these things, uncritically. I certainly was not brainwashed in any way. In fact, I was brought up in an environment, where we were encouraged to question everything. With this being the case, many people who know me well, will tell you that I am critical to a fault. In other words, I am not easily convinced. So then, do please explain to me exactly what you mean by, indoctrination?

Next, I do not recall, telling you to, "get over your indoctrination"? What I do recall is ASKING you do consider, and ponder, if the indoctrination you were exposed to is blinding you to the actual arguments I am making? In other words, could it be possible, that you have rightly concluded that the only reason you were once convinced, was because you were indoctrinated to believe, and therefore, instead of considering the actual arguments I am making, you simply assume that I must be guilty of the same things, which caused you to believe?

- I never felt the "Holy Spirit" speaking to me in prayer, or other. After a few decades of this, it makes one say, hmmm... Maybe this is another big reason I do not believe -- (the topic of divine hiddenness)?

Or, it could make one say, hmmm? Since I have "never felt the "Holy Spirit" speaking to me in prayer, or other" maybe it would be best if I consider what the Biblical authors have to say about the matter, and maybe at this point one would discover that no Biblical author ever has a word to say about, "feeling the Holy Spirit"? What I would suggest, is that you do a biblical search of the word, "feeling". You may be shocked, as to what you find! What you will indeed find is, this would not in any way be, "another big reason I do not believe". Rather, what you will find is, this would be no reason to doubt in the least.

[POI]

My interest is to explore the main topic which drives your god belief. Though I'm sure 'first cause' and 'the resurrection' are near and dear to your heart, I have my doubts this is the lynch pin to your god beliefs.

And I have my doubts that any of these probing questions is going to get you any closer to belief, which is ultimately the goal (from my perspective), beyond trying to satisfy an unbelievers curiosity as it pertains to a religion that he/she simply don't believe in...which continues to blow my mind.

Well, if your rationale makes sense, then I will have no choice but to consider it... But it doesn't thus far.

We are just starting to touch upon a topic, for which may be the actual driving force for your god belief.

Oh, are we?

I'm starting to think so, yes.

1. Did you always agree with the Bible's position on slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, and the gays, (or) did you need to be persuaded about any of these topics by the Holy Spirit?

I have no personal issues with the Bible's position of slavery, women in church, whipping your kids, or slavery.

So I need not be persuaded about any of these topics by the Holy Spirit.

So the 'Holy Spirit' never disagrees with you?

2. When you feel a 'heat wave', I guess this is the Holy Spirit?

Yes, I presume.

Why do you 'presume' this conclusion?

If so, how do you know 'heat wave sensation' is His method of communication?

I don't "know". I "presume".

Why do you 'presume' this conclusion?

3. Does this mean, when a Christian is whipping their child, keeping a slave, telling a woman not to lead in church, or telling a gay person (s)he is going to hell, and this Christian feels a 'heat wave', this means the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding or rewarding them too?

I can't speak for others in this regard. I know what I felt, and what I presume this feeling to be.

Maybe other people have different feelings.

Others have given me differing reasons as to why they feel the Holy Spirit communicates with them. I.E.

1. Barely noticeable intrusions which appear to be implanted there from an outside force.
2. An innate awareness of God's existence - (a 6th sense).
3. Some hear voices (audible sounds) - as in the Bible or later
4. Speaking in tongues for which the spirit takes over their body
5. (Yours) intense euphoria

How might a skeptic determine which of these claims are actually interventions from a Holy Spirit, verses something else completely?

How do I assess whether or not you are mistaken in your presumption?

To further stress this point (my feelings). I recall having a dream that I was in prison (why was I in prison, I don't know).

All of the inmates were in the cafeteria, and we were sitting at the lunch table. And a religious debate began to arise involving me and a fellow inmate...and I began to proclaim Jesus Christ, professing that he is Lord (to the inmate).

And I remember feeling that SAME heat wave, a heat wave with an additional butterflies in my stomach feeling.

What was remarkable about the feeling was, I felt the feeling both in my dream, and in my physical body as I slept.

And when I woke up, the feeling in my body slowly began to wear off...as if I was coming off of a high.

It was truly remarkable, and I contribute it to being filled with the Holy Spirit..God's presence within me.

Is it possible you again merely experienced a euphoric state, because this topic hits your core belief? Is it even possible it's you, and nothing outside of you at all? If not, why not?

I too have had many dreams where i wake up from the dream, and continue to have feelings outside the dream. Some being very intense as well. Does this mean the Holy Spirit is speaking to me in any of these events?

How do you know a Holy Spirit exists? And how would you know the methodologies, by which the Holy Spirit communicates, if at all?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #141]

You've already expressed that you cannot prove anything. (I would have to agree).

Oh, but there are certain things I can prove. Maybe a better word would be, "demonstrate". I can prove, and or demonstrate we do in fact have the 4 different disconnected sources which all report upon the same exact resurrection. Therefore, while it would be correct to say, I cannot prove a resurrection occurred, I can prove, and demonstrate there would be evidence to support the claims. Because you see, whether you, or others would like to admit it or not, the 4 disconnected reports are indeed evidence. There is a difference between proof, and evidence, and the 4 accounts would be classified as, testimonial evidence, which just so happens to be the most common form of evidence used in a court of law. These reports do not demonstrate, or prove the resurrection, but it would indeed be evidence. The question you are not answering is, what reason do I have to doubt the reports?

As I already asked you many responses ago. Is the resurrection claim falsifiable? I kind of do not think it is falsifiable? How could it be demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the grave? If it was falsifiable, it would have already either been 'demonstrated' to be 'true or false'. Baring this in mind, I ask you...

If these (4) 'demonstrated' eyewitnesses were to be debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would you still be a Christian? If so, then this is really nothing more than a talking point. If not, then I guess we can explore these claims.

I've asked you, point/blank, many times now, why do you really believe? You continue to be a bit cryptic. I kind of don't believe you. I think you have already given the reason you believe, but have yet to reveal it in this thread. Unless you have now changed your mind, which is fine too.

You've also already stated the 'good idea' is not simple for you to explain.

I do not recall using the words, "good idea"? I will say, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

I disagree. I think it is very simple, unless you have changed your mind.

But I would imagine that a well thought out Christian, like yourself, would be able to offer a topic; which seems to be of great importance for discussion?

I believe I have done this, by pointing to the 4 disconnected sources, who report the same exact resurrection, and asked you to explain to me what reason I would have to doubt the claims?

You know, like WLC has done. Is this topic complex?

You seem to want to pin me down to some sort of internal witness which would be my main reason for belief? This is not going to happen, because I do not operate in such a way, as should be evident.

You missed my point. WLC was able to offer the linchpin topic/reason for his belief. I think you have one too. What is it?

How can you determine if you are committing a type 1 error here, verses not?

This is really the first I have heard of a type 1 error. From what I have gathered thus far, type 1 errors have to do with statistics. We are not dealing with statistics. I do however understand what a false positive would be, so if this is what you are talking about, allow me to put it this way. I am not making a false positive, when I proclaim we have 4 different sources which report the same resurrection. I am not making a false positive when I say we have letters written under the name of the Apostle Paul. I am not making a false positive when I go on to say, the overwhelming majority of scholars, no matter their position as far as Christianity is concerned, would agree we do have genuine letters authored by Paul. I am not making a false positive when I say, Paul was opposed to Christianity in the beginning. I am not making a false positive when I proclaim that Paul converted to Christianity. I am not making a false positive to know Paul would have traveled greatly, from town to town, and was responsible for planting a good number of Churches. I am not making a false positive, in order to be certain Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. I am not making a false positive when I am certain Paul would have known, and conversed with the original followers of Jesus, who would have had very close relations with Jesus, who claimed to have been witnesses. I here to tell you, I can continue on, and on. None of these things I have listed would be false positives, because these things would be things I can know beyond any reasonable doubt.

A false positive I could be making would be to believe all these things above I can know (plus many others) point to the resurrection being fact. Well, I think we both agree that there is not a whole lot of things we can know with absolute certainty. However, just as you have pointed out, your friend Dawkins, claims to have a great amount of certainty concerning what it is he believes concerning God, and I did not hear you complain that he could be making a false negative? Sort of strange, isn't it? So then, like Dawkins, I could be making some sort of error. However, just like Dawkins, I have a great amount of certainty in the position I hold.

I can tell you this, all the facts I have supplied above, along with many, many more, point to something. The way I see it is, there must have been those who orchestrated all the facts, in some sort of way in order to deceive, and it was a tremendous success, in that it fooled a good number of folks who would have been alive at the time, along with millions, upon millions of folks down through the years, even to this day. Or all these things just happened to come together. Or all these facts do indeed point to a resurrection. Either way you go here, I think you would have to agree, we are dealing with the extraordinary, unless of course you can supply me with an option I have not thought of which would not include the extraordinary? There are those who seem to simply exchange one extraordinary explanation, in order to except another extraordinary explanation. Or they simply reject what they believe to be the more extraordinary.

Remember when I told you, many responses back, there is nothing new under the sun? Congratulations, you have just given me a re-worked (Lord Liar Lunatic) trilemma argument. Where in this case, you are attempting to get me to discount the "Liar" option. I don't think virtually any man made collection of writings, about their god's, were written in such a way to deceive an audience. Well, maybe some? But that's debatable as well.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. Let's assume we have (4) bonafide eyewitnesses to a 'supernatural' event. Where these witnesses properly deposed/cross examined, or was there any reall follow up at all? If so, what was concluded exactly? You seem to want to continually bring the courts into this conversation... Were these proclaimed eyewitnesses properly questioned about what they saw by the opposing lead council? If so, what was revealed? "Evidence" please?

Informally, I'm cross examining "Venom" regarding him "being a direct witness to the Holy Spirit" right now. Does this mean we have a genuine witness to the Holy Spirit? Or is he lying to me? Or other? You tell me? Your current argument is 'interesting', quite frankly.

And in regards to the whole 'false positive' topic, is it possible these (4) eyewitness are invoking their own 'false positives' - (possibly like "Venom")? If not, why not?

- I've already expressed to you, and/or Venom, that indoctrination is what kept me in the 'faith' for a long time. It wasn't until I finally read the Bible for myself, and investigated the claims myself, that I started to doubt the claims. But the indoctrination, that you already told me to "get over", is always there lurking - (not by choice).

You refer to your indoctrination a lot. When you claim you were indoctrinated, are you simply referring to what you were taught as a child?

Yes. From the earliest memories, until my teenage years mostly. I accepted the assertion uncritically until I decided to explore for myself a few years ago. By uncritically, I mean I never read the Bible myself. I took the word of the people I trusted most. Kind of like what I do now with specific science topics for which I do not fully understand. I figure they have put in the work, and have come up with reasonable conclusions; unless I can demonstrate they possess direct cognitive dissonance?

I wasn't forced to accept anything. I was exposed to perpetual repetition from people I trusted most.

- I never felt the "Holy Spirit" speaking to me in prayer, or other. After a few decades of this, it makes one say, hmmm... Maybe this is another big reason I do not believe -- (the topic of divine hiddenness)?

Or, it could make one say, hmmm? Since I have "never felt the "Holy Spirit" speaking to me in prayer, or other" maybe it would be best if I consider what the Biblical authors have to say about the matter, and maybe at this point one would discover that no Biblical author ever has a word to say about, "feeling the Holy Spirit"? What I would suggest, is that you do a biblical search of the word, "feeling". You may be shocked, as to what you find! What you will indeed find is, this would not in any way be, "another big reason I do not believe". Rather, what you will find is, this would be no reason to doubt in the least.

As I already asked you... Are well read Bible believers pulling this specific conclusion out of their keister? Other?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well, if your rationale makes sense, then I will have no choice but to consider it... But it doesn't thus far.

LOL.

So the 'Holy Spirit' never disagrees with you?

The Holy Spirit disagrees with me more times that I'd like to admit.

Why do you 'presume' this conclusion?

Because it isn't as if the Holy Spirit appeared to me and we sat down and had a drink (not being facetious) .

I presume it is the Holy Spirit based on my conscious.

Why do you 'presume' this conclusion?

Same answer as above.

Others have given me differing reasons as to why they feel the Holy Spirit communicates with them. I.E.

1. Barely noticeable intrusions which appear to be implanted there from an outside force.
2. An innate awareness of God's existence - (a 6th sense).
3. Some hear voices (audible sounds) - as in the Bible or later
4. Speaking in tongues for which the spirit takes over their body
5. (Yours) intense euphoria

How might a skeptic determine which of these claims are actually interventions from a Holy Spirit, verses something else completely?

Great question. First off, before we get to conversations about which god, we need to place our attention of the question of "Does god"..

"Does God exist".
Once you establish whether or not god exists in the first place, then we can dissect the particulars of religious claims, feelings, requirements, etc.

Is it possible you again merely experienced a euphoric state, because this topic hits your core belief? Is it even possible it's you, and nothing outside of you at all? If not, why not?

Certainly possible. I attribute it to the Holy Spirit based on the nature of the dream. But it is certainly possible, although I am strong in my conviction that it was what I think it was.

I too have had many dreams where i wake up from the dream, and continue to have feelings outside the dream. Some being very intense as well. Does this mean the Holy Spirit is speaking to me in any of these events?

I don't think so. Let me give you a scenario, lets say that perhaps you are on a quest to find out the truth, pertaining to whether God exists, and you've examined all religions.

But when you got to Christianity, you were presented with certain evidences, which were strongly convincing.

And deep down in your heart, within the very pits of your soul, it dawned on you..and you had sudden thought of..

"Well maybe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior after all, and he died die for my sins and I should give my life to Christ".

And once you conjured this thought, you had a very sudden, deep, euphoric feeling seep into and THROUGH your body.

What would you contribute this feeling to?

How do you know a Holy Spirit exists?

Because the Bible says so, and I have background information which allows me to believe that the Bible is credible, and true.

And how would you know the methodologies, by which the Holy Spirit communicates, if at all?

I would know based on the background information as it pertains to Christianity and the Bible.

Based on the background info, I know that the Lord can make a person feel good and when the Holy Spirit moves you, it has a physical effect that you can only describe to others, but you can't make them feel it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #145]

As I already asked you many responses ago. Is the resurrection claim falsifiable? I kind of do not think it is falsifiable? How could it be demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the grave? If it was falsifiable, it would have already either been 'demonstrated' to be 'true or false'.

Again, before I get started here, allow me to point out, this is another argument you have not come up with on your own. Rather, it is an old worn-out argument which sounds good to the ears, but has no real substance. Whether something would be falsifiable or not, would have nothing to do with whether it would be true. Moreover, it would have nothing to do with if one should believe a claim. You continue to demonstrate one who grabs ahold of these "sound bite" arguments without thinking through these things yourself. The "unfalsifiable claim" concept came from the philosopher, Karl Popper. His idea was, (and btw I believe it was a good one) the field of SCIENCE (not any other field, nor us as individuals) should only deal with theories which would be falsifiable. In other words, science is in the business of demonstrating. Therefore, Popper rightly concluded, science should only deal with those things which can be falsified. Popper was not in any way suggesting, there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe unfalsifiable claims. Rather, there very well may be very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe unfalsifiable claims, but these sorts of things would be outside the realm of science.

Can you see it now? Popper had no intention whatsoever, attempting to make the case there would be no reason to believe unfalsifiable claims. In fact, if there are sufficient facts, and evidence in support of unfalsifiable claims, then there may be very good reasons to believe the claims. Popper's point was, science has no business dealing with unfalsifiable claims, since these sorts of things would be outside the realm of science. And yet, even though Popper intended this idea to be confined to science, there have been those who attempt to take it outside the realm of science, and there are others who seem to be willing to take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

How could it be demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the grave?

I am not suggesting it can be "demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead". I am also not suggesting that it can be "demonstrated" that he did indeed rise from the dead. Rather, I am insisting, there are very good reasons for one to believe Jesus did rise from the dead. If you tell me you do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, I have no problem with that in the least. I also have no problem if you tell me, you simply doubt Jesus rose from the dead. The only problem I would have, is if you would go on to insist, I have no reason to believe as I do. You see, I have no problem with your unbelief, or doubt, and I will not insist you have no reason for your unbelief, or doubt, until, or unless, you attempt to give me some sort of "main reason" for your unbelief, or doubt, which would simply include things such as, indoctrination, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, or that you never "felt the Holy Spirit". You see, none of these things would be any reason to doubt in the least, which is why I have refused to participate, when you seem to want to insist that I give some sort of "main reason" because I understand there would be way more involved than any sort of, "main reason". In other words, if these sort of things would be your "main reason" for your doubt, or unbelief, then you demonstrate you really have no reason at all for your doubt, or unbelief. So then, either there is way more involved to your doubt than you have yet to explain, (which demonstrates my point) or you are demonstrating you really have no reason for your doubt.

If these (4) 'demonstrated' eyewitnesses were to be debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would you still be a Christian?

Absolutely not! Just as Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, we are to be pitied above all people". In other words, Paul seemed to understand the stakes involved, as do I.

If not, then I guess we can explore these claims.

I have been waiting for you to explain to me, what reasons I would have to doubt the claims? Is that ever going to occur?

I've asked you, point/blank, many times now, why do you really believe? You continue to be a bit cryptic.

cryptic
[ˈkriptik]
ADJECTIVE
having a meaning that is mysterious or obscure.

How in the world is it being "mysterious or obscure" to explain to you there would be way more involved than I can explain by giving you some sort of "main reason"? How does that seem "mysterious or obscure" to you? Although it would not be any sort of "main reason", I have offered the 4 disconnected sources, and have ask you what reasons I would have to doubt these reports, and thus far you seem to have avoided this?

I think you have already given the reason you believe, but have yet to reveal it in this thread. Unless you have now changed your mind, which is fine too.

Please do reveal.

I disagree. I think it is very simple, unless you have changed your mind.

I cannot respond to something of which I have no idea what you are talking about?

You missed my point. WLC was able to offer the linchpin topic/reason for his belief. I think you have one too. What is it?

I can assure you that I have no "linchpin topic/reason" for what I believe concerning Christianity, because I understand it would be a lot more involved.

Remember when I told you, many responses back, there is nothing new under the sun? Congratulations, you have just given me a re-worked (Lord Liar Lunatic) trilemma argument.

The "Lord liar lunatic" argument never crossed my mind. The argument you are referring to would have to do with the claims Jesus made about himself, and I have not even mentioned this in the least. Maybe because there are those who continue to demonstrate they rely heavily upon others, by giving us these clever little sayings, sound bites, and talking points which did not originate with them, this causes one to believe the rest of us cannot think for ourselves? However, I did not mention Jesus, nor the claims he made about himself. Rather, I have pointed to the facts, and evidence we have, and came up with the only options I could think of. The options I come up with would all be extraordinary themselves. Therefore, I am asking you to come up with some sort of explanation I may not have thought of, which would not include the extraordinary? In the end my argument was, there are those who seem to simply exchange one extraordinary explanation, in order to except another extraordinary explanation? The main point here is, we have these facts, and evidence for a reason. I am asking you to supply a reason, which would not include the extraordinary? I really do not see how this would compare to the "Lord liar lunatic" argument?

Where in this case, you are attempting to get me to discount the "Liar" option.

Well, no! You do not have to deal with the "liar option" in the least! Rather, what I am asking you to do, is to supply me with another option which would not include the extraordinary. You really need to stop thinking I am relying upon the arguments of others, and actually read what I am saying, because my point had nothing to do with "Lord, liar, lunatic." It had to do with those who exchange one extraordinary explanation for another extraordinary explanation, and if there have been others who have made this argument, I am not aware of it.

I don't think virtually any man made collection of writings, about their god's, were written in such a way to deceive an audience.

Okay? Well, let us take a look at just one passage of many I could use, and you give me the options. One NT author has this to say to his audience at the time,

"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses"

The author is clearly claiming to have been an "eyewitness" who would have been with Jesus. I am going to have to assume, you doubt this report. Since you have eliminated deception as an option, what other option would there be? Because you see, there is a tremendous difference between one who is simply writing about their god, telling us what they believe god would want us to hear, (which could involve the author truly believing what they are saying) as opposed to one reporting upon what they claim to be historical events. The point is, Christianity does not simply involve folks explaining to us what they believe about God, which could involve truly believing what they say. Rather, the claims of Christianity rests upon, claimed historical events. So again, if we eliminate deception in the passage above, what other option do we have?

Well, maybe some? But that's debatable as well.

GOOD GRIEF? Which is it? Is it you, "don't think virtually any man made collection of writings, about their god's, were written in such a way to deceive an audience"? Or do you believe this could in fact be an option? The question is, if the passage above would be a false report, and it does not involve the author attempting to deceive his audience, then what other option do we have?

Let's assume we have (4) bonafide eyewitnesses to a 'supernatural' event. Where these witnesses properly deposed/cross examined, or was there any reall follow up at all?

Again, this sort of question sort of demonstrates one who has a lack of knowledge about what we have contained in the NT. As I have already said, the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been letters addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. With this being fact, it may in fact be the case, that all we have in the NT would be addressed to those who were already believers. Therefore, the audience at the time would have no reason to cross examine the author.

Can you see what I am saying? If I were to write a letter to my wife, explaining some extraordinary event my wife was already convinced of, and I was simply explaining to her what it was I saw, and witnessed, she would have no need in cross examining me, because she knows me well, and is already convinced the event occurred. In this case, I the author would have no reason to write in such a way as to convince her, since she is already convinced.

But let us see what we do in fact have in these reports? One of the authors of what we now refer to as the gospels, tells his audience at the time, whom he referred to as Theophilus, the apostles were going around preaching, and were facing severe persecution for doing so. I think it would be safe to say this would have been the case, since these men would have been preaching that the Jews were responsible for crucifying the long-awaited Messiah. In fact, the life of Paul would demonstrate this to be the case, since he was going around persecuting Christians himself. However, these folks continued to preach these things, even in the face of such persecution. In fact, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, Paul continued preaching well into his old age, and was in prison for years for his preaching. Moreover, we have strong evidence to suggest, the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul for decades, and would have been with Paul, in Paul's old age while he was in prison. In fact, we have a letter in which the author certainly claims to be Paul, and this letter is addressed to Timothy. Also, it is clear from this letter, the author would have been in prison. At any rate, this author just so happens to tell Timothy, "only Luke is with me". You see, in other letters in which the author identifies as Paul, the author mentions the name of Luke as being with him. Then, in his old age, while in prison for his preaching, Paul tells his audience at the time, Luke is with him. Now, I do not know if you would consider this to be any sort of cross examination, but I do not believe it is something which can be ignored.

It is these things, and many, many more, which call for some sort of explanation. If you do not believe these things point to a resurrection, and there must be some other explanation, I have no problem with that in the least. The problem comes in, when, and if one goes on to insist, there would be no reason to believe the reports.

You seem to want to continually bring the courts into this conversation

Oh really? Exactly how many times have I brought this up in "this conversation"?

Informally, I'm cross examining "Venom" regarding him "being a direct witness to the Holy Spirit" right now. Does this mean we have a genuine witness to the Holy Spirit? Or is he lying to me? Or other? You tell me? Your current argument is 'interesting', quite frankly.

I have no way to determine, or examine, if what one thinks they are feeling inside themselves, is actually what they are feeling. However, when we are dealing with the NT, we are not dealing with what the authors claimed they were "feeling inside". Rather, they were proclaiming what they claim to be, real historical events, which they claim occurred in real time, in real space, and in real history, outside themselves. Can you see the difference? The authors, of the letters contained in the NT were not pointing to any sort of internal witness as evidence. Nor were they asking the audience at the time to rely upon an internal witness. Rather, these authors were pointing to facts, and evidence which would be external (outside themselves) such as the empty tomb. You continue to deal with these things, such as whether a person is actually "feeling the Holy Spirit", as if you were to be able to determine what they were saying would be false, would have some sort of impact upon the claims of Christianity, instead of actually dealing with the real facts, and evidence we have. I myself, am not going to waste my time, attempting to determine if what one thinks they feel, is actually what they feel, because it would have nothing to do with it.

And in regards to the whole 'false positive' topic, is it possible these (4) eyewitness are invoking their own 'false positives'

Absolutely! Which is what I want to discuss. In other words, what all would have to be involved in order for these reports to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false? I think when we actually get into it, we are going to discover, it ain't as simple as you are thinking?

Yes. From the earliest memories, until my teenage years mostly. I accepted the assertion uncritically until I decided to explore for myself a few years ago. By uncritically, I mean I never read the Bible myself. I took the word of the people I trusted most.

Thanks for the clarification. I was simply attempting to determine what I was dealing with? I have dealt with some who seem to insist their indoctrination would have involved far more than simply being taught, and, or instructed. It seems then, we had a similar upbringing. I was raised in the Church, and just like you, my earliest memories involved the Church, and I was certainly taught, and instructed. When I became of age (around 19) I simply did not attend any longer because I understood very clearly, I was not convinced in the least, and I was not interested enough to do what it would take in order to become convinced either way.

Kind of like what I do now with specific science topics for which I do not fully understand.

What you say here does not shock me in the least. Rather, it is something I expected all along. It should be shocking to me, but sadly it is not. What this seems to demonstrate to me is, the mind may have changed, but the thinking has not changed at all. In other words, when you were a Christian, you simply took the word of others, and now that you are no longer a Christian you simply continue to take the word of others. This is evident to me in some of the arguments you make, which is simply a repeating of an argument which you have heard, which sounds good to the ears, but has nothing to do with reasons to doubt.

It is absolutely true, that we all may have to take the word of others, from time to time, when we do not fully understand, and this would involve more than just science. As an example, one may be having a problem with their car, and if they do not fully understand how a car operates, they may have to rely on the word of the mechanic in order for the car to be repaired. In other words, in this position, one will have to decide if they want to take the word of the mechanic, and get the car repaired? Or, do they take the time in order to attempt to understand how the car operates in order to determine if the mechanic is being truthful?

However, when it comes to taking the word of the scientists, we are usually not in the position as to have to make a decision, right then and there. Therefore, we are not at the mercy of the scientists. What you need to understand is, I believe in science. I have no distrust in science. When, and if science demonstrates something to be fact, I accept it as fact. There is a difference however, in science demonstrating something to be fact, as opposed to scientists simply giving us their opinion of the facts. My point is, where the scientists are simply sharing their opinion, I am not at the mercy of the scientists to simply take them at their word.

I figure they have put in the work, and have come up with reasonable conclusions; unless I can demonstrate they possess direct cognitive dissonance?

GOOD GRIEF! How in the world would you be able to determine if the scientists would be guilty of "cognitive dissonance"? I do not know about "cognitive dissonance", but I do not believe we would have to do much investigation at all to understand the scientists could be guilty of, "confirmation bias"? WHY? Well, because it is a fact that all of us as humans are prone to this sort of thing. When one becomes a scientist, this does not all of a sudden make them immune to such things. So then again, where science has demonstrated certain things to be fact, we can accept it as so. When they are simply sharing their opinion, it could in fact be possible they may have a certain slant, and or, agenda. In these cases, we are not forced to simply take them at their word. Moreover, when there are a majority of scientists who hold a certain opinion, this would mean there are some scientists who disagree with the majority. In this case, do you simply side with the majority?

As I already asked you... Are well read Bible believers pulling this specific conclusion out of their keister? Other?

You tell me? As far as I know, there is not a passage in the Bible which tells us we will "feel the Holy Spirit". So, we know that are not getting it from the Bible. The main point here is though, you need to stop attempting to determine if one is really feeling what they think they are feeling inside themselves, which would have nothing to do with a reason to doubt the claims contained in the Bible, and begin to examine the real facts, and evidence, which would be external.

[POI]

So the 'Holy Spirit' never disagrees with you?

The Holy Spirit disagrees with me more times that I'd like to admit.

If you are not in disagreement, regarding the topics of slavery allowances, women being instructed not to lead in church, or that you only love your children if you whip them when disobedient, what exactly is it that you disagree with regarding the "Holy Spirit"?

Why do you 'presume' this conclusion?

Because it isn't as if the Holy Spirit appeared to me and we sat down and had a drink (not being facetious) .

I presume it is the Holy Spirit based on my conscious.

Okay? Can you give me a little more here? What about your conscious makes you presume 'heat wave sensation' is the Holy Spirit?

Others have given me differing reasons as to why they feel the Holy Spirit communicates with them. I.E.

1. Barely noticeable intrusions which appear to be implanted there from an outside force.
2. An innate awareness of God's existence - (a 6th sense).
3. Some hear voices (audible sounds) - as in the Bible or later
4. Speaking in tongues for which the spirit takes over their body
5. (Yours) intense euphoria

How might a skeptic determine which of these claims are actually interventions from a Holy Spirit, verses something else completely?

Great question. First off, before we get to conversations about which god, we need to place our attention of the question of "Does god"..

"Does God exist".
Once you establish whether or not god exists in the first place, then we can dissect the particulars of religious claims, feelings, requirements, etc.

I disagree. We do not need to determine if God really exists. We can still go another direction entirely here.

If your God exists, does He use one method of communication, or many? How do you know? What does God tell you? Can you ask Him? Does He tell you?

Is every 'heat wave sensation' you receive a sign from the Holy Spirit, or just some of the time, or none of the time? And what about others, and their differing felt sensations - (i.e.) noticeable intrusions, 6th sense, audible voices, or speaking in tongues? If the Holy Spirit communicates with you, via "heat wave" communication, does He give you a sensation every time you ask Him a direct question and the answer is "yes"? If so, please ask Him for me and let me know?

Is it possible you again merely experienced a euphoric state, because this topic hits your core belief? Is it even possible it's you, and nothing outside of you at all? If not, why not?

Certainly possible. I attribute it to the Holy Spirit based on the nature of the dream. But it is certainly possible, although I am strong in my conviction that it was what I think it was.

What about the nature of the dream? The dream was about one of your core beliefs; the topic of religion. Just like you might or might not have a core belief, as it pertains to other hot topics, such as politics for example. Core beliefs can stir up emotion(s). Have you thought about this critically?

I too have had many dreams where i wake up from the dream, and continue to have feelings outside the dream. Some being very intense as well. Does this mean the Holy Spirit is speaking to me in any of these events?

I don't think so. Let me give you a scenario, lets say that perhaps you are on a quest to find out the truth, pertaining to whether God exists, and you've examined all religions.

But when you got to Christianity, you were presented with certain evidences, which were strongly convincing.

And deep down in your heart, within the very pits of your soul, it dawned on you..and you had sudden thought of..

"Well maybe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior after all, and he died die for my sins and I should give my life to Christ".

And once you conjured this thought, you had a very sudden, deep, euphoric feeling seep into and THROUGH your body.

What would you contribute this feeling to?

If such feelings can just as easily be attributed to false claims, as it can be for true claims, then I would not use as my 'truth barometer' -- "very sudden, deep, euphoric feelings which seep into and THROUGH your body", as a gauge or a basis for my conclusion(s).

How do you know a Holy Spirit exists?

Because the Bible says so, and I have background information which allows me to believe that the Bible is credible, and true.

Where does the Bible say so, regarding the 'Holy Spirit'?
Exactly what background information leads you to believe the Bible is credible and true?

And how would you know the methodologies, by which the Holy Spirit communicates, if at all?

I would know based on the background information as it pertains to Christianity and the Bible.

Based on the background info, I know that the Lord can make a person feel good and when the Holy Spirit moves you, it has a physical effect that you can only describe to others, but you can't make them feel it.

Where does the Bible tell you any of this? 'Realworldjack' might also be interested to know, since he may disagree as well -- (but maybe for differing reasons than I)...

[nobspeople]

[Replying to POI in post #148]

I have background information which allows me to believe that the Bible is credible, and true.

That made me chuckle a good deal! I image there's some type of 'jesus mafia' behind the scenes....
Maybe that's why the RCC has been getting away with 'employing' molesters....?
Inquiring minds, and all that.

To the thread topic:
having 'background information' makes a lot of sense as to why some believe as they do. The need to make themselves feel superior, smarter....better... than others on a specific topic is enticing. But to be fair, this is something very 'human' so it's not only relegated to believers.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you are not in disagreement, regarding the topics of slavery allowances, women being instructed not to lead in church, or that you only love your children if you whip them when disobedient, what exactly is it that you disagree with regarding the "Holy Spirit"?

Reading comprehension, amigo. I didn't say that I disagree with the Holy Spirit.

I said that the Holy Spirit disagrees with me...which is obviously when I sin.

Okay? Can you give me a little more here? What about your conscious makes you presume 'heat wave sensation' is the Holy Spirit?

I can't explain it any better than I already did. Again, I attribute it to the Holy Spirit, and I certainly can't prove it..which is why I said I presume.

I disagree. We do not need to determine if God really exists. We can still go another direction entirely here.

Well, it depends on what is the intended purpose of the conversation. If the conversation is just to satisfy your curiosity (nothing more, nothing less, then I guess we don't need to determine if God really exists.

But if you are a genuine truth seeker about whether or not God exists and are using this convo as a small vehicle to that regard, then this is putting the cart before the horse.

Just my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

If your God exists, does He use one method of communication, or many? How do you know? What does God tell you? Can you ask Him? Does He tell you?

Based on inference...the background info I have in Christianity/Bible being true. So certain things I experience, I attribute it to divinie revelation/orchestration.

Is every 'heat wave sensation' you receive a sign from the Holy Spirit, or just some of the time, or none of the time? And what about others, and their differing felt sensations - (i.e.) noticeable intrusions, 6th sense, audible voices, or speaking in tongues? If the Holy Spirit communicates with you, via "heat wave" communication, does He give you a sensation every time you ask Him a direct question and the answer is "yes"? If so, please ask Him for me and let me know?

All of that good stuff. It isn't limited to one approach...and each approach is something the person receiving it will appreciate.

What about the nature of the dream? The dream was about one of your core beliefs; the topic of religion. Just like you might or might not have a core belief, as it pertains to other hot topics, such as politics for example. Core beliefs can stir up emotion(s). Have you thought about this critically?

I always get a feeling of satisfaction when I do things related to the Kingdom. But that was different. Something very special about it. I dont have a history of getting a feeling when talking about religion, not like THAT one.

If such feelings can just as easily be attributed to false claims, as it can be for true claims, then I would not use as my 'truth barometer' -- "very sudden, deep, euphoric feelings which seep into and THROUGH your body", as a gauge or a basis for my conclusion(s).

Gotcha.

Where does the Bible say so, regarding the 'Holy Spirit'?

Well, one sign and the most obvious sign is (Biblically speaking) is for the person receiving the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues. That is not what happened in my case, but I attribute it to the Holy Spirit.

Exactly what background information leads you to believe the Bible is credible and true?

I am tempted to create a thread on this topic. Or you start a thread "Why do you believe the Bible is credible and true" and I will see you there. Much to discuss there.

I would know based on the background information as it pertains to Christianity and the Bible.

Kind of an in depth subject.

Where does the Bible tell you any of this? 'Realworldjack' might also be interested to know, since he may disagree as well -- (but maybe for differing reasons than I)...

Is Realworldjack a Christian?