How is science different then "feeling" God?

[Tart]

How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 138 by Tart]

Ok, well i gave you my answer... The reason I believe is because God has revealed himself to me. From my seeking out answers, the scripture proved to me without a doubt that it is a living message, alive and active, prophetic in nature and having the quality of describing truth. Truth in my personal life, truth in the world around me, and truth beyond. God is clearly a foundation for truth, and I see it through the convictions placed on me from God.

I notice that you don't really have any physical evidence to off though, do you? Essentially, you believe it to be true because that is what you believe.

Well, we can point to all of creation as the physical evidence... In fact, "physical", or "physics" is a work coined as a title of a book which argued that the physical world, and its orderliness, entails a design and creator.

Which this argument is based on science, and the order in nature, reasoning, and truth. Opposed to any specific religion.

"...there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"
... Are words from...
The Physics (Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκ�όασις Phusike akroasis; Latin: Physica, or Naturalis Auscultationes, possibly meaning "lectures on nature")

And this confirms philosophies from many people, all the way up to even atheists, who argue that they need to make sense of why things make sense, why there is order in nature, how truth can come from a designed universe with natural laws...

And this fully supports the idea that God is a foundation for knowledge, which is a Christian claim, and that Jesus Christ is its rock and cornerstone.

However, if you want an evidential claim that is independent of human experience, ill narrow it down for you.

I believe (and FYI, saying "i believe", doesn't nullify something as being true), that Jesus came and lived a ministry showing many signs. He came in the fulfillment of prophecy, and fulfillment of the law, essentially as a missing piece making sense out of God. He was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, and was resurrected (which without a resurrection, we wouldnt even know about Jesus right now)... This isnt only the best explanation for the existence of christianity, its the only reasonable one.

First, how do YOU differentiate between "believe" and "make believe?"

I suppose the same way anyone does...

And second, what then is the best explanation for Islam? Or Hinduism? Or any of the other thousands of religious beliefs that have existed, past and present? The billions of people that subscribed to those religious beliefs, past and present, were just as convinced as you are that what they "believed" to be true, was unquestionably true. Their belief s were the "true" beliefs. And yet they all had it wrong. Because you know without a doubt that your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.

You believe all those beliefs you summarized are false beliefs... Right? So i guess we agree in that sense...

And look, all these religions are different anyways.. It is a fallacy to throw them all in the same bucket as the same, thats a false equivalence.

I mean, whats the best explanation of:
The flying spaghetti monster? It was made up in a Kansas court to mock the idea of religion.
Scientology: created by fiction write L. Ron. Hubbard, maybe as a bar bet
Islam: created by Muhammad, who claimed to have talked to angels alone in a cave.
Hinduism: perhaps created myths of like Krishna

and the list goes on... They all rest on different foundations, on different objective truths, whether that truth is that they were a created fiction of atheists (FSM), or they were inspired myths, or whatever...

All of these things are consistent with the Christian world view. Christianity, tells us that there will be false gods and ideals in the world. That they are non living, created deities, who have no power, nor any all knowing knowledge, or anything like these.

This is consistent with Christianity. It is like prophecy, maybe broad, but Christianity has even more accurate prophecies, like the origins of Islam, and the nature of Islam, is accurately prophesied in the scripture (Genesis 16:9-12).

So the world, as it is, confirms exactly what the Christian design portrays...

I guess, that is completely opposite from atheism which cant make sense out of any of this, other then thats just the way it is...

Another thing I should point out. The very existence of Jesus went entirely unrecorded during his lifetime. So unspectacular were the things that Jesus ACTUALLY did that no one even bothered to take notice and write about him while he was alive. Jesus became a huge star in the years after his death however, based on the stories and tall tales that were being spread concerning the miraculous things he did. Things that seemed to impress NO ONE at the time they were supposed to have been occurring.

So what you are really saying about your beliefs is that is that the resurrection of Jesus makes sense because it fits neatly within the parameters of your beliefs. Like offering us relief from original sin.

Original sin occurred when God, who is omnipotent and knows all things, created Adam and Eve and the serpent with his own hands to be EXACTLY what He created them to be. No error was possible. God put them all in the garden together knowing EXACTLY what would occur, and then condemned both side in perpetuity when His divine plan turned out exactly as He always knew and intended that it would. But then, 2,000 years ago, God came to earth in human form to bleed and die in agony, so to offer humankind salvation from sin. Why?? Because only the shedding of divine blood would relieve humankind of the massive sin of God's original plan. Why? Why couldn't God just forgive humans for falling into his original trap? God's game, God's rules!

But of course, believing this myth doesn't nullify it as being true.

Well your own struggle to logically make sense of God, isnt really determining the objective quality of whether it is true or not... Just that you cant make sense out of it... Which I bet you cant... atheism doesnt really make sense of anything...

Personally i think Jesus Christ made perfect sense out of God... And i agree with you to an extent.. Why do we need to shed blood for forgiveness? This is actually put into place by the Israelite's nearly 1000 years before Jesus... No one really knew why, just that God commanded it... Or the pass over lamb? Why does the blood of a lamb cause an angel of death to "pass over" a house? There is a lot of absurd, unanswered questions coming from the Jews. But then Jesus comes, he fits the puzzle perfectly, (that i see it very implausible to fabricate such qualities). He comes and fulfills the law, and the blood sacrifice for forgiveness, revealing the true righteousness of God by laying down his life for sinners, and praying for the forgiveness of those killing him... This makes perfect sense of such an absurd law, this is God revealing the righteousness of his character that we can look to and imitate. That when people persecute us we can seek to forgive them, and live faithfully in spite of any persecution, even up to death... And we see this exact quality in all the disciples, who died while being persecuted, but lived faithful right up to death... Why? Because they truly believed what they believed... I see no stronger of any beliefs then that of God, resting on his foundation of truth... This is the base of any "base belief".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

And i think the emergence of Christianity is exactly what we should expect if Christianity is true...

From the awaited Messiah, being fulfilled to the exact year prophesied. From the ministry of Jesus, to his death.. Where everyone denied Jesus. Not a single soul believed in Jesus when he was put to his historical death, even his biggest followers denied him when he was on the cross... And why? Becuase when Jesus was put to death, they officially proved to everyone he wasnt the messiah, which is probably exactly what they were wanting to prove... The messiah was suppose to come and rule as king, conquer his enemies, and reign above all... But Jesus came and died... If his historical death is true, there is absolutely no reason a believing Jew should care in the slightest about Jesus, but what do we see? Three days later, boom, the church pops into existence... Why? Is there any good explanation for it? The Resurrection... The fact that no one wrote about Jesus during his life is not out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is why anyone would believe in Him.. Which is explained by the Resurrection...

And what do we see happening? After that, we see devoted believers, who are willing to die for what they testified to, whos lives were changed forever, we can see their rebirth in the letters they write...

And this is exactly what we should expect.. We see them writing letters, not to convince you or me about the historicity of Jesus, but letters written to one another about their experiences, in which they display sound reasoning when they finally make sense out of the divinity of God, and the fulfillment of his law. They write some of the most profound, and revealing letters of all time, which explain in detail the nature of God and His design. Which can be understood with clarity (actually the most clarifying moment of my life was reading their words)... It is a revaluational epistemology, it is revealing.. And we see this in believers today... And then after some years of writing to one another, and communicating with one another about these revelations, they decide to record the Gospels...

I think this is exactly what we should expect of the disciples, who stumbled upon this revaluation only after the Resurrection...

Seems to me, this isnt only the best explanation, but the only reasonable one...

[Tcg]

Here is how you can test if God is true.. By openly seeking God... You can start reading the scripture (the evidence), determining if the Disciples explanations make sense.

Let's see. I've openly sought God, I've read the scriptures over the last 5 decades more times than I can count, and I've determined that the Disciple's explanations don't make sense. I've tested if God is true just as you have described and the result is that he isn't. What else have you got?

[Tart]

Here is how you can test if God is true.. By openly seeking God... You can start reading the scripture (the evidence), determining if the Disciples explanations make sense.

Let's see. I've openly sought God, I've read the scriptures over the last 5 decades more times than I can count, and I've determined that the Disciple's explanations don't make sense. I've tested if God is true just as you have described and the result is that he isn't. What else have you got?

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's truth?

[Tcg]

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's truth?

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's falsity?

[Tart]

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's truth?

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's falsity?

No.. I wouldnt...

[Tcg]

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's truth?

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's falsity?

No.. I wouldnt...

Then you'll understand why I don't accept yours. So, I ask again, what else have you got?

[Tart]

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's truth?

Would you take my personal experience as evidence of God's falsity?

No.. I wouldnt...

Then you'll understand why I don't accept yours. So, I ask again, what else have you got?

You can read above for objective evidence.

[Tcg]

You can read above for objective evidence.

I have read above and haven't found any objective evidence. Care to add something you think would be convincing?

[Tart]

You can read above for objective evidence.

I have read above and haven't found any objective evidence. Care to add something you think would be convincing?

No, i think what i said is sufficient...

[Tcg]

You can read above for objective evidence.

I have read above and haven't found any objective evidence. Care to add something you think would be convincing?

No, i think what i said is sufficient...

I have already explained why it isn't. We'll leave it then with your claim to have provided sufficient claims which aren't.