GOD IS DEAD

Okay, I agree if we add in all your ideas about God, then your ideas make sense. It's just, well, too many unsupported, eccentric assertions for me to take seriously. All without any evidence whatsoever, all without anything more than "iano says it's like this" and "iano says the Bible should be interpreted this way".I do not subscribe to what iano says, though.First you need to show God exists.
Then you need to show God dictates what's good as opposed to things being good on their own.
Then you need to show that I am, in fact, rebelling against God (which I'm not).
Then you need to show that I'm actively choosing self-determination (like a drug) rather than choosing it simply because I have no other choice.
Then you need to show that God does actually "own" people, and wants people to respect such bully-like power over them.
Then you need to show that God actually does not give credit to people for their good deeds.
Then you need to show that God does indeed blame evil deeds on those same people.You need to show all these things using reality, not "because iano says so" and not "because iano says the Bible says so", before I even begin to consider that your idea may have validity.And that is just waaaaay too many "what if's" for me to start banking anything on. If you'd like to believe in this world you've created for yourself, that's just fine. I'm still sticking with reality, though, until you can provide even an inkling that what you say is actually true.

I agree with "b)".The "a)", however, sounds like something that is also from "the cults". That's exactly the stuff illusions, delusions and fantasy worlds are created from.I agree that truth can be "self-evident", but illusions, delusions and fantasy worlds can also be "self-evident" in the exact same way.Therefore, when you accept something is real because it is "self-evident", then you cannot be sure it is a "self-evident" truth, or a "self-evident" fantasy. And the vast majority of things accepted because they are "self-evident" turn out to be false.However, if you can convince all other rational people (generally with, but not restricted to, empirical evidence), then you are assured to the highest degree that it really is truth. And you are assured to the highest degree that it is not an illusion, delusion or fantasy world.Taking the time to verify a claim to make sure it is truth can be time-consuming and sometimes very difficult. Generally it's much easier to not bother, but then you risk not being sure that the claim actually is truth.It's up to each one of us to judge the importance of each claim we come across. Important claims should be validated to our highest possible degree. But most unimportant claims don't really affect us if they turn out to be false anyway. In those cases, we generally don't take the time to check for validity.Sometime we come across information that cannot be verified by any means we know of. It is again up to the individual how much they would like to base aspects of their lives on things that we cannot verify to be any more true than illusions or delusions.

What are you talking about? Of course this increases the probability that x is true.If you're on a cliff with 100 other people, and you see a hot air balloon, and no one else does... how likely do you think that the hot air balloon is actually there?Now, lets say all the other people on the cliff also see the hot air balloon... now how likely is it that the hot air balloon is actually there?Neither case is 100% truth, neither case is 100% false. However, when only you are seeing the balloon, clearly the chances that you are mistaken are extremely high. And when everyone else agrees with you, clearly the chances that the balloon is really there are extremely high. This is not a difficult concept, really.Anything else is simply sophistric nonsense. Yes, I understand very clearly.
In the same way cults prime their victims to take their "self-evident" truths.
In the same way people unknowingly fooled by illusions or delusions or fantasy worlds are primed for it as well.There's zero difference. I already agree with you that there's nothing stopping such "self-evident" claims from actually being true. However, there's nothing verifying them either. Therefore, we are forced to recognize that they have the exact same chance of being true as illusions, delusions, and fantasy worlds. And, it's up to the individual to decide how much they want to risk on such things that cannot be shown to be any more trustworthy than illusions, delusions, or fantasy worlds. It may very well be true, but it's a risk that certainly exists, and should be heavily considered by anyone placing importance on such "self evident" claims.

If you're on a mountain, and you see an air balloon, and 100 other people on the mountain do not see the air balloon. Then it is only personal arrogance to believe the air balloon is actually there and that you are not mistaken, or somehow sick. Nothing does. That's the whole point, we're all average people and we all have the same abilities. So, if 1 of us is seeing something when 100 others are not, we have a discrepency.Either 1 person is mistaken, and the other 100 are actually correct.
Or 100 people are mistaken, and the 1 person is actually correct.Nothing but sheer arrogance would make anyone think that it's actually the other 100 people who are all somehow equally mistaken and there's only 1 person who is immune to being wrong. It's ridiculous. It's nothing like flipping a coin.A coin is not susceptable to having illusions or delusions.
A coin is not able to be mistaken, accidentally or not.People are. Of course you can't. Why would you possibly think you could? Do you think you're perfect? Are you so arrogant to think that you are the sole human being that is never, ever mistaken about anything? That somehow, even though all people's minds play tricks on them, and all people are notorious for being fooled by optical illusions or sensory overload, you think that you, alone, are impenetrable to these conditions? Do you actually think your mind and senses are so phenomenally different from everyone elses that you may as well be some sort of super-hero? It's laughably ridiculous.Coins cannot be mistaken.
People can. You can.
Having 100 other people verify your observations makes it highly likely that you are not mistaken.
If 100 other people are unable to verify your observations (or even oberve the direct opposite), it is highly likely that you are indeed mistaken.You're just not that good.
No offense, no one is, we're all people and we're all capable of making mistakes.

And yet, it is. Or, it is as long as you don't keep trying to add meaningless complexities to the example. But, it's not strange at all. It's not strange for 1 person out of 100 to be incorrect (by accident or not). Perhaps I made the example too personal by having "you" as the 1 person. Let's remove you entirely from the example. We'll call the 1 person who is incorrect something cute, like "Mr. Balls".Now, Mr. Balls is just a normal person, just like all the other 100.Mr. Balls claims to see a hot air balloon.
All 100 other people turn to look.
No one else sees the hot air balloon.We have 2 options:Mr. Balls in incorrect, and 100 other people are correct.
Mr. Balls is correct, and 100 other people are incorrect.
Keeping in mind that all these people are equally average, regular, normal folks.What would be "very strange"?1. Is it "very strange" that Mr. Balls made a mistake? He could have saw a bird, a hair out of the corner of his eye, maybe he's making it up, perhaps he's even having some sort of internal brain-malfunction.
2. Is it "very strange" that 100 people all made a mistake and Mr. Balls is somehow immune to whatever is causing 100 people to all make the same mistake? They all could be lying to Mr. Balls for a wonderfully inept conspiracy theory, perhaps they all have a simultaneous blind-spot in their visions exactly where the hot air balloon is... each person from a slightly different angle having a slightly different blind spot that just happens to be where this balloon is. Maybe all 100 of these people are having a similar internal brain malfunction, all at the exact same time, all only affecting just their vision.It is clearly option 2 that is "very strange". Your insistance to the contrary, and assertions that I must be leaving out certain vital information to this scenario are bordering on lunacy.Are you seriously unable to consider the possibility that Mr. Balls simply made a mistake?With all the known issues of how our human minds play tricks on us all the time, you can't understand how 1 person in 100 can possibly make a simple mistake? The hard fact is that you do not understand probabilities. Just because there are two options does not mean they have equal probability of being correct.If Mr. Balls claimed to see a floating dragon, inside a mini-cooper, and the wheels of the car were made of honey... no, there is not a 50% chance that Mr. Balls is correct, just because the claim is either true or false. So, you are assuming there exists an extra-sensory ability that not all humans have. With no way to describe the mechanism of this extra-sensory ability. When there is nothing differentiating your God "sight" from anyone's made up delusion "sight". And somehow this God "sight" only seems to affect the people that agree with your personal view on God and the universe. That somehow this God "sight" only appears in a select few of the poputation, and those few all happen to live in the same area and have the same social atmosphere.Interesting.I accept that this is a possibility. Right up there with all the other unverifiable "possibilities". Like Mr. Balls' floating dragon in the mini-cooper that drives on honey. No. I am simply saying that people are capable of making mistakes. And you seem to be arguing against such a basic, obvious fact.

If your information which support God's existence is unable to convince those who do not believe you, then your information is obviously non-verifiable.If your information was verifiable, it wouldn't matter if anyone believed you or not, because then you could verify it for them.Your non-verifiable information is not a very good indication of anything actually being a part of this reality.

So you're saying we have 2 possibilities:1. Matter is eternal
2. An eternal God created that matter and set it in motion.Or, in other words:1. The matter that we know to be a part of everything we find that exists is actually somehow eternal in it's fundamental nature.
2. Something that has never been shown to exist outside of the imagination actually created our material reality and set it in motion.And then you're saying #1 is impossible, so #2 must be the correct choice, right? I think this is safe to just leave with the readers to decide on their own.You then attempt to show #1 is impossible with: Which is true. Our current level of physics is not capable of fully explaining how (or even if) matter is eternal.But then you just jump right into: Really? All physical knowlege that is possible?I don't see how you're showing this to be true, though. How do you know? Have you actually amassed "all physical knowledge that is possible" and checked yourself? That's gotta be a lot of knowledge. Are you seriously saying that it's impossible for someone to explain something tomorrow just because it isn't explained today?What is stopping someone from learning something that actually does fully explain a fundamentally-eternal nature of matter?Also, on what basis do you actually think option #2 is even an option in the first place? Why should something that only exists in your imagination actually be taken as a serious option for the creation of the universe? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you should show that a God exists before you start saying what this God must be capable of.