Choosing a faith

Not a chance. And actually a bit insulting really.He has a deep faith confirmed by personal revelation. But his belief is the nice liberal kind that allows for alternative descriptions and is tolerant of them. It's a flexible belief system where even atheists can attain heaven so long as their hearts are in the right place.But given that, he's still interested in confirming his beliefs with "evidence" from science and history and he makes facts fit his belief.We should be grateful, he's a sane, intelligent guy interested in facts and evidence. It's unfortunate that he's not able to process them dispassionately because of his pre-existing beliefs but this is the best we can ever hope to find in a believer.My apologies GDR, that will sound incredibly patronising to you.

There are several steps involved in getting from the original Christian position of how all living things became what they are. The first declaration was that all organisms were created by god a few thousand years ago as we see them now in a single act and that they are immutable.Biology and geology then made it clear that neither of those claims were true and today, with the exception of crackpot Christian fundamentalists, it's accepted that the earth is old and species evolve. You accept this.After 150 years of scientific study we now know an awful lot about the processes involved in evolution right down to the molecular level. The fossil record shows how brain size increased in homo species over a very long period of time. There's been a lot of scientific research into the evolution of the brain (and all other evolutionary processes) and nothing has emerged that gives the slightest indication of external interference in them.You can believe that god guides this process in some miraculous way that is not only undetectable to us but also looks entirely natural, but rational people are forced to exclude a supernatural cause that looks exactly the same as a natural one.So believe what you like but please do not think that - yet again - that it's rational or that there is any equivalence in the two positions, there is not. The story of the resurrection may well explain the rise of the Christian Church. But it certainly isn't remotely realistic. It only needs to be a well publicised story, not a reality. People believe in charismatic leaders and fanciful stories, hence Mormon, hence QAnon, hence Trump.
​

Just as a point of fact. An atheist sees a new born baby and sees a newborn baby. That's it.And it's awesome enough without facticising about the supernatural.
​

The bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories.Unknown men wrote those stories, not even the widest eyed believer claims that a god wrote those stories.Many of the stories in those books are fantastical but are not regarded as metaphor - they are foundational to the belief. But the Jews that were there at the time did not believe those stories, nor did those that later became Muslims. It seems that the majority at the time of the events were not persuaded by them.There are several other books that other religions believe to be true that you do not. You believe the Christian book - or at least those parts of it that you personally feel comfortable with - is true only because it was the book that your parents and culture believes. Had you been born in another place, you would not believe it.We know that the stories were not created until many years after the main character's death by unknown people who did not witness any of them. We also know that they were edited, redacted and collated centuries later by the most powerful empire in the world for political reasons then promoted by another political organisation that grew to be even more powerful and also equally corrupt - the Catholic church.We know that the stories in the books are inconsistent, some are contradictory and its predictions of important future events failed to happen.The evidence that a book exists is not evidence that the stories written in them actually happened. It's the weakest of all evidence.To become credible evidence of actual events the stories need corroborating evidence and given that the most important stories for the believer are so fantastical they need a lot of it. But there is no evidence at all. Here's that fake equivalence again. The bible stories are as factual as news stories huh?I suspect you don't need us to point you to the many ways you could personally and very quickly corroborate the storm story as being factually correct but it does point out the difference between a story and a fact. Facts can be independently verified, mere stories can not be. In principle, the qualifier, “scientific” in that statement is redundant. Evidence is simply evidence and all evidence is observational. What makes it real evidence is that it is independent of the observer. It must be verifiable by others, particularly others that are skeptical of it. What you call “life experience and observation” only become evidence if others can replicate it. What you have is a belief which does not require evidence. What you call evidence is almost entirely confirmation bias.

Had they done so and had they been typed in multiple languages - both old and new - On an indestructible A4 media that we still can't comprehend, there would be a reason to believe that the messages it contained was not simply man made.

I see no point in re-re-repeating what has been said above. I'd just ask you to consider the probabilities of what you've finally chosen to believe, given the objections raised here. Many of the statements you make have an unconscious bias towards a 50:50, 'my view is as good as your view' on any point raised and it's not correct. (Even if it was 50:50, probabilities compound very quickly into long odds)For example, your response to me saying that the bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories was "OK, but that doesn't mean that they are false." I am forced to agree with you but the odds of them being true, given all the evidence against and the total lack of supporting evidence is extremely remote.
The equivalence that you project simply is not there.Even when you accept that your view is in the minority, you qualify it by saying that it is "currently" a minority position, because, of course, you know that you are right and the majority of scholars are wrong - but they'll come around in time.So I'll leave it there. However, I think this is worthy of further work. Why do you pick those particular emotions as needing further explanation? Why not pick anger or hate or jealousy etc?

Show me how.

Possibly some confusion here. You said I took it that you were presenting the fact that people experience emotions such 'beauty, love etc' as evidence of god. It's a common claim. I was asking you why you didn't say that the negative emotions are evidence of god. Now I think you're saying that they are too. Is that right? Is so, why?

Of course there is! It's not even demonstrated that Jesus even existed, the evidence for him being real is very poor. The authors - whoever they were - never met Jesus or witnessed any of the events they wrote about. Three of them copied someone else. Many of the key events in them are make believe and fantastical and some are known not to have happened at all - sermon on the mount is a prime example. It goes on and on. It's a work of fiction.

Right, you hold a completely off-the-wall view on the basis of something you want to believe. That's the basic operating premise. This forum is irrelevant, what matters is the science. Why are you consistently seeking out the extremes? Don't answer, I know.But I asked why you're impressed by some emotions like love and kindness and ascribe them as godly but don't like to talk of their equal and opposites like hate and meanness. Who or what are they down to.​

​Ok, I'd really like to understand this but I'm a way off. I had to go back miles to get to where you first brought it up. To which you replied. When I asked why you choose lovely positive emotions and not the negative ones of hate and anger etc as (non-scientific!) evidence of
god you said that those would do just as easily.So I'm asking both why the existence of any emotion is evidence of god and in particular, why the ugly ones are equally good examples? - although you never use them; you generally find god in a baby's smile or the beauty of a flower. How do you find god as easily in homophobic hate?

You know that is not an answer to my question. Please try again. Why are emotions such as hate vidence of god?

You can't simply conclude - ie assert - that. If you want to make a rational, rather than belief based argument you need to explain why.The scientific position is that emotions - both positive ones like love and negative ones like anger and neutral ones like fear - are evolved traits like all other traits. They're primitive functions with strong survival advantages. They're evident in many animals, not just humans.Emotions are evidence of our lack of free will. We have very little control over them. We can't switch them off so they can have no effect on us. They're reflex reaction to something happening outside ourselves that might harm us or might advantage us. They cause the unconscious release of chemicals in our bodies that change our physical behaviour without asking permission. They have primitive survival advantages but in complex modern societies can also have devastating consequences.I therefore do not understand how emotions are different from any other evolved trait and therefore specific evidence of god.

But WHY? You need to explain why an emotions such as hate is evidence of god. (I use that term because that's what you mean - "god" doesn't mean "Christian God" it just means a god and there have been thousands of them, Christians don't own the term.)
​ Please see message 816, it's actually evidence that free will is a best bounded and limited - we can not choose to react or not react to the reflex chemical intrusions caused by our emotions. It's primitive animalistic behaviour. Why on earth is that evidence of god?

No, emotions are part of having a brain and nervous system.Many organisms - mice for example have been extensively studied - exhibit the same responses to stimuli as humans do using the same brain chemicals - like cortisol, serotonin, noradrenalin, corticosterone, dopamine etc. We are not in control of these hormones, they are released into our brains and make us feel frightened, stressed, happy, depressed etc.They are evolved response:stimuli reactions. Now you're confusing consciousness with emotions. They are inter-related but different. All our emotions are different and have different causes. Mental awareness arrives after the fact, the chemicals are released before we are aware of them. It's pure reflex. You know this yourself when someone shouts 'boo' we react, then think.
​ Anger is absolutely instinctive. Read the neuroscience. It's controlled mostly by the amygdala and by cortisol. The executive, thinking, part of the brain, the pre-frontal cortex is less involved that you would imagine. The science is against you. As always.