Choosing a faith

Ya, you're right. Thanks.

You guys do like to bring up characters that were never meant to be taken as historical and compare that to writings that were written to be taken as historical.

Seeing as how this thread has gone so completely off topic anyway I thought that I would post this. Certainly the best known Christian theologian and historian today in N T Wright.For those of you who might be interested here is a video of Wright arguing for the resurrection. Having read most of Wright's work I have already defended this position myself on EvC.I know we are supposed to post bare links but this is simply a clearer explanation of a position I have already posted. It won't convince anyone here but hopefully it will help to at least give a clearer account of my position. N T Wright on resurrection

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. I agree that ev en though they were written to be read as historical is not make them historical.I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Ya, just the one.

Well, you can compare it to everyone else who has died never to be heard from again.

You keep repeating this. You keep insisting on physical evidence for something that isn't physical. I don't argue against any of the natural processes that exist and which are all that you come up with. But again, just like an automobile assembly line these incredible processes scream out in favour of an intelligent origin. Actually it isn't an external intelligence that made things the way I want them to be. If it was there wouldn't be suffering in this world. I am simply searching for truth and common sense alone tells me that a single cell, let alone sentient life with all that it entails is not through who knows how many separate processes is going to arise from a lifeless planet. All you can do is point to the processes which we do have evidence for.You don't really ask yourself the hard questions. You point to the the numerous views on the nature of an cosmic intelligence. It isn't just different religions but the large differences within any particular religion using the differences between myself and Faith as an example. The point is that there isn't physical evidence that we can examine or test for. It essentially has to come from withing and the world we live in, but at the same time considering the experience and thoughts of others. ..as do you.
​
[/qs=Stile]If you didn't hold evidence as a high enough priority to base the foundation of the position you hold - then what makes you think evidence will change your mind?
The evidence already shows that you are wrong. You're already ignoring it. I've provided millions and millions and millions of papers of evidence showing you this - and you're acting as if they don't exist.I keep saying that processes are evidence of processes.
I keep saying that after looking everywhere, and not finding a deity - is evidence of the non-existence of a deity.[/qs]I don't deny any of the papers that you have supplied. It is simply evidence of how things happened without any evidence of the question of whether those processes were the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not. It seems to me that you are being kinda obtuse in dealing with this.Once again, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 1/ I can't show evidence with either physical or mathematical evidence. I do say thought that it is the common sense conclusion as to the origin of the processes that has resulted in sentient life.2/Assuming that the resurrection was an historical event would lead one to conclude that it is a supernatural event as we know it doesn't happen in the naturally.3/Sure Yes we understand the natural explanation of the processes that show that Thor wasn't necessary, but it doesn't tell us whether or not Thor was ultimately responsible for the processes so that they could happen naturally.
​ ..and once again absence of evidence is evidence of absence. At any rate I agree that there is no evidence, but what we can do is draw our own conclusions of what ultimately is the cause of sentient life and why the world exists as we perceive it.

OK, can you give me an example of non-physical evidence for something that you believe? I suggest that common sense points to the conclusion that life exists because of a pre-existing intelligence. I guess for you common sense suggests to you that life is the result of a chance combination of just the tight base elements. As you can't see definitive evidence for a pre-existing intelligence your common sense tells you that such an entity doesn't exist. There is also no evidence of how the first cell came into existence and even if process that did that could be found, it still tells us nothing about whether or not there was an intelligence responsible for the process. All that is a complete non sequitur. A rock tumbles down a hill and smashes into your car. All you know is that gravity propelled that rock down the hill but you don't know whether it was pushed or not. You can't find any evidence to answer the question so you have to take other things into consideration to form a conclusion that you can't know absolutely what the answer is.

Sure we have examples of the non-physical affecting the physical such as gravity or dark matter.
For an example here is something non-physical that impacts the physical that can't be observed or measured. A guy is trying to enter a busy street and the someone stops to let him into traffic. A couple of blocks later the guy that was let in earlier sees someone else trying to enter the street from the side and because of the fact that he was let in decides that he should do the right thing as well and stops to let that person on to the busy street.We can't really know that the 2nd driver would have let the third driver in without the example of the first driver. It did have an impact on the material world but it can't be observed, measured or even perceived.In the book "The Selfish Gene" Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme". Here is the Oxford definition.

quote:

---

an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.

---

I see God as working in the physical in a similar manner as all of the other memes in our lives by impacting the hearts and minds of people everywhere, thereby impacting the world without leaving any foot prints.

I have never claimed that I know this to be true. Certainly my observations lead me to that conclusion, but I certainly don't know it, and yes it is ultimately belief. It just seemed to me that anything we can't perceive with our 5 senses wasn't physical. I'd be interested in your definition of the word.Obviously they impact the physical so does that make them physical?However I fleshed out what I was talking about in my reply to Taq.

Once again you point to a process as an explanation of why the process exists, but we've been down before.

I exist. The world, and as limited as it is, I have intelligence with a set of moral values. Why is that? I conclude that the most likely reason for that is a pre-existing intelligence. You and others keep pointing to the evidence of how we came into exitance. There is no evidence that can cause us to say absolutely whether a pre-existing intelligence exists or not. When I observe my life and the world I live in, I have come to what is to me obvious, the conclusion that there is a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life regardless of the physical processes involved..

I would say that it is an acknowledgement that there is an intelligence required to produce life, and a growing understanding of the nature of that intelligence.

I completely disagree and as evidence is the fact that there are numerous scientists that disagree that your so called best method does not rule out theism.
I can assure you I am very interested in the truth.

Absolutely. Firstly when He died there weren't any Christians. Also Jesus was put to death by the influence of the Temple authorities and then carried out by the Romans.His message and it's implications are for the world, not just one group.I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. I think that you are essentially in agreement with the opening post, that essentially it is about taking on board the message that it isn't our theology that is important, but it is about having a heart that loves others as ourselves.