But you're going backwards now and applying modern day criteria to ancient times.

As for the telephone game, Middle Eastern oral tradition is nothing like the telephone game. This is where assuming then arguing hoses your argument and you want me to depend on arguments?

Here's an expert, Kenneth Bailey, on Oral Tradition explaining exactly how exacting that tradition is:

Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels by Kenneth E. Bailey

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...on_bailey.html

I'm saying that with any belief, including a belief in God, you cannot simply "go by your gut" because your 'gut' has been proven wrong time and time again.

I don't believe that's accurate either.

I used the word gut but you could use the word perception, first impression, etc.

People are reliant on their perception for almost everything they do in life. And people are reliant on their gut for safety. Oprah even had an expert on explaining one time how people get in unsafe situations when they ignore or override their gut.

So now you're telling me that my gut isn't sufficient for making a life or death decision. Because that's what an eternal life decision could be...a life or death decision.

I use my perception all the time for everything but I now have to substitute some "intellectual criteria" over my normal operating procedure.

Do you think God intends us to operate on our own system or some substitute one we may not even be proficient at?

Fine by me.

Yes, humans should be leery of unsafe situations, but this perception can, and should be overridden when more information about the situation is obtained. I'm pretty sure you consider a child's fear of a monster under the bed to be irrational, for instance. Or possibly a fear of all snakes because some can be poisonous.

Considering many people of other religions also feel it in their gut goes to show that your gut is a poor indicator of reality.

You do use intellectual criteria for your normal operating procedure, you just call it your 'gut'. For instance, pretend as a child you were told not to eat a certain wild berry because it's poisonous. Later in life you see a similar looking berry and your gut tells you not to eat it because it might be poisonous. Now, this is a good thing because it potentially saved you from eating a poisonous berry, but it's not an indicator that this new berry actually is poisonous. Given more information, you would gladly change your stance and eat said berry.

Using reason is our own system, and you'll become more proficient at it the more you reason the world around you.

Reason is not the only system.

This forum is just loaded with afficionados of it.

I once had a neurological expert on this board explain how intuition is more accurate in some people than the ability to reason.

Most people make a lot of assumptions about reason without knowing the neurology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a copy of Aver-aging's post on the neurology several years back from a thread I did on intuition:

What you just described is modern psychology's understanding of intuition. Quickly processing subtle environmental cues is the process of intuition. I can't stress how important it is for a person to understand neo-cortical neurology to better understand any neurological phenomenon. The design of the neocortex is hierarchical in nature, and the higher the activity, the more the thought is understood by the individual (or so its thought, at least). Lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy are more sensitive to small changes in the environment because they are less subject to interpretation from other areas of the neo-cortex. That's precisely why logic can actually be inaccurate.

The neo-cortex is a feedback system, and the higher parts of the hierarchy are more reliant on feedback from other levels than the lower, as they receive no direct information from sensory input. The lower levels, however, receive input from both the higher levels (there is actually more connections going from the top to the bottom then there is going from the bottom to the top) and sensory organs. If you've ever watched that special on the man with 'The highest IQ in the world' that is a perfect example of how having excellent logic can be detrimental to one's ability to perceive reality accurately. My guess is that if you looked at his brain it would have a low cell count in the lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy.

Also, its important to mention that some people would naturally have better intuition than others. It all depends on the individuals particular neo-cortical arrangement. It's my guess that having a high amount of direct sensory to low-hierarchy connection/cell count AND having low-hierarchy to the highest levels of neo-cortical hierarchy connection count would result in individuals with phenomenal intuitive abilities.

I mean, there needs to be more research though. This whole field is very fuzzy, and very misunderstood. They need to start dissecting people's neo-cortex after they die (from causes that were not a result of brain trauma or degenerative diseases), while attaining as much personal information about these people while they are still alive and healthy.

*EDIT*

To whoever said intuition is just shoddy logic, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Intuition is so much more than 'shoddy logic'. For some people it's more reliable than actually being logical. For others, its a lot less reliable. It really varies from individual to individual.

Reason and evidence are not the only systems. They are, however, the only useful systems.

Yes, some people are poor at reasoning namely because they don't do it often enough. Practice makes perfect, as it were.

Pot, meet kettle.

O rly? The only useful ones?

Then how come Oprah had a guest who explained how she was attacked when she decided to let her conscious reason override her gut telling her she was in danger.

Didn't you know most people are operating off their intuition the majority of the time. They can't stop and analyze every action of every day before performing it.

If you ask me reason is good for providing explanations after an event. It's probably used by people more after an event than before.

Piper in his book "Taste and See" explains that there's the News and there's Commentators.

"There are preachers and not just teachers for the same reason there are reporters and not just commentators. The reason is that there is news and not merely comment. News begs to be heralded, at least if it's good news. Later it may need to be explained and argued about."

You're not getting it. Intuition is reason based on previous collected information. Once you reasoned something out, it becomes your new intuition until such a time you see fit to reason the problem again.

Now, intuition is useful for the reason you pointed out, namely it's much faster. However for problems in which we are sitting down and discussing, we should resort to the much more accurate tool of reason.

Not buying your predilection for reason.

Everyone reasons but not everyone reasons from the same motives.

If you can't ascertain motive then you ought to be careful who you reason with.

Here's an interesting thread. As I come across more I will link them in this thread so check back, ok?

The Reality of the Resurrection
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...ection-456579/

Motive doesn't matter with regard to reason, the arguments stand on their own accord. That is not to say you shouldn't try to find conflicting data, but that should be true of anyone's arguments, no matter how 'pure' their motives may be.

I don't believe that.

People cherry pick. Sometimes they do it unintentionally but some people may do it intentionally.

In an ideal world you have fair arguments but a lot of people want to win more than they want to be fair.

Of course people cherry pick, and that's why you should try to find conflicting data, and reason out the problem.

~1m³ of quantum foam* and an anti-radiation device**.

Biblical Archaeology
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...eology-855851/

The God Gene
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...d-gene-143283/

A Kind of Evidence and Craig
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...-craig-855856/

The Gospels Historicity and Timeline
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...meline-252402/

Hugh Ross' Evidence with the Probability Numbers:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible

That's just a start.

Let me know if you need more evidence posts. But I think that's probably enough. Enough at least to support the claim I made above that I've been collecting evidence for years.