I "chalk up" every life and every death to "my religion."

I "chalk up" everything that ever has or ever will exist to "my religion."

You obviously are very passionate and intelligent, which I also "chalk up" to "my religion."

Jesus loves His people so much that he died for them, which I also "chalk up" to "my religion."

Jesus came into the world to save sinners like you and me.

How can you tell the difference between a bad man brought to power by god, and one that just got there by himself?

Good, very direct reply. But to what do you attribute the other 10,000 religions???

They made it up, just possibly??? All but mine are made up. Hmm. That's a problem if the potential convert is wielding any appreciation of human nature and probability.

Types of C (by one model):

1. symbiotic - bound up with parental figure (real or imagined)
2. transcendent - project the need to be secure and taken care of onto ultimate being
3. Kaleidoscopic - vacillating around between transcendent and transformative
4. transformative - "I'm split and stuck, need knowledge and enlightenment"
5. transitional - growing sense of no magic supernatural creatures rescuing me
6. Ego Consciousness - creative of self, self-directed, independent-minded

Very, very challenging ... hosting consciousness. Symbiotic transcendence is just what it says. Beyond that is evolutionary stages 3-6. 1-2 is fundamentalism, 3-6 is spirituality.

That's a model. Is it better than faith in some popularized doctrine and dogma?

Good question. Its possible that all leaders require God's "consent" (so to speak) to achieve power.

What is the probability that ALL 10,000 religions are false?

Sidenote:. Where did that "10,000 religions" come from, anyway?

Could you please provide a link so I can have a list of my competitors?

You realise where that leaves you right? Hitler was brought to power by god. ( sorry to go all godwins law on you this early)

Also this is all just a "what if" fallacy. You are positing possible explanations ( involving god) for things we observe in the universe. You are basically saying "What if all leaders require gods consent?" Its just a way of appearing to support your argument, without actually supporting it.

There is no way we can tell whether leaders come to power with or without the support of god.

What is the probability that ALL 10,000 religions are false?


This is some kind of probabilistic argument. It's the same as having 10,000 rumored polkadot fire-breathing pet dragons in 10,000 different garages. We check 9,999. No dragon turns up. Then before checking the last one, you say, "What are the odds that all 10,000 are false? I really believe in this one."

In reality, with each claim that turns out false, the odds go up of succeeding claims being false. Long before we get to number 10,000, we know what we are dealing with: systematized false claims. The true believer, not so sharp on reality testing, is unmoved by what the investigation is revealing.

4000+ active current religions, plus a hundred thousands years or so worth of dead ones.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/1...body_religion/

This really isn't how reality works. Otherwise, science is doomed, as we continually discover that science is incorrect in some way or another.

I'm not "supporting an argument" with my speculations about whether or not all leaders come to power through an act of God in some sense.

I was just answering your question, and I indicated that I didn't have a definitive answer.

I don't think the coherence of the Christian worldview rises or falls based on how the Christian answers the question you posed.



Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

so why should I believe you, or accept your "explanation"?

You didnt answer my question. I suppose its a possible answer, but as above, if you have nothing to support it, then its just so much hot air

I AGREE what I said was basically "hot air". I already told you I was speculating.

In any given case, we humans don't know if an event occurs based on God's "permissive will" or his "will of decree".

I don't think you *should* necessarily accept my explanation.

Ok, so then we are back to the initial question.

You made a claim that

This was a knowledge claim, in reply to a question raised by someone else. You dont get to make a claim as part of your argument, and then later retract the claim by saying "oh, well, I am just speculating, I dont really know". well, you can, but then you are irrational and can be dismissed without consideration.

My question is still, "how do you know? And how can you tell the difference between one that was brought to power by god and one that wasnt"

The reality of the given example, dumbarse. The only way to defend myth as reality is to play stupid ... and apologetics is born.

Right...

So it isn't actually a kind of "probabilistic argument" at all, but rather a special pleading where you just kind of ignore the consequences of your logic and make up convenient inferences based on nothing in particular so that you can reach the conclusion you want to reach.

Got it.

How black can the kettle get? A religious defense claiming the other side is engaging in special pleading and ignoring logic.

You know, when we bring inquiry to a subject, we are trying to find out what is factual and what isn't. That's different than coming to the subject just saying anything we can to defend a position.

A myth tells a story about who we are, where we have come from and where we are going.

Is Christianity a myth? Fits perfectly for some odd reason.

A fable is a story delivering a moral lesson while employing animals as characters.

Is the Bible a fable?

Is rigid clinging to a religious doctrine good, or is it just the exact same thing that all the cults do?

Please show me where I'm ignoring logic.

None of the other thousands of religions is true, but yours is. Based on faith. Which means, based on nothing that you would not rule out the others over. This because the religion insidiously proclaims faith a virtue, when it is not a virtue anywhere else. It proclaims faith as a virtue precisely because it cannot be believed any other way (imo).

(For instance, I have faith my plane will get there safely? No, I want an expert pilot. I have faith no one will break into my house if I leave all the doors open? No, I lock up. I pray and have faith I will heal from my broken bones in a car wreck? No, I go to the hospital. I have faith that money will appear for me? No, I plan and work and save. I have faith that a car salesman will not hide anything from me? No, I get the carfax report. I have faith that my wife and kids will be safe? No, I take steps to try to assure it. I have faith that the sun evolves around the earth? No, we check it. I have faith that everything I read is true? No, I check it. I have faith that ANY OTHER PROPOSITION UNDER THE SUN (OTHER THAN RELIGION) IS TRUE? No, I check it. Am I going to belief this con man on faith? Why not? I have faith that the river card makes me the nuts, so I don't even look at it, I just shove on faith, better yet, I'll just call my stack off on faith when opponent shoves (see no bluff equity there?).) Faith is not a virtue very often, it seems, and it sure doesn't make for efficacious decisions.

Again, I raised my hand in a PHI class one time and proposed faith as one of the inherent goods. Because I had no idea and was indoctrinated.

If you think god set up a system where faith becomes a virtue in that one arena, okay. I mean that sincerely.

You sure dodged a lot pertinent material up above. Let's stop.

Hi there, Fella Gaga.

In my opinion, you are failing to distinguish "faith" from "blind faith".

You are railing against religious beliefs based on "blind faith", which I agree with you about.

But "blind faith" is NOT what the Bible means by faith.

Here is how the Bible itself defines faith:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen." (emphasis added) - Hebrews 11:1 KJV


Faith is basically a synonym for "trust" or "confidence.". But NOT trusting or having confidence for no reason at all.

So you believe that Pol Pot was God's judgment against the Cambodian people? You believe that Leopold II was God's judgment against the Congolese people? You believe that Robert Mugabe was God's judgment against the people of Zimbabwe? Come on.

If I asked you explain why the people of Cambodia, Congo, and Zimbabwe deserved God's punishment more than the people of Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, etc., I don't know what answer you could give other than to say that the ways of God are inscrutable and that it is not for you to decide.

That's a wildly unsatisfactory answer imo. Also, young children very occasionally get eaten by wild animals. Should we assume, in those situations, that God is imposing judgment on those young children?

Thousands of scientific theories are shown to be false, but some are true. What's your point?

Or historical analysis, observation, and experience.

But whatever. You've already shown yourself to not actually care that much about reasoning and logic. You are mostly intent on framing the world in your own terms without any regard to what others are telling you. Your concept of faith is fairly bizarre, and kind of demonstrates the extent to which you are unable to meet people on the terms that they are using.

Could be.

I've never heard of Leopald II

Could be.



You are correct, my answer would be something like that.

Maybe I would quote Job, when he said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."


Why?

Death itself is a judgement. Everyone dies at some point, whether they're 10 or 110 when it happens.