How to get reliable informations about God

[Brutus]

Everyone here please just read Oolon Coluphid's brilliant trilogy; Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who Is This God Person Anyway?

It really clarifies a lot.

[A.Saturnus]

If there is purpose is one single thing, then there is purpose in everything.

The purpose of nerve endings is to feel. Therefore there is a God.

Interesting perspective. It may be a little off-topic but we can analyse this step for step.
The implication you have postulated suffers of course from a lack of plausibility. Why should it be so? Further, is it not neessarily false? If it were true would that not require that there are no things that have no purpuse? What about waste? Obsolete designs? Etc.? Should you mean "everything" in sensu composito, it is even more obvious: the purpose of something must lie outside itself, but nothing lies outside everything, thus everything cannot have a purpose.
Your premise is right if unprecies. Nerve endings cannot be said to feel. They contain or carry receptors which react to certain stimuli by causing a nervous impuls. These impulses are used in the brain to generate feelings. This vagueness leads to a problem with the term "purpose". Is it the purpose of nerve endings to feel, or to transmit electric impulses, to let humans function, to optimize gene reproduction success? Which of these? "Purpose" is a man-made concept, it has no precies analogue in the real world. Nerve endings exist and do what they do because of causation, not because of purpose.
Because of these problems, your conclusion must remain in doubt.

[Roark]

I think the problem with this thread is that, once again, it has returned to using scientific tools to observe a being who exists outside of the measurable universe (the metaphysics getting muddied with science).

I understand that an atheist (of which there are quite a few here) has no other context in which to discuss theology, but it just confuses things for everyone.

People who want to discuss theology should discuss theology. People who want to convince everyone that there is no God should maybe just avoid threads like this. I don't mean that maliciously at all, it's just that I think the original point of the thread may have fallen by the wayside...

This wasn't directed specifically at you, Saturnus...

[Byzantine Prince]

I would be glad to talk about theology, but this thread is too simplistic for that. Look at the question, it's ridiculous. How else can you get reliable info on god other then religious writing? I mean the answer is obvious. So I think most of us got bored and started bad mouthing religion.

[Roark]

You use the adjective "ridiculous" a dozen times a week to describe threads, man...

Rather than argue semantics ("How can a matter of faith be reliable, ie scientifically measurable?"), why not just go with the general nature of what the original poster intended to get our input on?

Additionally, it isn't compulsory to post in every thread. If it's boring, why not just find another thread? This board doesn't mean to cater to your specs.

[Roark]

What I mean is:

It could have been a good thread.

We could have been discussing the mysticism (see poll option) of Sufism, and it's contrast to the scripture-focused faiths of Judaism and evangelical Christianity.

We could have talked about differing approaches to the common human purpose of "exploring the Divine".

It only got boring to me personally because a whole bunch of people, with nothing to add, decided to add a whole lot of nothing.

Don't mind me, I'm just having a whinge because I'm actually interested in this stuff.

[ichi]

Right on, Roark

ichi

[Franconicus]

I would be glad to talk about theology, but this thread is too simplistic for that. Look at the question, it's ridiculous. How else can you get reliable info on god other then religious writing? I mean the answer is obvious. So I think most of us got bored and started bad mouthing religion.

BP, thank you for your adjudgement. I will try and do better next time!
I do not think that religious writings are so reliable. If you look at the Bible, the you see the experience people had with life and God. It is very subjective. And often politically motivated. Further more there are some discrepancies there. I do not say that there is not truth in the Bible or that you cannot find it, but it may not be as obvious as you say.
If the people then had the chance to get more or less dirctly in touch with God, why can't we? Or how can we? That was my question.
About the Koran, well, I do not know enough about it (although I bought one 20 years ago).
I think observations and visions are good sources too. Unfortunatelly noone mentioned how he uses them.

If the proovable informations are so poor then most of our believe is - just believe. That is alright! But why then is everybody so upset if someone says it is untrue or makes jokes about it? Comparing Mohammed with Copperfield for example.

By the way! I do know that there is a God. He send me (another) evidence last night: 54 cm / 3,360g. But do not ask me who or what he is.

[Roark]

Congratulations, mate.

[Byzantine Prince]

I do not think that religious writings are so reliable. If you look at the Bible, the you see the experience people had with life and God. It is very subjective. And often politically motivated. Further more there are some discrepancies there. I do not say that there is not truth in the Bible or that you cannot find it, but it may not be as obvious as you say.

Well I don't think I said that the *truth* is obvious in religious writings. I said it's the most *reliable* way to get information on a said religion, because, along with some comments by other religious philsophers(St.Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas), it's the *only* information there is to ever get.

Of course it's all that; politcally motivated, full of discrepencies, cotradictory, and even convolsive. But this is why it's so easy to bash as well, so it's all good.

[Sigurd]

I find the last few posts in this thread quite an upgrade from earlier posts and I think we have reached the core of this word toss. It is clear that human opinion on a matter is seldom reliable. This is even truer with metaphysics. Whether a ball is red or not can be argued, but the ball’s metaphysics is examinable. God’s isn’t. The hosts of metaphysical claims about God should indicate that the sources are not reliable. That is, some claim the ball is red others green and yet another pink. Some say the ball is square which brings us all into hysterical merriment. That the ball is really not there, it is invisible raises our brows and we think; what’s the purpose of a ball that nobody can play with? It’s illogical. Yet the opinions, because that is all they are, continue and we now have a globe with nearly as many opinions as there are people.

What would be reliable?

The answer is simple; it would be direct revelation of a supreme being declaring its identity as God.

Later what seemed simple would no longer be simple because the philosophers of the world would discredit this revelation and explain it as tricks of the mind or they can prove it wrong because of x and y. See there is no match, x and y are two different letters, it is all a hoax.

Well the ball appeared and it is red, says the prophets and it is currently residing in the temple of Solomon. The philosophers laugh and parry with; there is no temple of Solomon and hence you are wrong. Besides, the ball is invisible and has always been so, and further the ball is an enemy of matter because matter is evil. Therefore, the ball can not even be here in this physical world. Go away liars!

BTW: Congratualtions on the newborn Franconius.

[Ser Clegane]

By the way! I do know that there is a God. He send me (another) evidence last night: 54 cm / 3,360g. But do not ask me who or what he is.

Congrats, Franc

Finally something nice to read after having to go through some nasty threads

[Franconicus]

Thank you all!

Ser, can my daughter get membership here or is there a limitation about age?
(of course I will not allow her to go to the backroom. )