My responses are in bold type.
7.1
Brent
August 26, 2011 at 5:10 am
“Most religions are false. So what is different about your religion that makes you sure yours is true?”
I think this is a great question. I think the main point is verification of the claims of any proposed religion or God that directly display it as potentially true, i.e., miracles (for if there is no miraculous what basis is there to claim that something is in any degree supernatural?). To use credibility/verifiability of miracle claims would, I believe, rule out the majority of candidate religions/Gods.
So, brent, exactly how can miracles or the claims of any proposed religion or God be directly displayed and verified?
And if something is verified and directly displayed, why would it then just be "potentially true"?
Further, if we could define God as a maximally great being with attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc., it would rule out almost all other candidates (and shouldn’t that, by definition, be what we mean when we say “God”? Otherwise we should use another word and keep looking for the real God).
Are you saying that how a god is defined by humans is the determining factor of whether it is real or not?
7.1
Brent
August 26, 2011 at 5:10 am
“Most religions are false. So what is different about your religion that makes you sure yours is true?”
I think this is a great question. I think the main point is verification of the claims of any proposed religion or God that directly display it as potentially true, i.e., miracles (for if there is no miraculous what basis is there to claim that something is in any degree supernatural?). To use credibility/verifiability of miracle claims would, I believe, rule out the majority of candidate religions/Gods.
So, brent, exactly how can miracles or the claims of any proposed religion or God be directly displayed and verified?
And if something is verified and directly displayed, why would it then just be "potentially true"?
Further, if we could define God as a maximally great being with attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc., it would rule out almost all other candidates (and shouldn’t that, by definition, be what we mean when we say “God”? Otherwise we should use another word and keep looking for the real God).
Are you saying that how a god is defined by humans is the determining factor of whether it is real or not?
