"WHO? And what was their evidence for contact?"
The usual suspects beginning with Adam and continuing through the story of mankind. Their names aren't important to me and you probably know more names than I who've been labeled messengers, prophets, divine guides etc. acting as a mirror to reflect attributes of God. I suppose you could consider miracles or reports of extraordinary phenomenon but to me that is just so much theatrics, the only evidence which has any genuine meaning is the message they bring to humanity.
And how was the "evidence" verified? It is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.
I absolutely agree that it is extra-ordinary. Evidence is usually verified by a body of jurors or by one authorized judge and that is the case here. Groups are formed to consider the matter and when/if persuaded form bodies of religious people who then encourage one another to take the issue to heart and judge each for them selves, absent coercion of any sort, as an ultimate test.
"We have written records of "codified morality" attributed to THOUSANDS of Gods and to THOUSANDS of non-gods such as Confucius or Diogenes. Your point??
I was addressing the issue of evidence. Written records exist which attribute the scriptural message to an All Knowing God. That other written records exist is irrelevant.
"Neither superstitious belief not philosophical speculation is evidence. Indeed, the fact that these superstitions and philosophical speculations run and hop all about the warren is sufficient proof that they do not meet experimental requirements."
A belief, when it is universal, is evidence of a condition that is real. All intelligent human beings believe thought is real. We believe it is real, first because we experience it, secondly because it is confirmed by others of our kind, and thirdly because we can study the nature of it. A nihilist philosopher may be able to cast logical doubt on that notion but practical people will continue to be convinced thought is real.
Proof is not the topic, as I understood it, evidence is. Conviction on the evidence, in this case is an individual matter, so proof in the traditional empirical sense does not seem to be pertinent.
"If it is evidential in any credible way why is it not mainstream science??
People position 'mainstream science' differently. In this case, I presume you are excluding scientists who consider the ethereal aspects of existence to coexist with the temporal. If so then you've answered your own question, evidence of God is not available via the limitations of studing the temporal aspects of the universe exclusively.
""Evidence in the form of predictive scripture (warnings and promises) which seems to work out fairly accurately in the affairs of human beings"
>>>Don't embarrass yourself any further, please...
I don't feel embarrassed by that statement but I am not afraid to venture into areas that may cause me some embarrassment. I figure the risks are worth any understandings that may be earned in such pursuit.
""Testimonials from the believing congregations of the world seem to be unending."
>>>YES! CONTRADICTORY testimonials and mass graves for believers using the wrong "evidence"!!
There is a core consciousness that pervades which testifies to will and purpose. It is ironic that religionists can be cruel and heinously brutal, in spite of that. |
