How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 138
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Then you can't trust science about how you got here. You have to rely on faith.
How do you independently verify origins?
Again, you are here because of only a few possibilities of origins. Either a mindful Being is responsible or some illogical, unreasoning chance happenstance is irresponsible, or you are living an illusion.
Again atheism is not science and even if it were our current scientific models do not explain the origins of the universe. I am not  putting forward any particular hypothesis either. I merely do not accept your hypothesis. What is it about the words "I don't know" that make you so uncomfortable anyway? And how exactly does it clear up the mystery to appeal to a bigger mystery?
Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews. 
Yes, it is. It has the same basis any other belief system has. It tries to answer life's ultimate or basic questions such as why are we here? What or who are we, what does it matter, and what happens to us when we die.
Atheism is not an attempt to answer any of those questions. Atheism is not an attempt to answer any questions. It is only a lack of belief nothing more. Being an atheist does not mean that you must accept science. It does not even guarantee  that you will be nonreligious as there are religions with no deity. I would venture that even most atheists that do accept science are not atheists because science is a good way to discover knowledge but because religion is not. 
you chose to believe
Beliefs are not a choice. I do not choose to be unconvinced by your arguments they are simply unconvincing to me.
How you look at existence shapes how you look at everything else.
Existence isn't everything? What else is there?
There is reasonable evidence for Christianity.
By this I take it you mean the claims made by the bible and not just that evidence exists for the existence of the Christian religion and so I will address it as such. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable a thing being written down does not make it true and having an accurate prediction about a future event does not inform us on the source of the prediction or even guarantee any special insight on the part of the predictor. 

Is there some other evidence that I am missing?
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible claims
I do not care about claims I care about sufficient evidence. Any claim which cannot be demonstrated can and should be dismissed.
I have no idea what avoltronism means.
It is the belief that Voltron the galaxy defending robot made of smaller robot lions does not exist outside of fiction. It is not a worldview it is just a lack of belief on a particular issue. If however you can demonstrate Voltron I will have no choice but to accept him. At the moment however I reject him in much the same way and for much the same reasons that I reject god(s)
#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
I am also an abigfootist and an alocknessmonsterist of you would like to discuss those issues. 
#34
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians. 

Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.

In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.

Have you heard what begging the question is? It’s when the premise(s) that is meant to support an argument already assumes that the conclusion is true. If you start from a place where the conclusion being argued is already assumed true, then you're not really making an argument at all. There is no supporting evidence.

There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth. 
#35
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible claims
I do not care about claims I care about sufficient evidence. Any claim which cannot be demonstrated can and should be dismissed.
You are under the impression that the Bible is not evidenced-based. Not only that, you will not listen to or agree with the evidence. It is a waste of my time.

I would start with prophecy as reasonable evidence. 

I have no idea what avoltronism means.
It is the belief that Voltron the galaxy defending robot made of smaller robot lions does not exist outside of fiction. It is not a worldview it is just a lack of belief on a particular issue. If however you can demonstrate Voltron I will have no choice but to accept him. At the moment however I reject him in much the same way and for much the same reasons that I reject god(s)



#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
prophecy as reasonable evidence. 

Having an accurate prediction about a future event does not inform us on the source of the prediction or even guarantee any special insight on the part of the predictor. We have discussed this before. Christianity is far from the only religion that claims to have true fulfilled prophecies. What makes your prophecies more impressive than the fulfilled prophecies of jainism for example?
#37
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
People that believe or not, in God areeeeeeeeeee.
BRILLIANT Religious group pickers FULL STOP
#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
And religions that are true or not are brilliant people group pickers. Just look at Constantine eh? Eh? What do you think of him Deb. Wild arse hair and boom. Everyone in Europe is Christian sure as falling out of a plane!
#39
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Not meaning to be rude or nothing buttttt. 
I reckon you would pick the wrong religious group atleaest 8 times before picking the correct one. you know what I mean Sec?.

Ok I am just going to say it.

Hey secular Merlin. I reckon you would be a lousy religious group picker.
Bommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  I said it. 
Good day.





#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh probably would mate! I'd pick the wrong one even if it was at the bottom of a pint.

In fact chose a few wrong ones.

Good game.

Topic's author
#41
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all startsomewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth. 
Okay, let’s say you want to prove that God exists. You don’t start your argument by assuming that God already exists. Do you understand? It’s begging the question. You can’t have your foundation be ‘God exists’ when that’s the case you’re trying to build. You’re jumping the gun. 

Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?
#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
In the first place God is not known by faith. In the Bible, faith is never used as a means or a tool to know God. In the NT faith is used for the way that people respond to what God has done.  This is quite different from belief in God.  In the bible God is ASSUMED or PRESUMED to be true.  There is never any question as to his existence or not.  The Bible never asks people to have faith that God exists. That is simply a nonsense from the Biblical position.   It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out. 

Similarly today Christians never ask non-believers to just have faith to believe that God exists. That would be a nonsense position. We don't know God by belief. 

Secondly, the fact or the reality of God is and must be understood as an axiom. Axiom is not faith based. It is presumption based. It is unprovable although not unquestionable.  For instance - reason is also an axiom. As is experience.  How do we prove reason as an axiom? We cannot. Can we question it?  Of course. Similarly for experience. How does one possible prove logic or reason as a basis for anything? In other words, can we use logic to prove logic? Nonsense!. Logic and reason are good things. As is experience. But both can ultimately lead us into despair. 

Think of the dilemma by Zeno. For an arrow to move it must move either where it is , or where it is not.  If it moves where it is, it will remain standing still. If it moves to where it is not - it cannot be there. Therefore an object or the arrow cannot move. This of course demonstrates that logic or reason has difficulties - significant difficulties.  Yet we still use it as an axiom.  Similarly with experience. One's experience can be quite different to someone else's experience.  

The issue therefore of the existence of God being an unprovable axiom is not untoward or false or wrong. It just means it is an axiom. But it is a genuine axiom that many people build their lives upon for all sorts of reasons. And it works for many people. 

On a debate site - I take the view that God's existence is similarly understood.  Different people will have their opinions which are valid to a point - but at the end of the day - people will need to determine what will be the measure they use to accept or reject other 's people's positions. and for that they will need an axiom - for everyone has an axiom - that can be refuted by another axiom. This is the dilemma. 

Can God's existence be reconciled on a debate site? I think the answer is no. Why? Because people have different axioms and refuse to move from that position. Ironically, a person who takes logic as an axiom cannot change. Nor can a person with experience as an axiom. 

#43
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth. 

Here we go again. We all start somewhere, and that somewhere is "here I am." That's the only fair starting block. You're starting with "Here I am...and so God's there too." There is nothing earned to arrive at, or demonstrably gained from, your addition of small g god. Prophecy is weak evidence: you still haven't told me why the 2014 SI cover predicting the Houston Astros would win the 2017 World Series isn't proof of the supernatural, but some weird non-specific, math twisting stupidity about a temple means an entire screed of myths is true. 
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I think it is pretty obvious that The Truth must precede your existence, because if there is no truth in you existing, there can be no you.


It is not only perfectly reasonable to take God as axiomatic, but it can not be reasonable not to. What is reason bereft of truth? It is a wicked thing, because the spirit that brought us reason is The Spirit of Truth. 
Topic's author
#45
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

In the first place God is not known by faith. In the Bible, faith is never used as a means or a tool to know God. In the NT faith is used for the way that people respond to what God has done.  This is quite different from belief in God.  In the bible God is ASSUMED or PRESUMED to be true.  There is never any question as to his existence or not.  The Bible never asks people to have faith that God exists. That is simply a nonsense from the Biblical position.   It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out. 
What do you mean by “It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out.“? I don’t follow the reasoning.

Similarly today Christians never ask non-believers to just have faith to believe that God exists. That would be a nonsense position. We don't know God by belief. 

Secondly, the fact or the reality of God is and must be understood as an axiom. Axiom is not faith based. It is presumption based. It is unprovable although not unquestionable.  For instance - reason is also an axiom. As is experience.  How do we prove reason as an axiom? We cannot. Can we question it?  Of course. Similarly for experience. How does one possible prove logic or reason as a basis for anything? In other words, can we use logic to prove logic? Nonsense!. Logic and reason are good things. As is experience. But both can ultimately lead us into despair. 
Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

I don’t think an axiom is necessarily unprovable. For example if we both saw a red shirt but one of us said it was yellow because that’s what he’s been taught, there is history and linguistics we could refer to. If he actually thinks he sees yellow, there’s science and technology. Now, what if that axiom was the bases for his world view.

By the way I think you’re conflating axiom with unfalsifiability.

Think of the dilemma by Zeno. For an arrow to move it must move either where it is , or where it is not.  If it moves where it is, it will remain standing still. If it moves to where it is not - it cannot be there. Therefore an object or the arrow cannot move. This of course demonstrates that logic or reason has difficulties - significant difficulties.  Yet we still use it as an axiom.  Similarly with experience. One's experience can be quite different to someone else's experience.  
That’s why it’s useful to find common ground before starting or moving on. Reason/logic is a big topic. The difficulty of reason depends on the individuals. 

Hope I didn’t misunderstand anything.

The issue therefore of the existence of God being an unprovable axiom is not untoward or false or wrong. It just means it is an axiom. But it is a genuine axiom that many people build their lives upon for all sorts of reasons. And it works for many people. 
”...And it works for many people.” I don’t dispute that. Keep in mind this is a debate site.

On a debate site - I take the view that God's existence is similarly understood.  Different people will have their opinions which are valid to a point - but at the end of the day - people will need to determine what will be the measure they use to accept or reject other 's people's positions. and for that they will need an axiom - for everyone has an axiom - that can be refuted by another axiom. This is the dilemma. 
I disagree. As I’ve said, ”That’s why it’s useful to find common ground before starting or moving on.” 
It’s only a dilemma if you make it one. Read the last thing I said to PGA2.0 #41.

Can God's existence be reconciled on a debate site? I think the answer is no. Why? Because people have different axioms and refuse to move from that position. Ironically, a person who takes logic as an axiom cannot change. Nor can a person with experience as an axiom.
Yeah I think your conclusion is based on some false pretences. Hopefully we can create/find some common ground. 

#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all startsomewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth. 
Okay, let’s say you want to prove that God exists. You don’t start your argument by assuming that God already exists. Do you understand? It’s begging the question. You can’t have your foundation be ‘God exists’ when that’s the case you’re trying to build. You’re jumping the gun. 
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you. 

Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.

Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.

You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.

See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins. 



Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?


We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?

My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom. 

As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith. 

God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness. 

And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control. 


#47
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth. 

Here we go again. We all start somewhere, and that somewhere is "here I am." That's the only fair starting block. You're starting with "Here I am...and so God's there too."
I'm starting with somehow I am here. I'm starting with what began the process of me being here, to the beginning of things. What is more reasonable to believe that I'm here because of random chance happenstance or intentional Being? Is it more reasonable to believe that the uniformity of nature is intentional or by chance is sustained, so that we can actually do science? Is it more reasonable to believe that morality comes from a moral and absolute, objective source, or relative subjective beings? If you say the latter then explain why your moral views are "better" than mine instead of just your PREFERENCE. Explain how consciousness evolves from the non-conscious. Explain how the laws of logic that are intangible and abstract are produced by a physical, empirical, tangible universe? What is the simplest explanation?

From a necessary Mind comes all other minds. From the living comes what is alive. From the intelligent, wise, reasonable Being comes other at times intelligent, wise, rational beings. Without God what purpose is there to our lives other than some contingent and fleeting purpose that you choose to create for yourself that in the end means nothing. From a moral Being comes our sense of morality, that there is a good that can be referenced from the best. Without the best how do you ever know you have arrived at the better? Without God, it is just one massive personal opinion and preference that you push to achieve what you and those you can convince like. 



There is nothing earned to arrive at, or demonstrably gained from, your addition of small g god. Prophecy is weak evidence: you still haven't told me why the 2014 SI cover predicting the Houston Astros would win the 2017 World Series isn't proof of the supernatural, but some weird non-specific, math twisting stupidity about a temple means an entire screed of myths is true. 


The 2017 World Series? A mathematical probability that happened to come about despite the odds.

The biblical prophecy including numerous factors regarding both the Messiah and the change of covenants that took place in AD 70 written in different centuries and decades by numerous people, as the claimed, dictated by God - phenomenal!
#48
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Your last notification redirected me to your first post (OP). What do you want me to glean from this and in reference to what?
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?

I get it. You referred to my last comment in Post 41 in your dialogue with TradeSecret.

***

The Bible. Logic. Prophecy. Morality. Uniformity of nature. Why there is something rather than nothing.  Epistemology. Truth. Purpose. 

Those things pop into my mind. 
Topic's author
#50
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you. 

Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.

Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.

You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.

See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins. 
How about I don’t know. I don’t know the origins of the universe if there is one.
If I do think up an idea, I’m not going to claim it as truth as many people do with God.

For me, I think the universe is infinite.

People should be more comfortable saying I don’t know.


We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?

My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?
Hmm good question, hearing a voice inside my head that’s not my own.
How would I know it’s not my mind deceiving me?
Historically many people have done bad things who have heard voices in their head.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom. 
If he did exist, I think he would understand why I would be suspicious about hearing voices in my head. 

As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith. 

God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness. 
If you’re mostly referring to the Book of Isaiah, it’s verses make no claim about predicting anything. The verses do not mention Jesus. Modern scholars do not think there is any OT prophesies about him. They should know more than anyone.

And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control.
What about if I wasn’t the only one who heard his voice? I would start to give in then. Better yet, what if we all saw his powers as well. I would certainly say I was wrong.





Topic's author
#51
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Sorry, I made mistake so I deleted my response. 
#52
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you. 

Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.

Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.

You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.

See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins. 
How about I don’t know. I don’t know the origins of the universe if there is one.
If I do think up an idea, I’m not going to claim it as truth as many people do with God.

For me, I think the universe is infinite.
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters. 

***

How does consciousness come from something devoid of it? 

Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed). 

Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning. 

The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.

When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?


People should be more comfortable saying I don’t know.
How will you ever know? What would be necessary for you to know? 

I contend that it would be God, a necessary and self-evident Being, or else you never will make sense of such things as life's ultimate questions. Being on a site like this (Religious forum) would suggest that you are curious about such things, however. 

I further believe that God (having created us in His image and likeness) has created a void in us (due to our sin) in which we never receive satisfaction unless we perhaps find Him and discover the meaning of life. 

So, you either build your worldview upon God or you build it apart from God. You either believe Jesus or you deny Him. You can't serve two masters. Or as Jesus Himself put it, you build your worldview/system of thinking upon a foundation that is sinking sand. When trials come, the foundation crumbles.

#53
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101

We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?

My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?
Hmm good question, hearing a voice inside my head that’s not my own.
How would I know it’s not my mind deceiving me?
Historically many people have done bad things who have heard voices in their head.
The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey. 

Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.  


Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom. 
If he did exist, I think he would understand why I would be suspicious about hearing voices in my head.
There again, He has given you everything you need to know Him via His word (the Bible). He has given everything we need for salvation/to be right with Him. During the 1st-century, there was a warning for those who tried to add to His word because everything needed was already contained in it. 


As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith. 

God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness. 
If you’re mostly referring to the Book of Isaiah, it’s verses make no claim about predicting anything. The verses do not mention Jesus. Modern scholars do not think there is any OT prophesies about him. They should know more than anyone.
There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment. 


And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control.
What about if I wasn’t the only one who heard his voice? I would start to give in then. Better yet, what if we all saw his powers as well. I would certainly say I was wrong.


Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.




Topic's author
#54
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters. 

***
Humans have had meaning for hundreds of thousands of years before “God revealing himself” and we’ll continue to in the future. I think all animals have values which they mean to attain. Human just have more complex ones.

How does consciousness come from something devoid of it? 
I can only tell you what I think consciousness is. Consciousness is the ability for matter to react to stimuli. That’s it. Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?

What do you think it is? Why do you think it’s special?

Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed). 
  1. Have you heard of the multiverse? I’m not saying that it’s true. If it were true, I think we would have to redefine what the “universe” is.
  2. Matter/particles have combined to create more complex forms of matter over billions of years. We continue to observe this process.
  3. Just incase you’re thinking of bringing up the teleological argument for life on Earth, keep in mind the universe is a big place. Tens of billions of light years across. It is estimated that there is 17 billion Earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Chance is all we need
Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning. 
I think all you’re talking about are ways of thinking. We invent new ways of thinking all the time to explain the world we adhere to.
Questions and answers only apply if there’s someone to convey them.

The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.

When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?
No. I’m saying the universe is eternal without a beginning. Something along the lines of the big bounce hypothesis or something. Yes, I know there’s problems with it.

Topic's author
#55
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey. 

Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.  
But people who supposedly spoke with God (probably with God’s voice in their head) that wrote controversial “revelations“, you believe?

There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment. 
If they’re “types” or “shadows”, that’s all they are, going by what you’ve said...

“Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter”

Did “The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus.” actually mention him by name? 

Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.
Which word? We’re all human.
#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters. 

***
Humans have had meaning for hundreds of thousands of years before “God revealing himself” and we’ll continue to in the future. I think all animals have values which they mean to attain. Human just have more complex ones.
You misunderstand my point. Regardless of how long we have been on the planet, if there is no Mind behind the universe you are living inconsistently with what is behind your worldview - mindless chance happenstance, thus no meaning or purpose. Not only are you looking for meaning and finding it in a meaningless, random, chance happenstance universe, but you are making up mean ----- for what? Before you were born the universe devoid of God had no meaning and after you die it will still have none. What is the point of meaning when ultimately it is all meaningless?

You borrow from the Christian worldview that has meaning and that believes there is meaning in the universe because God has created us humans for a purpose. Not only that, our Christian worldview is consistent with what we believe. Yours, devoid of God is not. Furthermore, when you break it down to its very roots, to its presuppositional foundations that everything else rests upon, it can't make sense of itself logically because the inconsistency is at the heart of the belief.


How does consciousness come from something devoid of it? 
I can only tell you what I think consciousness is. Consciousness is the ability for matter to react to stimuli. That’s it. Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?
How does a rock react to stimuli?

What I understand you as saying is that our minds are the same as our brains (just physical matter), empirical. What you seem to be suggesting is that what makes you "you" is the cumulation of all the physical stimulus and conditioning that is determined by your environment, your genetic make-up, and how your particular molecular structure reacts that is different from mine.

With such a mechanical view how do you determine what is good or right? What is the standard that good is derived from?

Again, I believe as we go down this road of discovering your worldview that it will again start to unravel in inconsistency and contradiction. 

Since we supposedly all originate from inorganic matter, how do we become organic beings? How does that happen?
You say, 

"Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?"

A rock, which is inorganic is not aware of anything. Supposedly, we were at this point in our "evolution" at one time, long, long ago. So how do you explain how something devoid of consciousness, devoid of awareness, eventually acquires those traits of being organic, an organism? Do they just magically appear? They would have to since there is no reason and intent in creating them. So, "once upon a time, a long, long time ago..."

You can hit a rock a billion times against the pavement and still, it will not acquire personhood.

Then you say, "all it is doing is obeying the laws of nature?" Why? For what purpose? Again, there is no purpose there. Not only this, you give personal qualities to something (nature) devoid of them. We obey people. Do we obey inanimate objects? So, again, this is inconsistent and comes with a worldview devoid of God. You keep borrowing from my Christian standards to make sense of anything. You keep taking from a Christian standard to make sense of anything. Your inconsistency, you keep looking at things that are not "personal" or aware "being" as personal and being.


What do you think it is? Why do you think it’s special?
Consciousness? I think it is not only the awareness of ourselves and our surroundings but in the case of human beings the ability to reason, think, ponder existence, love, enjoy, desire, create, discover - the ability to know and be known. I am aware that I am different from you because something makes me "me" that is different from every other personal being. It is not a property I acquire but something that I have always been. As I grow older I am still the same "me" not some other kind of being or some other person. A rock or inorganic material object is not personal and can do none of these things that we as conscious beings do. 

***

What I am saying is that theoretically you can believe such things but in the real world they just don't conform to what we see, witness, experience. All we ever see is minds coming from mindful beings, life coming from the living, personality coming from personal beings. So you live inconsistently. That should tell you something is wrong with such thinking. 
#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101

Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed). 
  1. Have you heard of the multiverse?

Yes. One of a myriad of possibilities. 


    1. I’m not saying that it’s true. If it were true, I think we would have to redefine what the “universe” is.
The point is how will you ever know? Will you go through your entire life and then just before you die someone comes up with another paradigm that totally refutes the one you adopted all this time? Then will you transfer your thinking to another meaningless piece of trivia that means nothing in the grand meaninglessness of a supposed universe devoid of God? 

If there is no God, what is the purpose of finding out all these trivia things? It is inconsistent with meaninglessness.


  1. Matter/particles have combined to create more complex forms of matter over billions of years. We continue to observe this process.
I would say we discover things like laws, that do not depend on us thinking them, but laws describe the order and contain information. The same is said of the biblical God about the universe - it pours forth speech from the Mind of God.

Psalm 19:1-2 (NASB)
The Works and the Word of God.
For the choir director. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.


  1. Just incase you’re thinking of bringing up the teleological argument for life on Earth, keep in mind the universe is a big place. Tens of billions of light years across. It is estimated that there is 17 billion Earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Chance is all we need
Yes, a big place, which would speak to the omnipotence and omniscience of God. It all depends on how you look at it. Again, with God there is a reason and the "why" question is answered, or has an answer and makes sense. Without Him, it's all a guest and senseless. 

When you say "chance is all we need" you can think that but the point is, you don't live your life thinking that. If you did, why look both ways when crossing the street? Just take a chance. Again, you believe things that are inconsistent with the way you live. That tells me something is wrong with such a way of thinking.  


Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning. 
I think all you’re talking about are ways of thinking. We invent new ways of thinking all the time to explain the world we adhere to.
Questions and answers only apply if there’s someone to convey them.
I'm speaking of a way of thinking (a system of thinking) that makes sense of life. Whether you want to do so is not up to me. 


The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.

When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?
No. I’m saying the universe is eternal without a beginning. Something along the lines of the big bounce hypothesis or something. Yes, I know there’s problems with it.



Yes, there are problems with such thinking. If the universe is eternal, how do we get to the present? Everything is the eternal now, yet we humans have a beginning and live like time means something. Not only this, much of scientific opinion and thought points to a beginning of the universe in a variety of ways. That would confirm what the Bible reveals, the universe had a beginning. 

#58
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
3The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey. 

Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.  
But people who supposedly spoke with God (probably with God’s voice in their head) that wrote controversial “revelations“, you believe?
No, according to the Bible, God has left us a record that has been inspired by His Spirit.

for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

What they heard they recorded into writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, we have a written revelation that can be confirmed many times by history as well as other verifications which I will explain a little further under your inquiry into the biblical typology. Prophecy is recorded by one of these revelations from God to a prophet and some time in the future the prophecy is fulfilled in its details. 

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Thus, just hearing a voice does not necessarily mean that voice is God. It could be psychosomatic or self-induced. God confirms His written word to us in history. What we have is REASONABLE to believe.

#59
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101


There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment. 
If they’re “types” or “shadows”, that’s all they are, going by what you’ve said...
Let me describe what a biblical type and antitype is. A type is a physical happening described in the OT, like Moses bringing the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the Promised Land. It is a recounting of a historical event or events that took place in the OT regarding physical people who are said to have a covenant relationship with this God.

The antitype is the spiritual lesson and greater meaning that God put in place by that physical, historical event or action. 

So, in the OT we have God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to put blood on the door frame and headpiece of their households so that the Angel of Death would pass over that household without killing the firstborn (Passover, a lasting remembrance for OT Israel). The sacrificial animal is a lamb and the way it is prepared is significant also. The journey from Egypt to the Promised Land crosses the Red Sea. God is taking His people out of bondage and hard labour that they experienced in Egpyt under cruel rulers. He guides them by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. He destroys the physical armies of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. He provides them with manna from heaven to sustain them. At Mount Sinai Moses receives the Ten Commandments and the covenant that God makes with Israel (that they agree to do). When they later complain because God tells them to go into the land and conquer it, yet they are afraid, God eventually decides that generation will not enter the Promised Land for doubting and disobeying Him. Neither does Moses for striking the rock in the wilderness. For forty years, they wandered about in the wilderness until that generation perished for not believing God.

Here is the antitype (the spiritual reality and greater truth) briefly explained. 

Jesus is the second Moses, the prophet, priest, and spiritual leader who takes His people, out of a land of bondage and sin, on a journey not only to the Promised Land (the heavenly realm and country) but into it. He does this by His blood. He is the Passover Lamb that God provides. His blood is shed by driving nails into His hands on each side of the crossbeam and above His head by the crown of thorns on His head. This journey, like the first Exodus, lasts forty years, one generation. Our crossing the Red Sea is like a spiritual rebirth for believing God and the means He has given us - His Son. Not only this, but the Christian on their journey has spiritual food also, not physical manna but the Lord Jesus Christ, the manna of God, not just the symbol or physical item. At Mount Calvary, at the cross, God, in Jesus, confirms the New Covenant. Jesus' sacrifice has merit that animal sacrifices never had. They had to be repeated every year for the sins of the people by the sacrifice of an animal by the High Priest. Jesus' sacrifice is a once for all time sacrifice. It is that superior, even as His priesthood is superior. Not only this, all the implements and even the tabernacle or outer tent (temple) that God instructed Moses to build were after the pattern of the greater truth, a spiritual truth. After Jesus is killed there is a period of grace of forty years, a transition between the two covenants while God once again brings judgment on the disobedient with the abolition of the Old Covenant in AD 70.   

If you click on each link it will demonstrate what I am saying. This type/antitype can be demonstrated throughout the full physical history of the OT as pointing to Jesus. 

So what you don't see behind the scenes, those trained in the Scriptures see in God's revelation of Himself. I could give you perhaps hundreds of examples that I am aware of. 

Not only this, what is solely applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. That is yet another evidence. What you see as blind faith is an evidential faith. I could also spend days on the evidence of prophecy and why they are reasonable and logical to believe in. 


#60
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
“Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter”

Did “The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus.” actually mention him by name? 
They spoke of Jesus, indirectly, but did not mention His name. 


Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.
Which word? We’re all human.

What we call the Bible, the two testaments. It reveals thousands of times that God spoke, God, said, in some manner or other.