So... I Prayed Recently

[possibletarian]

It does not matter what an everyday adherent believes about the religion. They are often wrong because of a lack of education or an unwillingness to understand all the details. Christianity, with its 2000 years of considerable thought expended on every subject has an answer for anything you might think up and for a 1000 things you haven't. So, the answer would be "no" to all three of your points because you would not be able to show that this has been done vis a vis the complete body of Christian thought. In other words, you might trip up some individuals, but you won't succeed in pressing your point against the main body of thought.

An answer, and a credible or satisfying answer are two different things, sure they have spent heaps of time mulling over questions, but they almost all have to invoke an unprovable god.

I could answer every question ever asked if I had a supreme being and I could ultimately say it's that beings will, and that the questioner is being unreasonable (not to mention rebellious) in asking questions.

[Phaedrus]

The more time one spends contemplating god on a philosophical level in no way makes god a reality any more than children contemplating unicorns make them real.

[possibletarian]

In the context of the OT, the ancient Jews had some quite clear displays of God's existence. From the patriarchs, to Moses and the Exodus, to the time of the Judges, to Mt. Carmel, to the Assyrians, etc. etc. No metaphors there.

What we have are stories of god's power, you didn't witness a single one nor can you testify to the truth of a single one of them.
The Greeks and Romans also attributed their god's with great victories as did most peoples at that time.  Also rules and regulations were made up to appease these gods which were proclaimed by 'spokespersons' of that particular diety.

They along with the Jews also attributed military or land losses to the 'anger' of their god and listen to many prophets of their particular religion, the Jews were unexceptional for the times they lived in. Why only a few years ago in the U.S. people were attributing Katrina to god's anger at sin, while across the world people were attributing the boxing day tsunami to Allah's anger that they were not being Muslim enough.

How much clearer to the first century Jews than to raise a miracle-working person they just crucified from the dead. Again, no metaphors in any of that. This is a point often missed: the NT explains why Jesus was the last of the 'major miracles'. It is because God is now available to each person personally.

So the story goes, but what evidence do we have that there are millions of god filled people out there, I believe there are millions of people who believe they have a relationship or a connection with said god in many religions, but personally I don't see the proof of that.  

This is a far greater thing than periodic feats of strength. When one experiences a repair of their broken spirit, it is way better than getting a glimpse of someone walking on water.

#

Yes but I see similar effect in other religions, there is no evidence that christianity is exclusive in that, In fact I've seen the same thing achieved through counselling, and as little as having a good friend to talk things through with.  Which is what a body of believers give you.

Well, you can say that about the books he quoted. There was no such thing as the Old Testament then so you can't just include all the books together in one point.

I don't understand your objection, Paul along with other N.T. writers used what we call the O.T. in writings the teachings about the messiah are justified from those ancient writings. Except of course most learned Jew's just thought he was a rebel, one of many at the time.

[possibletarian]

The more time one spends contemplating god on a philosophical level in no way makes god a reality any more than children contemplating unicorns make them real.

It does make me sad that the so called 'ultimate reality' is subject to a humans inductive logical arguments, in fact the more I hear the less seriously I take the question of god, it's become semi-amusing now.

Oh, and you clearly have not heard of the 'realicorn' who by definition is real.

[SteveII]

What is greater, a Deity that is constrained by the rules of logic or one that is not?

A "deity" that is limited by logic is a limited deity, which isn't all that great and is pretty much a contradiction in terms for a monotheist.

A Deity that is not limited by logic suffers from the Principle of Explosion, whereby every possible axiom is simultaneously both true and false. This is not a problem for said Deity as it is not bound by the rules of logic but will prevent all mortals, which are governed by logic, from ever stating anything meaningful about it. Even the existence of such a Deity would appear to us to be both simultaneously true and false. Any discussion of such a Deity is thus pointless.

That is a nonsensical question. The rules of logic are fundamental to the framework of reality (not the universe, but reality). If God exists, at some point he was all that reality consisted of. So your question is can God break the rules of his existence. The answer to that is obviously "no".

What you mean by reality though is your (human) reality, do you claim to know the totality of god's existence and which of your logical rules it can and cannot break ?  What you can 'possibly conceive' is irrelevant to what god could be, or even if he exists.

And what are the rules of gods existence what does that even mean ?

No, I mean the the rules of logic are part of the structure of reality--of existence. In order for the statement "God exists" to be coherent, we must define existence. You start with things like the basic rules of logic. (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity. As you move out, you have

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

It does not make sense to say that God can tinker with what it means to exist when existence has already been defined by his existence.

[Phaedrus]

Philosophical truths tend to be less realistic and more formulaic toward subjective concepts.

[possibletarian]

No, I mean the the rules of logic are part of the structure of reality--of existence.   In order for the statement "God exists" to be coherent, we must define existence. You start with things like the basic rules of logic. (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity. As you move out, you have

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

It does not make sense to say that God can tinker with what it means to exist when existence has already been defined by his existence.

So that's an extremely long way of saying 'if he exists, then he exists' ?

But how does that speak to anything he can and cannot do ?

[SteveII]

It does not matter what an everyday adherent believes about the religion. They are often wrong because of a lack of education or an unwillingness to understand all the details. Christianity, with its 2000 years of considerable thought expended on every subject has an answer for anything you might think up and for a 1000 things you haven't. So, the answer would be "no" to all three of your points because you would not be able to show that this has been done vis a vis the complete body of Christian thought. In other words, you might trip up some individuals, but you won't succeed in pressing your point against the main body of thought.

An answer, and a credible or satisfying answer are two different things, sure they have spent heaps of time mulling over questions, but they almost all have to invoke an unprovable god.

I could answer every question ever asked if I had a supreme being and I could ultimately say it's that beings will, and that the questioner is being unreasonable (not to mention rebellious) in asking questions.

Be careful not to equivocate on the word 'proof' (or 'provable'). The reasons a believer gives apparently meets his/her threshold for proof (a subjective belief). You mean objective proof that can be used by someone with no experience with God. So it is not the case that God is unprovable to each individual via their experiences.

Your characterization of God's will is too simplistic. Your point would be a good one if all we had to go on is reasoning out God's will (subjective). However, the Bible reveals plenty about God's will to construct doctrines around (objective).

[possibletarian]

Be careful not to equivocate on the word 'proof' (or 'provable'). The reasons a believer gives apparently meets his/her threshold for proof (a subjective belief). You mean objective proof that can be used by someone with no experience with God. So it is not the case that God is unprovable to each individual via their experiences.

Experience with god is subjective too, there are plenty of people who claim to have a spiritual or godly experience, and it's certainly not limited to christianity, I can honestly say at the time I was a christian, I too thought my 'experience' was evidence so I tend not to get on people's backs about it because at least to them it's real.  But for me, on challenge proved to be nothing more than an experience.  Besides that would make all god's equally true.

Your characterization of God's will is too simplistic. Your point would be a good one if all we had to go on is reasoning out God's will (subjective).

I agree

However, the Bible reveals plenty about God's will to construct doctrines around (objective).

Are we talking doctrine now, of course you can, the Bible, Qu'ran, Śruti texts: Vedas, Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, Vedāngas, Hindu epics, Sutras, Shastras, Tipiṭaka, abhidhamma, Varan Bhai Gurdas, the texts of Bhai Nand Lal, etc.

They all have one thing in common they were written by people promoting a particular line of religious thought, based on subjective experiences and reasoning, and so the circle completes.

[Paleophyte]

Assumption: For any religion x, any interpretations of revelations and inferences made from those revelations is an attempt to derive a true belief.
1. Can the revelations and inferences of religion x be systematized into a framework that is internally consistent? In other words, do the revelations fit together so as not to contradict each other? Contradictory or ad hoc beliefs suggests an internal problem that needs to be resolved to increase likelihood of deriving a true belief.
2. Does the revelations and inferences of religion x square with science, cause/effect, our observations of our reality, and our intuitions? Contradictions need to be reconciled or they undercut the likelihood of a set of true beliefs.
3. Every religion has a narrative. Whether the narrative is pre-history or historical, is it metaphysically possible: cause/effect, logically possible, and tells us something about the nature of existence and objects and their properties? Is it actually possible: is their historical evidence or contradictions that need to be considered? The less these questions are addressed, the less likely that the narrative is a true belief.
Conclusion: For any religion x, you can establish criteria aimed at ascertaining whether the religion is more or less likely to consist of true beliefs. Such criteria is also relevant in comparing religions against each other.

However, every adherent of a religion clearly believes that conditions 1, 2 and 3 have been satisfied for their religion despite contradictions with the majority of other religions. Thus, these criteria may objectively be boiled down to:

(1) Has the believer ignored the inconsistencies,
(2) Cherry-picked the data, 
(3) And blindly followed the narrative?

It does not matter what an everyday adherent believes about the religion. They are often wrong because of a lack of education or an unwillingness to understand all the details. Christianity, with its 2000 years of considerable thought expended on every subject has an answer for anything you might think up and for a 1000 things you haven't. So, the answer would be "no" to all three of your points because you would not be able to show that this has been done vis a vis the complete body of Christian thought. In other words, you might trip up some individuals, but you won't succeed in pressing your point against the main body of thought.

The Trinity
The Virgin Birth
The Crucifiction
The Noahic Flood
The Garden of Eden and The Fall

That's just the absurdities in mainstream Christian thought that I can name off the top of my head in under a minute.

[Paleophyte]

The God I worship is defined as the greatest conceivable being.

What is greater, a Deity that is constrained by the rules of logic or one that is not?

A "deity" that is limited by logic is a limited deity, which isn't all that great and is pretty much a contradiction in terms for a monotheist.

A Deity that is not limited by logic suffers from the Principle of Explosion, whereby every possible axiom is simultaneously both true and false. This is not a problem for said Deity as it is not bound by the rules of logic but will prevent all mortals, which are governed by logic, from ever stating anything meaningful about it. Even the existence of such a Deity would appear to us to be both simultaneously true and false. Any discussion of such a Deity is thus pointless.

That is a nonsensical question. The rules of logic are fundamental to the framework of reality (not the universe, but reality). If God exists, at some point he was all that reality consisted of. So your question is can God break the rules of his existence. The answer to that is obviously "no".

It's far from nonsensical and you haven't demonstrated that God is subject to the rules of logic. Your argument by assertion is ignored as is your conclusion. The result of my question is that God cannot be known through logical argumentation but through faith alone, a position maintained by many Christians.