If we are speaking in terms of “perceived reality” then I must agree that the concurrence of personal perception is a good indication of the group’s perception.

This is a perfect example of my desperate need for a good editor. I was speaking in terms of actual, objective reality, such as 2+2 and gravity. These are if not universal at least earthly realities of which earthly personal experiences concur.

Maybe it would be better to say: “When your personal experience concurs with the universal experience then we have a pretty good indication of reality.” Does that set better?

Side bar: The insertion of “pretty good indication” was provided to accommodate new discoveries that reduce the gap between generally accepted perception and objective reality. The genuine appraisal that the emperor had no clothes was not the generally accepted perception but was none the less accurate.

In any case, as to Frank’s proposition regarding personal experience for the existence of God: There must be more. People personally experience dreams. How do we decipher the fantasies of the subconscious mind from objective reality? How do we wake up?

That sentence jumped out at me. I think it would be more true to say this:

“When your personal perception concurs with the personal perception of others then we have a pretty good indication of that group’s perception.”

One area where the “personal experience test” falls short is the lack of congruity in the experiences. When your personal experience concurs with the personal experience of others then we have a pretty good indication of reality.

When we run the God test, the range of results is facinating, everything from none to Islam to Judeism, to Budhism, to a myriad of strains of Christianity. These personal experiences do not concur so we can not safely assume that our results are remotely accurate.

There are some clear cut tests, especially because you mentioned specifically the Gospels for instance at the end of Mark: “And these signs will follow them that believe…. drink poisen and not die, bitten by snakes and not be harmed.” Unfortunately I have a collection of articles about believers dying from snakes bites. Now I am in no way suggesting that believers actually go out and test these, but what I am suggesting is that they leave room for the possiblility that there may be considerable room for error.

For example: Take a look at the Jerusalem Counsil on food sacrificed to idols, then look at John’s stance on the same topic, and finally look at Paul’s stance on the same issue. What you will find is that they are not in agreement and while the topic of food and idols may seem innocent enough, the ramifications of this are enormous.

http://forum.bible-discussion.com

B-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l comparison, Frank!

I think we also do well to remember that none of us has the ability to ‘save’ anyone, including ourselves – that’s the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But praise Jesus’ Name, the talents He does bestow upon us to touch and edify one another are as varied and plentiful as our numbers.

The forementioned author, in my opinion, has a rare gift that unwinds and unveils the startling physical proof before the very eyes of believers and non-believers alike. I’d encourage everyone to read this work – it removes blinders and ear-wax – glory to the Lord!

Thank you, Conrad for allowing us to hi-jack your board temporarily with this discussion. You’ve provided other boards for this very purpose, so we’ll mosey on back to our stations.
Coming brother Frank?

My “scientific argument” for intellectually convincing the unbeliever, and (more importantly) enabling him to acquire true faith in the process, as opposed to mere intellectual belief, is thus:

Basically, when you study science, you:
1) Read the science textbook,
2) Listen to the science teacher,
3) Do the science experiments.
Then you know science from the perspective of personal experience !

In exactly the same way, to prove the Gospel:
1) Read the Gospels in prayer,
2) Asking the Lord to give you a true understanding,
3) Put Jesus’ teaching into practice.
Then you know the Gospel is true from personal experience !

I believe my argument is far superior to Creationist ideas, because it offers real tangible evidence of God to a genuine enquirer. And it inevitably leads to true conversion, not mere intellectual belief.
I don’t believe anyone has ever become a true Christian through accepting Creationist arguments.
But I would fascinated to hear evidence to the contrary !

Jesus did not teach creationism or intelligent design !
Jesus did not argue people into God’s kingdom !
Jesus taught and demonstrated God’s love and power !
Jesus is still calling his disciples today to do the same thing !

Jesus teaches how to live in good relationships, with the Lord, with other people, and with yourself. Put into practice, the gospel proves to be true with incredible power, even to the extent of receiving very definite, even miraculous, answers to prayer.
This is how and why I became a firm believer !

God does not want us to believe the Gospel because of clever arguments, but because He confirms it and proves it to be powerfully true !
(Read 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:5, asking Him to write this truth in your heart and mind !)

No one has ever become a true believer through persuasive “scientific arguments”, only by receiving the Gospel of Christ and proving it true !

This may conflict with all the theology you’ve ever been taught, but it’s God’s Eternal Word, to which he still bears witness to by His Spirit and by His Power ! Listen to Him !

Glad to report there is someone of a ‘scientific bent’ that has beautifully captured and
catalogued such evidence in a new book, in living color!
http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com/