[mikeash]

So, I’m just assuming, people can say anything they want, and you can’t trust them when they tell you how they decided to convert. But I’m supposed to believe you?

I’m not just assuming, here. For example, there’s the fact that nobody anywhere at any time in history is known to have independently discovered any religion. If it’s really possible to discover the truth through the process you describe, you’d think someone would have done it at some point and come up with the One True Religion despite never having been exposed to it.

[umvi]

> So, I’m just assuming, people can say anything they want, and you can’t trust them when they tell you how they decided to convert. But I’m supposed to believe you?

Not at all. I'm saying don't take my word for it. Try it out for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

> For example, there’s the fact that nobody anywhere at any time in history is known to have independently discovered any religion.

I don't see how you can assert this as a fact. What counts as "discovering a religion"? There are so many huge holes in history across all the continents over thousands of years.

> If it’s really possible to discover the truth through the process you describe, you’d think someone would have done it at some point and come up with the One True Religion despite never having been exposed to it.

I think this has happened - many times. God's true church isn't omnipresent throughout history. It's there sometimes, and missing other times. It gets established, and then goes off the rails due to corruption. I actually believe Judaism used to be God's true religion a long time ago, but has since gone off the rails and is no longer God's true religion.

[mikeash]

How do you know I haven’t tried it for myself and come to my own conclusion?

When talking about the rediscovery of religion, I included the word “known.” This fact can be asserted quite easily.

It’s possible that it happened and was lost to history. But really, every time? It must be exceedingly rare. And they must have all failed to survive in the long term, which is odd if it really is the One True Religion.

You say you think this has happened. Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that every time it happened it was in a place that was exposed to the corrupted version? Why wasn’t the pure church reborn in China or India? Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

Everything is consistent with it all being made up, and not at all what you’d expect to see if it could actually be discovered with the right sort of personal search.

[umvi]

> How do you know I haven’t tried it for myself and come to my own conclusion?

I don't. I can only speak for myself.

> When talking about the rediscovery of religion, I included the word “known.” This fact can be asserted quite easily.

Really. How do you know Mohammed didn't restore God's true church? Or Joseph Smith? In those cases they claimed to be prophets who God revealed new scripture to. Or do they "not count" because their religions were similar to existing ones?

> You say you think this has happened. Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that every time it happened it was in a place that was exposed to the corrupted version? Why wasn’t the pure church reborn in China or India? Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

Like I said, the church goes off the rails a lot. Even in the Bible, the church is constantly falling apart because the people are wicked. The pure church may have been reborn in China/India/Americas but went completely off the rails and thousands of years later it is unrecognizable. How do you know ancient indigenous diety legends aren't referring to the same God/Jesus that we refer to?

> Why didn’t the Conquistadors encounter a thriving parallel church in the Americas?

There very well may have been evidence of an ancient American judeo-christian church, but the conquistadors burned so many historical records in the 1500s because they were "of the devil" we have very little to go on.

> Everything is consistent with it all being made up

Well yeah, how can mortal life be an unbiased, faith-based experience if one could simply prove the existence of God empirically?

Consider a group of monkeys that act differently when they have evidence that they are being observed.

I believe one purpose of life is to prove to God and ourselves what kind of person we are. We will act differently if we know we are being observed vs. if there is uncertainty.

[mikeash]

Seems like you want to have it both ways. You want to argue for your choice of religion, tell us that we'd reach the same conclusion, and even go so far as to imply that anyone who claims to have gone through the process and reached a different conclusion is a liar. You say that there may have been lost evidence of a parallel church supporting the idea that it could be rediscovered. And at the same time, you want to say that it's all a matter of faith and we can't expect any evidence.

The idea that there isn't supposed to be any evidence because faith is the whole point is such an obvious con. If a used car salesman tried to use a line like that, you'd walk out of the dealership. But change salesman to preacher and dealership to church and suddenly we're supposed to think it makes any kind of sense. "You have to believe me but I can't prove it to you because proof would defeat the purpose" is not something you hear from a deity, it's something you hear from someone reaching for your wallet!

[umvi]

> The idea that there isn't supposed to be any evidence because faith is the whole point is such an obvious con.

Monkey1: "I think we are being observed by humans"

Monkey2: "Do you have any evidence?"

Monkey1: "No, they are concealing the fact that they are observing us"

Monkey2: "What an obvious con!"

Reality: Humans were indeed observing the monkeys but were actively concealing their presence so the monkeys don't act differently, thus preserving their natural agency.

Reality: God is observing humans but actively conceals his presence so the humans don't act differently, thus preserving their natural agency.

> "You have to believe me but I can't prove it to you because proof would defeat the purpose"

I never said that. You can either have anecdotal evidence in this life or irrefutable proof in the next. Said evidence will never come from another human; it will always come from God. If you seek proof, seek God and he will answer you in a way you recognize.

I agree with you that religions fall on a spectrum from evil to obvious con to beneficial to essential. There is only one true church of God, which means on average (given thousands of religions), a random church has a good chance of being on the lower end of the spectrum.

But that's why you need to seek God in private, without the influence of other people and let him first convince you of his existence, and then guide you to his church. If you do so earnestly and come to the conclusion God doesn't exist; well, you've done all a reasonable person can be expected to do.

[mikeash]

Making up a story where your claim is true isn't very convincing. I can do that too:

"I'll sell you this prime Florida real estate for a bargain price."

"Can I see it?"

"No. But it's definitely real!"

The difference is that scenarios like mine happen all the time, whereas yours is really uncommon.

God actively conceals his presence so the humans don't act differently? Sounds like I shouldn't believe in God, then. If the all-powerful creator of the universe wants me to think he doesn't exist, why should I think otherwise?

You tell me that I need to seek God for myself without the influence of other people. Do you not see how that's inherently contradictory? How can there be a true church of God if we're all supposed to get there on our own? The whole idea of a church is that people get together and commune in their shared beliefs.