[whoknw]

If you are willing to argue in good faith (no pun intended), I'd recommend for you to read Spinoza. Spinoza builds on your argument number one and argues that there can only be one substance, and this substance is God. In a nutshell: God is everything that exists, we do not exist outside of God (we are "modes" of God, if I remember correctly). Spinoza also argues that by virtue of being the only substance, God exists necessarily and does not have a choice.

The implications of this logic create problems for the Judeo-Christian stance. Absolute morality goes out of the window and a few other things with it as well.

[nickpsecurity]

It might be interesting to read. It's not far from my original guess about these things.

The logic wouldn't create a problem for us due to the weight of our source, the Word of God. Whatever counters it would need perfect character, prophecies that came true, miraculous power, historical evidence, and global impact on most people groups. Then, his followers would have to experience similar things on top of transformed lives. If not, his views remain pure speculation with nothing backing them like most religions and philosophies. Not threatening at all. :)

[whoknw]

That is why I prefixed my previous post with "in good faith". If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.

Granted, that style of reasoning also has a long tradition in philosophers like Descartes, Berkeley, etc. Descartes famously postulates that "God is not a deceiver", and that we are dealing with a benevolent God. You make the same assumption. Back then, there had to be a God, because the church would have showed people how the afterlife looks like pretty quickly. I don't understand what necessitates such a stance today.

In any case: as long as you argue from the conclusion backwards, we can spare some ink and leave this be.

[nickpsecurity]

“ If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.”

I thought my original comment had a link. We have a huge weight of evidence of various types to support God’s Word being from God. There’s usually more types for that than most beliefs people express on HN that are accepted. So, I start with that as a foundation much like proof assistants build on a core logic.

https://www.gethisword.com/evidence.html

To test your assertion, we can do simple comparisons that Christians often do to justify their beliefs. For instance, you equated our use of the Bible to Descartes stating an opinion. Did Descartes live a perfect life, claim to speak for God, and perform miracles to prove that? Did he come back from the dead? Do his followers experience unlikely transformations and life events in response to praying to Descartes? Do they get healings in the hospital verified by doctors by asking Descartes to heal the person? Would the people I’ve seen who were miracle healed have done better with Descartes?

When a philosopher or scientist counters Christ or His Word, we can just go down the list to find they don’t come close to refuting them. Christ wins the trustworthiness competition. Then, we trust Him based on that.

I would consider switching sides if the others met the same criteria. They’d have to claim to receive visions from God, their predictions come true precisely, work miracles, come back from the dead, have perfect character (trustworthy), and I’d have to get promised results following them. If not, “let God be true and every man a liar” when they contradict.

I find real science doesn’t contradict my faith, though, since it’s a pursuit of truth which God wants us to pursue. Most of it is OK or it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. I can enjoy it all. :)