"Only God's judgment is infallible..."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No I don’t dispute that Christians who have the Biblical account of creation consider creation as evidence for the God of the Bible.

Do you believe that it is also compelling evidence of any and all other 'creator' gods when cited by those gods' followers, regardless of whether you are personally convinced?

Originally posted by @fmf
That's a flippant answer, surely, to the non-believer perspective that I am offering. It's saying that if you want to believe that the Bible is evidence that your god figure exists then that's fine by me. It's saying that you are entitled to make that claim. It's a pity that your reaction is a cheap and surly one.

So what would you say about Divegeester’s stance that the Bible cannot be regarded as evidence ?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So what would you say about Divegeester’s stance that the Bible cannot be regarded as evidence ?

I would hazard a guess that what he has in mind is that the evidence of God's and Jesus' existence is something that one actually experiences ~ as in a spiritual transformation ~ and that for someone who experiences this transformation, this is the evidence - and they are willing to testify based on that - and the testimony of likeminded people about how Jesus/God impacted their lives is the evidence.

The story of Jesus in the Bible may have triggered this spiritual awakening and this perceived and experienced union with God and with Jesus, but it is that awakening - that feeling that Jesus is living inside them - that is the evidence of God's existence, and not the Bible itself. That's my ha'penny's worth. But I am not a Christian, of course.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you believe that it is also compelling evidence of any and all other 'creator' gods when cited by those gods' followers, regardless of whether you are personally convinced?

I obviously believe the Biblical account. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone from a different religion saw the wonder of creation and had that strengthen their belief in the supernatural.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone from a different religion saw the wonder of creation and had that strengthen their belief in the supernatural.

Is it, in your view, compelling evidence, in and of itself, of the claims made by other creator gods' followers, even if you disagree with them about the supporting evidence they have in their religious literature?

Originally posted by @fmf
Is it, in your view, compelling evidence, in and of itself, of the claims made by other creator gods' followers, even if you disagree with them about the supporting evidence they have in their religious literature?

I would say creation could be compelling evidence of the supernatural but not necessarily compelling evidence for Hinduism or Islam per se. Their Holy books would certainly have to be considered in the evaluation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would say creation could be compelling evidence of the supernatural but not necessarily compelling evidence for Hinduism or Islam per se. Their Holy books would certainly have to be considered in the evaluation.

The creation story in Islam and in Christianity is the same. Virtually the same "holy book" with regard to creation. Same Abrahamic god. Same figures in the story. How can it be "compelling evidence" for your religion and not compelling evidence" for Islam?

Originally posted by @fmf
The creation story in Islam and in Christianity is the same. Virtually the same "holy book" with regard to creation. Same Abrahamic god. Same figures in the story. How can it be "compelling evidence" for your religion and not compelling evidence" for Islam?

From my perspective the entire holy book needs to be considered before a decision is made on its validity. Both books may have a similar or even accurate account on creation but that doesn’t mean they are both entirely true because they disagree on quite a number of things and can’t both be true about about everything they claim. They could both be true on the parts of creation that they are in agreement on.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
From my perspective the entire holy book needs to be considered before a decision is made on its validity. Both books may have a similar or even accurate account on creation but that doesn’t mean they are both entirely true because they disagree on quite a number of things and can’t both be true about about everything they claim. They could both be true on the parts of creation that they are in agreement on.

Is the Islamic creation story, in and of itself, "compelling evidence"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So what would you say about Divegeester’s stance that the Bible cannot be regarded as evidence ?

I answered this.

Originally posted by @sonship
Yes.

I also think that the existence of the [b]Jews as a people is contributing evidence of the veracity of the Bible's claims.

I'm biased though. Since I met Jesus the Lord I have learned to want to believe in God.

There, I admitted it.[/b]

So do I.

Originally posted by @js357
So do I.

ok

Originally posted by @fmf
Is the Islamic creation story, in and of itself, "compelling evidence"?

Compelling evidence for what?