I imagine that, like with all reading, the viewer must correctly interpret it. Some interpretations are right, some are wrong. But the existence of wrong interpretations doesn't negate the existence of right ones.
Eloquence isn't necessary for good philosophy, only nice sounding philosophy.I think he was somewhat more eloquent with regard his Unmoved Mover.
If all we're talking about with regard God is the "cause of the universe" then, for example, are the interactions of membranes (if brane theory is correct) to be considered God? Is the natural cause to be considered "God"?
Indeed - and how is one to know what is the right or wrong interpretation? Coincidence that it ends up being helpful or not?
Eloquence is needed, as the language of philosophy is complex if one is to adequately convey one's meaning. Uneloquent language too often leads to confusion and ambiguity.
I typically deal with people who refuse to acknowledge a supernatural origin simply for it's namesake, without considering the problems of a purely natural origin. The topic of an infinite universe comes up, but isn't any more supported by science (or even less so) than God.
We know once we die and find out. Humans can't know anything with 100% certainty after all. I am almost completely certain that everyone in the world has something wrong about God or the Bible, but that doesn't mean the Bible is wrong or unhelpful or that God doesn't exist. Being wrong as a result of misunderstanding isn't the fault of that which is true, and being fooled into believing something wrong doesn't necessarily mean somebody was trying to fool you.
I don't know the context behind that particular discussion. Did they say absolutely nothing else on the subject?
If cause and effect applies to all of existence, then no existence would be possible without an eternal existence causing everything else to exist. If cause and effect don't apply to all of existence, then God's existence is no longer a problem with cause and effect anyway.
Not infinite in th past, perhaps, but possibly infinite in the future.
It is theorized that the universe was caused by membrane collisions. This would suggest that such membranes are to be considered God as being the cause of the universe. My point being that merely referring to God as being the cause of the universe doesn't seem sufficient in trying to further the matter.
So you seem to believe. I don't.
Other than that we ourselves are conscious, and mathematical proofs etc.
No-one has suggested otherwise. But if you must wait until you die to find out if you're right or wrong, but that even that is a matter of belief (if there is no afterlife then we simply cease to be), then all you really have is belief.
True, but that doesn't solve the question of origin.
Though I believe in God, I was more just referring to a supernatural origin in general as apposed to a natural one, which could be things that aren't specifically God of the Bible.
If we were to die and it was true, we'll know. But if we die and it wasn't true, we might or we might not know. We might know if another religion was true, with a different afterlife. We might not know if atheism is true and no afterlife exists.
Not even those. Our inability to believe within 100% certainty is a consequence of our humanity, being flawed, not the things we would or would not know.
That is the case in any and all worldviews. Indeed, when it boils down to it, and we get to the core of our humanity being unable to objectively 'know' things, it does come down to belief, to faith.
So if we are right about an afterlife, we'll know we were right. But if we are wrong about an afterlife, we'll never know that we were wrong. It doesn't really change anything. But if we are right and God is real, then we will know exactly how the Bible is to be properly interpreted.
Because for the sake of that particular point I am assuming that the Christian God is real. Even if He wasn't, we would then know that we were wrong in the area of our beliefs, but would still know that we were right concerning the existence of an afterlife.
Which God? Why do you think that specific one is real while all the hundreds of other Gods aren't real?
Does that somehow discredit the belief in the Christian God?
What are you implying? That I must believe in those things because my reason for not believing in them is insufficient to you personally? I can give reasons, but you can easily just say they don't matter. I can say "Jesus performed miracles, died on the cross and rose again." and you can say that doesn't matter because other alleged religious prophets did 'the same thing'. I can provide links showing that these prophets and Jesus were actually very different, and recite the common knowledge that Jesus is practically the most historically corroborated person in history, while many other religious figures (ie: horus, mithras, etc.) don't really have a solid foundation for their real existence. I can use the minimum facts argument, to take the minimal facts revolving around Jesus's death on the cross, and infer from them the conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead. But that won't stop you from saying "But I don't believe those 'minimal facts'" or "That doesn't prove anything.". If you are expecting me to provide you with reasoning that you, most likely a devout atheist, could refer to to be convinced of that which you have sworn not to believe, then you aren't going to get such an answer. I've been through this many times, every time the same responses. People don't care that I have reasons, all they care about is hearing my reasons so they can disagree with them and call me illogical.
You mean if someone were to convince me that their religion were just as true as Christianity? If that were the case I would be on the fence. If they were to convince me that their religion was more true though, probably then yes, since I would be more convinced of it. But that hasn't happened yet, at least in this particular area.