The difference between philosophy and religion

Do you have any proof God exists? Or is the Bible your only source? I don't ask as a cynical atheist; I am honestly curious.

A proof is a hypothesis containing usually a series of statements and reasons with ultimately a conclusion.

Until we cease to exist there is a chance we will come to know God.

Josie, Welcome to a2k. Christians who base their lives on the bible must use the bible as their q&a. The biggest problem with that course of living one's life is the many contradictions, omissions, and errors found in the bible.

How do the reconcile simple facts such as the age of planet earth against the bible's claim that it's only 7,000 years old?

All those miracles performed in the bible is another one; how is it that only the bible recorded all those miracles when there were thousands of witnesses to some of them? If we observed a miracle today with many eye witnesses, how many do you think will keep it to themselves? How many will record that event?

All good points CI, you might think God would have foreseen not to leave so many gaping holes in the logic of the science perspective of the bible. Now knowing these contradictions and what they do to bring faith to doubt in a rational mind, one would think God would come and speak though a cloud or a burning bush and let us all know he is alive and well. Instead God keeps raising up prophets that disagree with each other. The Bible gets interpreted by hypocrites who live falsely by the letter of the law rather than by the the love of a compassionate heart. The lambs are scattered as dumb sheep led by the personal interpretation of an ambiguous collection of religious writings. How much did the orthodox have a hand in shaping what is in the new testament? Is the (mainly new testament) bible that we have today a forgery of an earlier document that said a completely different thing?

which interpretation of the bible do you read, rex?

Apologies for coming to this late, but to get back to the original question a major difference lies in the attitude to language. Religion puts language on a pedestal and involves itself in word magic (sacred texts, ritual prayers etc) whereas (modern)philosophy analyses and de-constructs language to the extent that transcendental entities (Gods etc) become vacuous concepts.

...and BTW since you appear to interested in "time" and presumably "permanence of a deity" you might note the philosophical view that permanence of anything may be an illusion fostered by the usage of persistent abstract words for "things". (Is a bitten apple still "an apple" ? To the hungry man "yes", to the shopper "no" )

I have always studied the King James Version. I believe there is more reference material written around that version than any other.

A bitten apple will always be a bitten apple

Man, you look hungry!

----until it becomes "a rotten apple".....which becomes ?

Thingness=transient functionality with respect to the user.
You won't accept it but the same is true for that thing you call "God".

It would then be a bitten rotten apple. It's former state stays unchanged, a new state is simply imposed upon the former. It will always be a bitten apple even when the apple is completely decomposed it will remain a bitten apple in the memory of the mind of the person or persons who bit it and also those who observed the person bite it. When all is said and done it is still a bitten apple. The dye has been cast. Some things remain unchanged irregardless of how we desire to rationalize.

I grew up on wild apples

We cannot go back and change the past, all we can do is alter the present in light of the past.

But fundamentalists blatantly ignore what the majority know to be "the past". They are the ones who rationalize "the past".

"Fundamental" is a buzz word used to justify doctrines that are rotten to the core.

I like the apple reference !

However, unless you can take on board the point that any a priori entities like "absolute truth" or "the requirement for a creator" are the foundation stones of religious fundamentalism (Biblical or otherwise) you will fail to understand the philosophical significance of relativism which questions all a priori concepts.

I'm enjoying RexRed's associations:

First post:

And on a following post, he wrote:

Yes. Maybe I should have used "core" there instead of "foundation stones" to continue the game.

And now we are left with apple sauce, baby food...