Ai vs Christian theology

[Neogaia777]

@Kylie

Maybe we could kind of change the subject here, and you maybe start out by simply stating or telling me what you think are some of your number one major logical fallacies with believing, etc, and maybe we can start to have a conversation from there, ok?

Just tell me what some of them are, or what you think they are, and I'll try to respond and/or reply from there, ok.

You mentioned lack of evidence, etc. Can you maybe tell me what kind of evidence would suffice for you maybe, etc?

Because a lot of people's, or some of people's, are sometimes personal and experiencial, which a lot of people are going to say is all very, very subjective, and so they just throw or toss those out automatically from there, etc, but if they happened to you, or with you yourself, you just might also believe from there also, etc.

Beyond that, I also probably think a lot more things quote/unquote "beyond normal" are also much more possible than you do also, etc. like miracles and such, etc. So my logic might be different from yours, etc. As I think I also do also, beyond faith, also logically believe in my beliefs also, etc.

But the things that tipped those scales in that favor "for me", etc, you're probably not ever going to accept also, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Kylie

I'd also like to tell you that you will never ever pioneer or ever discover anything new ever, if you will not at first pursue it without having enough evidence, or ever having enough of all the facts first, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

But that still just relies on your subjective feelings.

Other people have equal certainty that some other deity is the correct one. They feel it just as strongly as you. And you would say that they are wrong. So we can conclude that strong feelings alone aren't enough to make something true. And by that logic, I must conclude that the strength of your feelings isn't enough to show me that your beliefs are true.

When I said I "felt" about something, it was only in regards to God being much more just than I am, because that part of it might be based on a "feeling" I know, etc, but as far as the rest of it goes, those are not based on feelings for me, etc.

I believe in a God that is "not human", and in whom I believe is "the Highest God", etc, but others believe in a god that is much, much more like a human, and for that reason I don't believe in those other gods, etc. Other than them maybe being fallen angels masquerading as gods, etc, but that would take a little bit of explaining, etc. But my God is not human, etc. And therefore is not subject to all the kind of much more human emotions and/or emotional failings that other beings have, etc, because my God is not human, but is the Highest God above them all, etc, and is also the one who predestined/pre-chose everyone and everything from the beginning, etc. Which is something else I believe in, etc. Absolute determinism and a One who determined it from the very beginning, etc. And this Highest God that I believe in, is also the only God/god/one who always knew everything, etc. Whereas all the others did not, etc. Including God in the OT and Jesus Christ, etc. They are not or were not as high as this God from the very beginning, and did not always know everything, etc. But that part of it is considered a very great blasphemy by the much more religious, etc. I believe Jesus introduced us to this theology/idea also, etc, calling this God that I believe in "Our Heavenly Father", etc. When Jesus introduced the Trinity, I think he also introduced us to this God that I believe in, who is not like any other god, etc. Who was, or always started out being, much, much more higher than he himself (Jesus Christ) or any other god or angel or being masquerading as a god, or God in the OT, from the beginning, etc.

And before I get into a lot more about it, I'm just going to stop there for now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

When I said I "felt" about something, it was only in regards to God being much more just than I am, because that part of it might be based on a "feeling" I know, etc, but as far as the rest of it goes, those are not based on feelings for me, etc.

I believe in a God that is "not human", and in whom I believe is "the Highest God", etc, but others believe in a god that is much, much more like a human, and for that reason I don't believe in those other gods, etc. Other than them maybe being fallen angels masquerading as gods, etc, but that would take a little bit of explaining, etc. But my God is not human, etc. And therefore is not subject to all the kind of much more human emotions and/or emotional failings that other beings have, etc, because my God is not human, but is the Highest God above them all, etc, and is also the one who predestined/pre-chose everyone and everything from the beginning, etc. Which is something else I believe in, etc. Absolute determinism and a One who determined it from the very beginning, etc. And this Highest God that I believe in, is also the only God/god/one who always knew everything, etc. Whereas all the others did not, etc. Including God in the OT and Jesus Christ, etc. They are not or were not as high as this God from the very beginning, and did not always know everything, etc. But that part of it is considered a very great blasphemy by the much more religious, etc. I believe Jesus introduced us to this theology/idea also, etc, calling this God that I believe in "Our Heavenly Father", etc. When Jesus introduced the Trinity, I think he also introduced us to this God that I believe in, who is not like any other god, etc. Who was, or always started out being, much, much more higher than he himself (Jesus Christ) or any other god or angel or being masquerading as a god, or God in the OT, from the beginning, etc.

And before I get into a lot more about it, I'm just going to stop there for now, etc.

God Bless.

With Jesus/God's help, I was able to deduce a lot about this God, who was/is the only true God from the very beginning, etc. The rest were all Son's, or all started out as being Son's, from the very beginning, etc.

But this idea/theology, or the theology it creates, is always considered "very, very great blasphemy" by the much more religious, etc.

But I nonetheless believe it to be 100% absolutely true nonetheless, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

With Jesus/God's help, I was able to deduce a lot about this God, who was/is the only true God from the very beginning, etc. The rest were all Son's, or all started out as being Son's, from the very beginning, etc.

But this idea/theology, or the theology it creates, is always considered "very, very great blasphemy" by the much more religious, etc.

But I nonetheless believe it to be 100% absolutely true nonetheless, etc.

God Bless!

All other god legends/gods have some kind of extravagant story to them which just exposes them as being something that is much, much more like a human, etc.

But this God that I am talking about has no extravagant story apart from God in the OT and Jesus Christ, etc.

He just came up with this clock from the very beginning, wound it up, and is letting it go until it winds all the way down, and/or reaches it's always fully known/expected end, etc.

And that's it, or is all the story there is to Him, etc. And you cannot really know Him apart from God in the OT and Jesus Christ for this very reason, etc, because only They are capable of sharing that One's story from beginning to end, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

All other god legends/gods have some kind of extravagant story to them which just exposes them as being something that is much, much more like a human, etc.

But this God that I am talking about has no extravagant story apart from God in the OT and Jesus Christ, etc.

He just came up with this clock from the very beginning, wound it up, and is letting it go until it winds all the way down, and/or reaches it's always fully known/expected end, etc.

And that's it, or is all the story there is to Him, etc. And you cannot really know Him apart from God in the OT and Jesus Christ for this very reason, etc, because only They are capable of sharing that One's story from beginning to end, etc.

God Bless.

This what Jesus meant when he said that no one could come to the (true personality) of the Father except through him, etc. This is because no other gods can tell this story, etc. And is because he himself claimed that he was the completion to that story (in time) also, etc. And that he was finishing the story that started with God in the OT also, etc. And that he was also the completion of that One's story along with the Father God's if that One were able to exist in time with us also, etc. And that he (Jesus) was also there at the beginning of it all also, etc.

But whether or not we will have another one in the future that will be claiming that it wasn't fully completed/finished, and that him/her is the actually the true full completion to that story or not, etc, before Jesus returns or comes back, etc, is a whole other story, etc. And is something that Jesus will have to set straight/right when he comes back from where he went if it happens, etc. (Which is where this Father God always is/was/always existed from the very beginning, etc) (Or that was part of what Jesus claimed or was claiming at least, etc) (or was a part of what Jesus said was the truth that he was sharing or proclaiming at least, etc).

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

This what Jesus meant when he said that no one could come to the (true personality) of the Father except through him, etc. This is because no other gods can tell this story, etc. And is because he himself claimed that he was the completion to that story (in time) also, etc. And that he was finishing the story that started with God in the OT also, etc. And that he was also the completion of that One's story along with the Father God's if that One were able to exist in time with us also, etc. And that he (Jesus) was also there at the beginning of it all also, etc.

But whether or not we will have another one in the future that will be claiming that it wasn't fully completed/finished, and that him/her is the actually the true full completion to that story or not, etc, before Jesus returns or comes back, etc, is a whole other story, etc. And is something that Jesus will have to set straight/right when he comes back from where he went if it happens, etc. (Which is where this Father God always is/was/always existed from the very beginning, etc) (Or that was part of what Jesus claimed or was claiming at least, etc) (or was a part of what Jesus said was the truth that he was sharing or proclaiming at least, etc).

God Bless.

My suspicion is that Jesus went to where the Father always was/is to; for one, in order to gain the rest of his full omniscience or total knowledge for one, and then also to prepare places for the people who would be saved or would be going there when he came back for another, and then also to gain more knowledge (full knowledge, etc) (like the Father has always had, etc) in order to know more fully about some maybe still unresolved issues/details surrounding humankind still in his eyes, etc, so that when he came back, he would be able to judge them all truly rightly and correctly and justly for another, etc. But and/or anyway, this is part of my suspicions anyway as to why he had to go there at first for a time anyway, etc. Which might have required "time, or some time maybe", etc. "Maybe anyway", etc. But either way, the time for his future day/date/return would be for a future day/date/time on earth, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

My suspicion is that Jesus went to where the Father always was/is to; for one, in order to gain the rest of his full omniscience or total knowledge for one, and then also to prepare places for the people who would be saved or would be going there when he came back for another, and then also to gain more knowledge (full knowledge, etc) (like the Father has always had, etc) in order to know more fully about some maybe still unresolved issues/details surrounding humankind still in his eyes, etc, so that when he came back, he would be able to judge them all truly rightly and correctly and justly for another, etc. But and/or anyway, this is part of my suspicions anyway as to why he had to go there at first for a time anyway, etc. Which might have required "time, or some time maybe", etc. "Maybe anyway", etc. But either way, the time for his future day/date/return would be for a future day/date/time on earth, etc.

God Bless.

Why for the most part silence/uninvolvement since Jesus left, etc?

Well, we have been left here with God in the OT/God the (Holy) Spirit and Satan in the meantime, etc. And right now, this is Satan's time until Jesus comes back, etc. And this could be part of the reason for God the Holy Spirit's being mostly uninvolved/silent for the most part, etc, since whatever is going to happen right now, is God the Father's will for now, etc. And this could be part of the reason(s) for God the (Holy) Spirit's being mostly uninvolved/silent right now for the most part, etc. I'm sure He is still trying to answer prayers that don't go outside God the Father's will right now though, etc. But I suspect most of it has a lot to do with not wanting to interfere with God the Father's will since or after Jesus Christ right now, or ever since the church got fully established/fully born fully right now, etc. Now it's mostly just letting time/events play out for the most part, etc. Especially since we are so very close to end time events and/or Jesus imminent return right now, etc. But I still think God the Spirit is probably still staying pretty busy trying to answer all the prayers of all of the believers that don't go outside of God the Father's will right now though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Kylie]

Why would you think that I'm here to show you, or try to convince you that my beliefs are true?

You made a claim back in post 107. Why would you make a claim if you didn't care whether I believed it or not?

Again, I'm not trying to convince you, as that is no one's job but God's, all any believer can do is expose you to the gospel, and the rest is entirely up to you and God from there.

And I'd be happy to accept the Gospel if I could be shown some evidence that it is accurate.

But it seems that the best anyone has to offer is, "Believe that it is true first, then and only then will you get the evidence you need to justify your belief."

And from what I've seen, that evidence is simply relying on the fact that once people believe, they typically are more willing to accept things that agree with them without subjecting them to scrutiny.

And as far as logic goes, or objective evidence goes, there has been way more than enough of that in my own life/knowledge/personal experiences, etc, to convince me, etc, but maybe just only me maybe, etc.

You do realise that personal experience can NEVER be considered objective evidence, right?

And if you want me to try and tell you about that/those, or what those are, then just ask me, and I'll do my best to try to provide those, if it will help, ok.

But anything you could present in that regards would be subjective evidence, not the objective evidence that I'm looking for.

It was just a thought, etc.

What does this even mean?

Well, for your sake, I hope you are being entirely honest there, or that you are being 100% pure in that there, etc.

Again, what's up with these "etcs"?

Again, I hope your knowledge/beliefs are pure in that, etc.

And another one.

Just don't let that cloud your judgement.

How would that cloud my judgement when what I said makes it very clear that I don't see any correlation at all?

 

[Kylie]

@Kylie

Maybe we could kind of change the subject here, and you maybe start out by simply stating or telling me what you think are some of your number one major logical fallacies with believing, etc, and maybe we can start to have a conversation from there, ok?

Just tell me what some of them are, or what you think they are, and I'll try to respond and/or reply from there, ok.

You mentioned lack of evidence, etc. Can you maybe tell me what kind of evidence would suffice for you maybe, etc?

Because a lot of people's, or some of people's, are sometimes personal and experiencial, which a lot of people are going to say is all very, very subjective, and so they just throw or toss those out automatically from there, etc, but if they happened to you, or with you yourself, you just might also believe from there also, etc.

Beyond that, I also probably think a lot more things quote/unquote "beyond normal" are also much more possible than you do also, etc. like miracles and such, etc. So my logic might be different from yours, etc. As I think I also do also, beyond faith, also logically believe in my beliefs also, etc.

But the things that tipped those scales in that favor "for me", etc, you're probably not ever going to accept also, etc.

Take Care.

Something that would convince me is something that can be put to the test and works every time.

I mean, I can drop a hammer, and it falls every time. So I am convinced that if I try it again, the hammer will fall.

Does Christianity make any specific claim that can be tested? Some claim that can only work if Christianity is true? And when we test this claim, it works every time?

The answer to the first two questions here is yes. Christianity DOES make a claim that can be tested, and it is a claim that would only work if Christianity is true. Several, in fact. The Bible says that anyone with even a small amount of faith can pray for a mountain to move, and the mountain will move. The Bible also promises that believers will be able to drink poisons and handle venomous snakes and not be harmed. I won't provide passages for these, but if you don't believe me that the Bible makes these claims, I'll be happy to provide specific verses.

But these are all very clear claims, and they are all easily testable. And when we test them, they fail. Mountains have NEVER moved because of prayer. And plenty of believers have been hurt or killed by snakebite.

 

[Kylie]

@Kylie

I'd also like to tell you that you will never ever pioneer or ever discover anything new ever, if you will not at first pursue it without having enough evidence, or ever having enough of all the facts first, etc.

God Bless.

By this logic, people can only ever investigate things that are real. And any time someone investigates a hypothesis, that hypothesis will inevitably be proved correct.

So, how did people every consider the aether? By your logic, people would not have investigated it unless they had enough evidence to determine it is true. And yet, clearly, that theory was wrong. By your own argument, it never should have been considered in the first place.

Also, you are assuming that I have never investigated the validity of religious faith. I have. When I got together with my husband, I tried praying and all that stuff, because it was important to my husband. I never got anything from it.

Tell me, why is it that believers so often hold the viewpoint that if someone else does the praying and all that, that they'll ALWAYS come to the same conclusion that they did? And why do they find it so hard to believe that not reaching the same conclusion is impossible? And that if someone hasn't reached the same conclusion, then they must not have looked into it yet?

 

[Kylie]

When I said I "felt" about something, it was only in regards to God being much more just than I am, because that part of it might be based on a "feeling" I know, etc, but as far as the rest of it goes, those are not based on feelings for me, etc.

I believe in a God that is "not human", and in whom I believe is "the Highest God", etc, but others believe in a god that is much, much more like a human, and for that reason I don't believe in those other gods, etc. Other than them maybe being fallen angels masquerading as gods, etc, but that would take a little bit of explaining, etc. But my God is not human, etc. And therefore is not subject to all the kind of much more human emotions and/or emotional failings that other beings have, etc, because my God is not human, but is the Highest God above them all, etc, and is also the one who predestined/pre-chose everyone and everything from the beginning, etc. Which is something else I believe in, etc. Absolute determinism and a One who determined it from the very beginning, etc. And this Highest God that I believe in, is also the only God/god/one who always knew everything, etc. Whereas all the others did not, etc. Including God in the OT and Jesus Christ, etc. They are not or were not as high as this God from the very beginning, and did not always know everything, etc. But that part of it is considered a very great blasphemy by the much more religious, etc. I believe Jesus introduced us to this theology/idea also, etc, calling this God that I believe in "Our Heavenly Father", etc. When Jesus introduced the Trinity, I think he also introduced us to this God that I believe in, who is not like any other god, etc. Who was, or always started out being, much, much more higher than he himself (Jesus Christ) or any other god or angel or being masquerading as a god, or God in the OT, from the beginning, etc.

And before I get into a lot more about it, I'm just going to stop there for now, etc.

God Bless.

First of all, this is just more subjective opinion, not objective evidence. There are people of faiths you believe are wrong who have experiences which are just as convincing to them as your experiences were to you.

Secondly, if you really believe in determinism, that the outcome of everything is already decided, then why even bother? Whatever is set to happen is going to happen no matter what. If I'm going to become a believer, then it will happen regardless of whether you present your arguments to me or not. And if I'm predestined top remain an atheist for my whole life, then nothing you or anyone else can do it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Why would you make a claim if you didn't care whether I believed it or not?

I never said I didn't care, or wouldn't try, but it's just that I highly doubt you come/came on this forum ever to be "convinced" ever.

And I also don't know if it's possible for another human to fully convince another human also, etc.

And I'd be happy to accept the Gospel if I could be shown some evidence that it is accurate.

Without at least some small amount of faith, that may not be possible.

But it seems that the best anyone has to offer is, "Believe that it is true first, then and only then will you get the evidence you need to justify your belief."

I can show you how a perfectly logical belief is possible, but it's still going to take some amount of faith or believing from there still, or at least at the start. But God might follow it up later on with some subjective evidence maybe, but that will be 100% undeniable "to or for you", etc.

And from what I've seen, that evidence is simply relying on the fact that once people believe, they typically are more willing to accept things that agree with them without subjecting them to scrutiny.

Well, that's not me. I scrutinize everything, etc.

My beliefs fall under the category of "logically possible", etc.

You do realise that personal experience can NEVER be considered objective evidence, right?

Yeah, I guess I already know that, which is why I said what I said about it.

But anything you could present in that regards would be subjective evidence, not the objective evidence that I'm looking for.

You're probably right.

What does this even mean?

It was a thought that some people might have certain feelings about wanting to believe, but just not being able to bring themselves to the point of being able to.

Again, what's up with these "etcs"?

Sorry, I'll try to do them less.

How would that cloud my judgement when what I said makes it very clear that I don't see any correlation at all?

In general I was just making a statement that you shouldn't let your opinions of or about others, or other groups, etc, cloud your judgement.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Something that would convince me is something that can be put to the test and works every time.

I mean, I can drop a hammer, and it falls every time. So I am convinced that if I try it again, the hammer will fall.

Does Christianity make any specific claim that can be tested? Some claim that can only work if Christianity is true? And when we test this claim, it works every time?

The answer to the first two questions here is yes. Christianity DOES make a claim that can be tested, and it is a claim that would only work if Christianity is true. Several, in fact. The Bible says that anyone with even a small amount of faith can pray for a mountain to move, and the mountain will move. The Bible also promises that believers will be able to drink poisons and handle venomous snakes and not be harmed. I won't provide passages for these, but if you don't believe me that the Bible makes these claims, I'll be happy to provide specific verses.

But these are all very clear claims, and they are all easily testable. And when we test them, they fail. Mountains have NEVER moved because of prayer. And plenty of believers have been hurt or killed by snakebite.

I am aware of the fact that scripture says this, etc. But whether that's supposed to be taken literally or not, or is maybe for a future time and day, or is only true of someone who has real genuine faith or not, or is maybe "some other thing maybe", is another story.

My beliefs fall under the category of being "logically possible".

And I don't yet have absolute definitive proof of them yet, etc.

But I think that's a very "real genuine improvement" from most, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

First of all, this is just more subjective opinion, not objective evidence. There are people of faiths you believe are wrong who have experiences which are just as convincing to them as your experiences were to you.

Those subjective experiences are not the only reason I believe, but I told you that already.

Secondly, if you really believe in determinism, that the outcome of everything is already decided, then why even bother? Whatever is set to happen is going to happen no matter what. If I'm going to become a believer, then it will happen regardless of whether you present your arguments to me or not. And if I'm predestined top remain an atheist for my whole life, then nothing you or anyone else can do it.

By the simple fact that "we don't know", etc. And because of that, well, "we don't know", if that makes any kind of sense to you, etc.

Take Care.

 

[weekEd]

@Kylie

Maybe we could kind of change the subject here, and you maybe start out by simply stating or telling me what you think are some of your number one major logical fallacies with believing, etc, and maybe we can start to have a conversation from there, ok?

Just tell me what some of them are, or what you think they are, and I'll try to respond and/or reply from there, ok.

You mentioned lack of evidence, etc. Can you maybe tell me what kind of evidence would suffice for you maybe, etc?

Because a lot of people's, or some of people's, are sometimes personal and experiencial, which a lot of people are going to say is all very, very subjective, and so they just throw or toss those out automatically from there, etc, but if they happened to you, or with you yourself, you just might also believe from there also, etc.

Beyond that, I also probably think a lot more things quote/unquote "beyond normal" are also much more possible than you do also, etc. like miracles and such, etc. So my logic might be different from yours, etc. As I think I also do also, beyond faith, also logically believe in my beliefs also, etc.

But the things that tipped those scales in that favor "for me", etc, you're probably not ever going to accept also, etc.

Take Care.

trinity seems pretty decisive...

 

[Neogaia777]

By this logic, people can only ever investigate things that are real. And any time someone investigates a hypothesis, that hypothesis will inevitably be proved correct.

Every hypothesis is not "always correct" always, etc.

So, how did people every consider the aether? By your logic, people would not have investigated it unless they had enough evidence to determine it is true. And yet, clearly, that theory was wrong. By your own argument, it never should have been considered in the first place.

I don't right now know about that, and don't care to investigate it any more right now currently, etc.

Also, you are assuming that I have never investigated the validity of religious faith. I have. When I got together with my husband, I tried praying and all that stuff, because it was important to my husband. I never got anything from it.

If it's not combined with faith, and with waiting in faith, then you probably never will.

Tell me, why is it that believers so often hold the viewpoint that if someone else does the praying and all that, that they'll ALWAYS come to the same conclusion that they did? And why do they find it so hard to believe that not reaching the same conclusion is impossible? And that if someone hasn't reached the same conclusion, then they must not have looked into it yet?

I can tell you how my beliefs are 100% logically possible, but beyond that, you would probably have to investigate them further yourself maybe, etc.

It's a "real improvement" upon most other peoples beliefs though, if you ask me.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

trinity seems pretty decisive...

Can you elaborate a little bit more on what you are maybe meaning maybe?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[weekEd]

Can you elaborate a little bit more on what you are maybe meaning maybe?

Much thanks.

Take Care/God Bless.

somehow logic got involved in your post... I mention the trinity as beinig decisive.
if someone doesn't believe the trinity they are either cprrect, of the devil, or mistaken.

 

[Neogaia777]

somehow logic got involved in your post... I mention the trinity as beinig decisive.
if someone doesn't believe the trinity they are either cprrect, of the devil, or mistaken.

Ok.

God Bless.