uncaused causes

[JonF]

Irestible grace explains that, did you actually read it?

 

[Danyc]

Irestible grace explains that, did you actually read it?

I don't know, that answer just really reads like "Because".

Perhaps, then, how did you come to accept this doctrine? Was it taught to you by your parents and in Church?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Irestible grace explains that, did you actually read it?

The problem is that the doctrines work on the presupposition that God exists.

If you can't establish that God exists, it doesn't matter what the doctrines have to say about him.

Using a doctrine that presupposes God as justification to believe in God is circular reasoning. You haven't provided actual reason to believe God exists.

 

[Elioenai26]

The problem is that the doctrines work on the presupposition that God exists.

If you can't establish that God exists, it doesn't matter what the doctrines have to say about him.

Using a doctrine that presupposes God as justification to believe in God is circular reasoning. You haven't provided actual reason to believe God exists.

There is quite a bit of evidence that God exists. Are you not aware of this?

 

[Tinker Grey]

The problem is that the doctrines work on the presupposition that God exists.

If you can't establish that God exists, it doesn't matter what the doctrines have to say about him.

Using a doctrine that presupposes God as justification to believe in God is circular reasoning. You haven't provided actual reason to believe God exists.

My thoughts. Thank you.

 

[JonF]

Right, but why are the doctrines believable?

Did you actually read the doctrine? It covers this. You really should bother to read my beliefs if you are going to try and question their merits.

 

[JonF]

I don't know, that answer just really reads like "Because".

Perhaps, then, how did you come to accept this doctrine? Was it taught to you by your parents and in Church?

My parent is an atheist. My first church was very evangelical. I came to my beliefs by a lot of reading, a lot of studying, and a lot of thinking. Also assuming my beliefs are true by the grace of God.

The problem is that the doctrines work on the presupposition that God exists.

If you can't establish that God exists, it doesn't matter what the doctrines have to say about him.

Using a doctrine that presupposes God as justification to believe in God is circular reasoning. You haven't provided actual reason to believe God exists.

Of course, remember I believe that God beliefs are first principles, nether falsifiable or veriifable. There is no possible a posteriori evidence either way that isn't based in presumption.

 

[Danyc]

My parent is an atheist. My first church was very evangelical. I came to my beliefs by a lot of reading, a lot of studying, and a lot of thinking. Also assuming my beliefs are true by the grace of God.



Of course, remember I believe that God beliefs are first principles, nether falsifiable or veritable. There is no possible a posteriori evidence either way that isn't based in presumption.

I am quite curious- why then do you accept one unfalsifiable proposition over another? In other words, why not Zeus, or Ra?

 

[JonF]

Did you read the doctrine of irresistible grace? It explains why I think I believe what I believe.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is quite a bit of evidence that God exists. Are you not aware of this?

Such as?

 

[Elioenai26]

Such as?

Please refer to the apologia of the cosmos thread.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Did you actually read the doctrine? It covers this. You really should bother to read my beliefs if you are going to try and question their merits.

I was a Presbyterian growing up, and therefore also a Calvinist.

I am fully aware of the doctrines. In very brief nutshells:

Irresistible Grace: People obtain salvation through the grace of God, not their own Free Will

Limited Atonement: Jesus only died for the people who were destined to be saved.

Unconditional Election: God has predestined people to be saved based on the fact he can predict they will have faith in Jesus.



And my original point stands..... All three doctrines work off the presupposition that God exists. Therefore, you can not use something that presupposes what you intend to prove. That's the very definition of circular reasoning.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My parent is an atheist. My first church was very evangelical. I came to my beliefs by a lot of reading, a lot of studying, and a lot of thinking. Also assuming my beliefs are true by the grace of God.



Of course, remember I believe that God beliefs are first principles, nether falsifiable or veriifable. There is no possible a posteriori evidence either way that isn't based in presumption.

Ok, so without evidence, what justification do you have to believe this being exists?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Please refer to the apologia of the cosmos thread.

First cause arguments don't mean diddly.

 

[JonF]

Such as?

Evidence in the scientific sense can't exist. Science presupposes a world that always follows natural law. Belief in God requires the belief in the super natural, i.e. there is a being that can supersede natural law. Science can't offer evidence either way on beliefs that predicate contradictions to its assumptions.

 

[JonF]

Ok, so without evidence, what justification do you have to believe this being exists?

I never said I don't have evidence.

Again please go look up calvinist doctrine. My evidence is a proiri and intrensic. One of the reasonse I believe in Calvanism is that it is he only doctrine I've found that gives consistent answers to the questions raised in this thread.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evidence in the scientific sense can't exist. Science presupposes a world that always follows natural law.

No, it doesn't.

Belief in God requires the belief in the super natural, i.e. there is a being that can supersede natural law. Science can't offer evidence either way on beliefs that predicate contradictions to its assumptions.

Based on your first premise, which is faulty.... this part is also incorrect.

Even supernatural occurrences could leave testable evidence, which we could scientifically examine. Science works on no presupposition, and in fact presupposition is against the principles of Science. Science is all about following where the evidence leads.

If there is no evidence, then there is no justification for believing something. What justification do you have to believe in the Supernatural?

 

[Elioenai26]

First cause arguments don't mean diddly.

And why is that?

 

[JonF]

I was a Presbyterian growing up, and therefore also a Calvinist.

I am fully aware of the doctrines. In very brief nutshells:

Irresistible Grace: People obtain salvation through the grace of God, not their own Free Will

Limited Atonement: Jesus only died for the people who were destined to be saved.

Unconditional Election: God has predestined people to be saved based on the fact he can predict they will have faith in Jesus.



And my original point stands..... All three doctrines work off the presupposition that God exists. Therefore, you can not use something that presupposes what you intend to prove. That's the very definition of circular reasoning.

Then you should know the answers to your questions.

I agree that the presumption of God is required. I have no problem with this as I hold God beliefs are neither falsifiable or verifiable.

I hold all your beliefs are predicate of your assumption God doesn't exist. You have this assumption because you aren't elect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I never said I don't have evidence.

Again please go look up calvinist doctrine. My evidence is a proiri and intrensic. One of the reasonse I believe in Calvanism is that it is he only doctrine I've found that gives consistent answers to the questions raised in this thread.

Consistent answers are irrelevant.... truthful answers are what matter.

I am fully aware of Calvinism, as I grew up within a Calvinistic branch of Christianity. And it's based on the assumption that God exists. Doctrines prove nothing by themselves.