Food for thought.

[Chriliman]

Yes, you do.

Just a couple of posts you admitted that this is beyond your capabilities. So all you have is hot air.

That what is true?

You recognize that from your perspective you don't know if I'm telling the truth or not. Just answer yes or no, to settle the dispute.

 

[Freodin]

The fact that what I think is true contradicts with what you think is true, just shows that one of us is missing the actual truth.

Now in any other case we could say that both of us could be missing the actual truth, but I know I'm not missing the actual truth and you must admit that you actually don't know if I'm telling the truth or not.

You didn't read anything I just wrote, did you?

I just showed you where you were missing the "actual truth"... and you still claim that I "must admit" that I don't know it? Does your hubris know no limit?

 

[Chriliman]

You didn't read anything I just wrote, did you?

I just showed you where you were missing the "actual truth"... and you still claim that I "must admit" that I don't know it? Does your hubris know no limit?

I did read what you wrote. So you're claiming the truth is that it's false that an eternal infinite God exists? This truth claim of yours is in direct contradiction with my truth claim.

Here's the difference between our truth claims. I'm claiming only God can reveal Himself to you personally. Your claiming to have eternal infinite knowledge which has allowed you to claim that an eternal infinite God is false.

Who's claim seems more reasonable to believe?

 

[quatona]

You recognize that from your perspective you don't know if I'm telling the truth or not. Just answer yes or no, to settle the dispute.

You don´t get to add redundant word salad and expect me to answer simply yes or no.
I don´t know if you are telling the truth. There isn´t much to recognize about that. It just takes someone to make an unfalsifiable claim for me to be in that position. I can make 10 unfalsifiable claims in less than five minutes - and you would have to "recognize that from your perspective you don't know if I'm telling the truth or not."
So what´s the big deal here?
Actually, since all you keep doing here is affirming that you know the truth (but never bother to share the knowledge you claim to have), I don´t even have an idea what this supposed "truth" is that you claim to know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have no desire to take advantage of that fact. I'm just trying to show that it's true. I'm glad to see that you recognize that it's true.

You said "I'm not the giver of truth".

 

[Chriliman]

You said "I'm not the giver of truth".

Showing something is true is different from actually creating that truth and giving it to you. I have no control over what is true, but I can show what is true.

Whether you accept it or not is completely up to you.

 

[quatona]

I have no control over what is true, but I can show what is true.

Then start doing it already. You have beaten around the bush long enough now.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Showing something is true is different from actually creating that truth and giving it to you. I have no control over what is true, but I can show what is true.

Then do it already!

 

[quatona]

Talk about building up tension.

 

[Chriliman]

For those of you who do not believe in God, I have shown that it's true that you actually don't know if my truth claim that God exists, is true or not. IOW, you don't know if God exists or not and you don't know if I'm telling the truth.

I'm also claiming that it's true that I can't prove God to you and I'm also claiming that it's true that only God can prove Himself to you.

This where the ball falls in your court. Do you personally want to know if God exists or not? If not then ignore the fact that you don't know the truth. If so then start asking unique questions that challenge yourself to get to the truth.

I'm a witness to the truth, I'm not the truth itself.

It's your responsibility to ask those unique questions that sit in the back of your mind that will help you find the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Showing something is true is different from actually creating that truth and giving it to you. I have no control over what is true, but I can show what is true.

Whether you accept it or not is completely up to you.

Show it then...let's see some truth.

 

[quatona]

For those of you who do not believe in God, I have shown that it's true that you actually don't know if my truth claim that God exists, is true or not. IOW, you don't know if God exists or not and you don't know if I'm telling the truth.

I'm also claiming that it's true that I can't prove God to you and I'm also claiming that it's true that only God can prove Himself to you.

Summary: There´s a guy on the internet who makes a lot of unsupported truth claims. Bummer.

This where the ball falls in your court.

No. You haven´t even produced a ball, to begin with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For those of you who do not believe in God, I have shown that it's true that you actually don't know if my truth claim that God exists, is true or not. IOW, you don't know if God exists or not and you don't know if I'm telling the truth.

I'm also claiming that it's true that I can't prove God to you and I'm also claiming that it's true that only God can prove Himself to you.

This where the ball falls in your court. Do you personally want to know if God exists or not? If not then ignore the fact that you don't know the truth. If so then start asking unique questions that challenge yourself to get to the truth.

I'm a witness to the truth, I'm not the truth itself.

It's your responsibility to ask those unique questions that sit in the back of your mind that will help you find the truth.

Those are claims about the truth...It's not the same as showing the truth.

If I just made a bunch of claims about the truth, and I didn't demonstrate any of my claims, would you believe me?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I agree.



And I can't possibility demonstrate that meaning continues for the dead person. The point is that if meaning does continue after death then that truth would be demonstrated only to the person who died. It would be a personal demonstration of truth that only occurs after you die.

However, it cannot possibly be demonstrated to you now. So why accept it as true now?

If meaning does not continue after death then this truth can't ever be demonstrated to anyone, personally or otherwise. If a truth can't possibly be demonstrated ever to anyone, is it reasonable to accept it as true? If so, why?

I'm not making a positive statement declaring there is no consciousness for me after my body dies. I'm saying that I don't accept claims that there is consciousness after bodily death, especially particular claims about particular supernatural beings, without some compelling evidence.

Please don't take it personally. I don't accept claims about Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Leprechauns either.

 

[Chriliman]

However, it cannot possibly be demonstrated to you now. So why accept it as true now?

I accept it as true because it could actually be demonstrated after I die.

Invisible Pink Unicorns or Leprechauns can never reasonably be demonstrated in any way, which is why I don't believe in them.

I'm not making a positive statement declaring there is no consciousness for me after my body dies. I'm saying that I don't accept claims that there is consciousness after bodily death, especially particular claims about particular supernatural beings, without some compelling evidence.

The evidence would be me making reasonable claims. If you don't consider other people's reasonable claims as evidence to warrant serious thought and investigation then I can't help you.

Please don't take it personally. I don't accept claims about Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Leprechauns either.

Neither do I for reasons that I've stated above.

I'm not claiming Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Leprechauns created the universe and there's the difference.

 

[Chriliman]

Those are claims about the truth...It's not the same as showing the truth.

If I just made a bunch of claims about the truth, and I didn't demonstrate any of my claims, would you believe me?

Science is claiming life came from non-life, but can't demonstrate how it happened. Do you believe them? If so why, when they can't demonstrate this truth? If not then you're left admitting you don't know how life began.

 

[anonymous person]

Why are theists completely obsessed with sex. If they aren't worrying about their own thoughts on the matter they spend time worrying about someone else's thoughts on it. Really there are more important things to be agitated over - like world hunger / disease etc.

It was an atheist that mentioned their love of sexual acts condemned by God, not a theist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For those of you who do not believe in God, I have shown that it's true that you actually don't know if my truth claim that God exists, is true or not. IOW, you don't know if God exists or not and you don't know if I'm telling the truth.

It seems that you don't know whether you're telling the truth either.

I'm a witness to the truth, I'm not the truth itself.

You still haven't established the truth of your claims. And on it goes...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It was an atheist that mentioned their love of sexual acts condemned by God, not a theist.

More accurately, condemned by those who claim to know what a god thinks on the topic.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The Apostle Paul states this: if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The Apostle Paul also stated that Christians should remain single. How many Christians would we have now if they had followed that advice?

So, the Christians that cannot exercise self-control are the ones that get married and have children. The self-controlled ones don't get married and have children. After a few generations, the only Christians are the ones who cannot exercise self control.

Now, that explains a lot.