Wherein I catch a profession YEC in a lie 2.0

[DogmaHunter]

What would be some examples of these "certainties" which u do not deal with?

Pretty much anything. You don't know in advance what data will or won't come up tomorrow, so how could you be "absolutely certain" about anything?

In principle, there is nothing that I consider as simply "absolutely true". Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely. A lot of things are SO likely, that I will call them "true" for practical purposes.

For example, I consider it true that if I jump from the empire state building, I will plummeth to my death due to gravity. But can I prove that gravity will work tomorrow like it will today? Nope. There is no reason to think it won't, off course. And thus I assume it won't.

All the evidence points towards gravity being a "certainty" and no evidence exists to suggest that it will stop working or work differently tomorrow. So that's what I accept as "most likely correct". But I cannot logically be "absolutely certain" about that.

What would you consider something as unknown that could be knowable?

For example, a testable hypothesis that is currently not testable due to limitations of technology. Perhaps the test of the hypothesis requires a more powerfull particle accelerator then the ones that currently exist...

The knowable / unknowable part is directly related to the verifiability / falsifiability of the claim in question.

A thing that is defined as unverifiable / unfalsifiable, is by definition unknowable.
A thing that is defined as verifiable / falsifiable, is on principle knowable. "on principle", because it could be that technological limitations makes it impossible.

An example of that might be..... life on other planets in other solar systems, for example.
It is knowable in principle: you could just visit the planet and look for living things. But with our current technology, we won't be going to those planets any time soon. It is extremely unlikely that we'll be able to travel to other systems within our lifetime (sadly, I might add...)

Truth is the embodiment or that which represents (the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them) in a faithful or appropriate way.

Sure. Seems about the same as what I said.

And the point remains: it means that you can only know what is true, if you actually can crossreference it with reality. ie: it must be knowable. ie: it must be verifiable / falsifiable.

That infamous quote, I forget its origins, comes to mind: "The non-existant and the undetectable, look very much alike..."

You seem certain there is no God

Where have I ever said that?

and the whole Christian thing is false.

Depends on the interpretation.

If for example the interpretation is a literal / fundamentalist reading of the bible like what a YEC would do, then yes, I'ld call that false.

Because it can literally be disproved by actual reality: the world/universe is far older then 6000 years, there was no global flood, human kind didn't start with just 2 individuals,.... etc

What would you offer me as a substitute for faith in God?

Why would you require a substitute?

God has an offer. Salvation, after life insurance - What would you offer me? What belief system should i follow?

Sounds like you simply want to believe because it is comforting or something.

See, I actually care about believing as many true things as possible and the least false things as possible - regardless of my preferences or comfort.

The universe doesn't owe you any comfort.
The real nature of reality, is not dependend on wheter or not you "like" it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can answer that question. Apart from God people have what they call the placebo effect, the power of suggestion and the power of positive thinking. There are motivational experts that are often popular with sports and business to hype people up to get them out to do their job. This is why we have controlled studies and what is real has to go beyond the effect you get with a placebo. Although modern science tends to use the old treatment plan and the new proposed treatment. The study has to show that their new and improved treatment plan is better then the old plan and what they were doing to deal with the issue or the problem.

Reality isn't here to please or comfort you.
Reality is what it is, regardless of how that makes you feel.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Reality isn't here to please or comfort you.
Reality is what it is, regardless of how that makes you feel.

There you go, so when are you going to listen to yourself and take your own advise?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because it can literally be disproved by actual reality: the world/universe is far older then 6000 years,

It does not matter if there was something here before. It is like walking into the middle of a movie. For them the story begins with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago. They ignore whatever was here before that.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

For example, I consider it true that if I jump from the empire state building, I will plummeth to my death due to gravity. But can I prove that gravity will work tomorrow like it will today? Nope. There is no reason to think it won't, off course. And thus I assume it won't.

So gravity is not certain tomorrow?

Conny "What would be some examples of these "certainties" which u do not deal with?"

What other "certainties" do you not deal with?

An example of that might be..... life on other planets in other solar systems, for example.
It is knowable in principle: you could just visit the planet and look for living things. But with our current technology, we won't be going to those planets any time soon. It is extremely unlikely that we'll be able to travel to other systems within our lifetime (sadly, I might add...)

So something unknowable that can be known is life on other planets? Is that a form of hope?

Sure. Seems about the same as what I said

Its exactly the same. I put the meaning of 2 words together.

Where have I ever said that?

So you believe there is a God?

Depends on the interpretation.

So you would be positive to Christianity but it would depend on the interpretation. What interpretation would you accept?

Why would you require a substitute?

Lets just say i want one. Can you cannot give me a substitution?

Sounds like you simply want to believe because it is comforting or somethi

So what would you recommend? What position should i follow? What would you call the position you follow?

Do you not seek comfort?

See, I actually care about believing as many true things as possible and the least false things as possible - regardless of my preferences or comfort.

So you cannot offer me anything?

Cheers hey

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not that I'm answering for @DogmaHunter, but you and I had a conversation I felt never quite completed... and I do enjoy these exchanges.

So gravity is not certain tomorrow?

It's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow.

Conny "What would be some examples of these "certainties" which u do not deal with?"

What other "certainties" do you not deal with?

What are you 100% certain of? and are you actually 100% certain (i.e. you know absolutely everything there is to know about it)?

So something unknowable that can be known is life on other planets? Is that a form of hope?

How is that Hope? It's just something that could be known, but currently isn't.

Its exactly the same. I put the meaning of 2 words together.

As long as it purports to reality.

So you believe there is a God?

He didn't say that either.

So you would be positive to Christianity but it would depend on the interpretation. What interpretation would you accept?

One that purports to reality.

Lets just say i want one. Can you cannot give me a substitution?

Reality. It's the most valuable substitution you can have.

So what would you recommend? What position should i follow? What would you call the position you follow?

Do you not seek comfort?

Reality! Is that not desirable to follow what is real? We can seek comfort among real friends and family, we can make real changes in real people's lives, we can make real decisions that have real positive effects on the real people around us, so on.

So you cannot offer me anything?

Reality. He's offering Reality.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Not that I'm answering for @DogmaHunter, but you and I had a conversation I felt never quite completed... and I do enjoy these exchanges

Hey hey my friend

I do not mind you answering. As i do enjoy exchanges with you too my dear My prayers to you and your family.

It's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow

Dog - "But can I prove that gravity will work tomorrow like it will today? Nope. There is no reason to think it won't, off course. And thus I assume it won't."

What do you think about this response from Dog?

Do you agree with dog?

What are you 100% certain of?

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Philippians 3:8
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

Hebrews 6:18
so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

I am 100% certain that Jesus is real through the Holy Spirit.

All these things are 100% certainty to me my friend

Im certain i went to church this morning. Im certain i had lunch with my mum. Im certain i saw my friend last night and we had a jam (i play guitar!). Im certain i play guitar. Im certain it is raining right now.

Im certain i just had a bath. Im certain my cat is called ferris (he is a fat cat). Im certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Im certain it will be dark soon. Im certain you are alive (here we are again having fun). Im certain if i do not drink water i will die. Im certain trump is potus atm. Im certain of my address.

Im certain my father is dead. Im certain im alive. Im certain if i throw a ball in the air and ther is no obstruction, it will come down. Im certain a fire is hot. I could go on

and are you actually 100% certain (i.e. you know absolutely everything there is to know about it)?

I know it to be certain through experiences my dear - an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

Certainty - firm conviction that something is the case or the quality of being reliably true. Like all of other christians, im still learning and will continue to learn. Im not omniscient - knows everything. Are you?

Brother, do you believe in certainties?

How is that Hope? It's just something that could be known, but currently isn't.

Please excuse me my friend. I was asking the man if he felt that was hope - a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen or . My dear i ask questions to see the answers.

In this case i chose to ask dogma hunter this particular question to gage his thoughts on alien life.

Do you ever have a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen?

As long as it purports to reality.

Dogma - " "True is that which reflects reality".
Seems pretty straightforward..."

Conny - " Truth is the embodiment or that which represents (the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them) in a faithful or appropriate way."

Relect - embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way.

Reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

My dear do you agree with dogma that 'true is that which reflects reality'?

He didn't say that either.

Bugs - ' Not that I'm answering for @DogmaHunter'

Does the christian God exist?

One that purports to reality.

Reality. It's the most valuable substitution you can have.

Reality! Is that not desirable to follow what is real?

Reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Who is the authority to how reality exists? Does science purport reality and certainty?

Do you believe i have a delusion in regards to God?

We can seek comfort among real friends and family, we can make real changes in real people's lives, we can make real decisions that have real positive effects on the real people around us, so on.

My dear, i do not disagree. What real decisions do you make that have positive effects on real ppl?

Reality. He's offering Reality

God has an offer - salvation and after life assurance.

Your offer is 'the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.'

What position would that be called? You are certain there is no God? What do you believe to be the substitute for christian faith?

What do we christians do? Can you help us?

Cheers

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hey hey my friend

I do not mind you answering. As i do enjoy exchanges with you too my dear My prayers to you and your family.

Why Thank you! My thoughts and best wishes for you and your family too.

Dog - "But can I prove that gravity will work tomorrow like it will today? Nope. There is no reason to think it won't, off course. And thus I assume it won't."

What do you think about this response from Dog?

Do you agree with dog?

Yes. Like I said, "it's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow." Do I KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow? no. We could be taken out by a massive meteorite, or perhaps something causes the Moon to collide with us - or even the infamed Planet-X could turn out to be real and take out Earth - heck, even the Sun could be hoovered up by a rogue black hole! These things, although remotely possible, are so unlikely as to almost negate being considered and therefore I'm as certain as it could be for a non-omniscient mortal to be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Gravity relies on the laws of the universe to remain unchanged. We have no way to know the laws of the universe will remain the same - although as Dog says, all the evidence we have so far - All of it - indicates it doesn't change, so we tend to operate as if they're unchanging for practicality.

Romans 8:38-39
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Philippians 3:8
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

Hebrews 6:18
so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty? Who wrote these passages and how do you know this for sure? There's so much agape here I hardly know where to start...

I am 100% certain that Jesus is real through the Holy Spirit.

How are you sure of that at all let alone 100% certain? Could you be mistaken?

Im certain i went to church this morning. Im certain i had lunch with my mum. Im certain i saw my friend last night and we had a jam (i play guitar!). Im certain i play guitar. Im certain it is raining right now.

Im certain i just had a bath. Im certain my cat is called ferris (he is a fat cat). Im certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Im certain it will be dark soon. Im certain you are alive (here we are again having fun). Im certain if i do not drink water i will die. Im certain trump is potus atm. Im certain of my address.

Im certain my father is dead. Im certain im alive. Im certain if i throw a ball in the air and ther is no obstruction, it will come down. Im certain a fire is hot. I could go on

How do you know your God didn't just create you and everything else in this universe 5 minutes ago - you with your memories of an entire lifetime, everyone else as well, with all their memories, the earth, universe and everything in it as if it were here for billions of years but wasn't, etc.

I know it to be certain through experiences my dear - an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

Certainty - firm conviction that something is the case or the quality of being reliably true. Like all of other christians, im still learning and will continue to learn. Im not omniscient - knows everything. Are you?

Brother, do you believe in certainties?

I believe in degrees of certainty. Any degree of certainty is proportional to the evidence in support of it.

Dogma - " "True is that which reflects reality".
Seems pretty straightforward..."

Conny - " Truth is the embodiment or that which represents (the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them) in a faithful or appropriate way."

Relect - embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way.

Reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

My dear do you agree with dogma that 'true is that which reflects reality'?

Sure, it's very similar to "purports to reality". Why do you keep asking this as if it hasn't been answered a number of times now... is there a point?

Bugs - ' Not that I'm answering for @DogmaHunter'

Does the christian God exist?

I don't know. Do the Hindu Gods exist?

Reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Who is the authority to how reality exists? Does science purport reality and certainty?

Science is demonstrably the best way by which we come to determine accurate things about reality. This is an excellent framework to finding out about things. There is no authority.

Do you believe i have a delusion in regards to God?

I don't know how you came to your belief - How do you know what you believe is in accordance with reality?

My dear, i do not disagree. What real decisions do you make that have positive effects on real ppl?

I donate to Fred Hollows foundation for improving sight in third world countries for degenerative eye diseases that we hardly know about in the first world, I give to the Red Cross Foundation to help sick and orphaned children, I also volunteer at our local RSPCA for Animal welfare, occasionally partake in blood drives (usually around holiday season), I support my family, both financially and support as a family wherever I can (I have young children of my own I travel 2600km each way every month to see, I support them financially as well as being the adopted 'Dad' for my new partner's teenagers in all the same ways). I vote for my political representatives according to their appropriately assessed policies on their campaigns, etc. I engage in educating and advocating critical thinking to circumvent faulty reasoning wherever I find it to ensure fair and safe existence for all people regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or ideology.

God has an offer - salvation and after life assurance.

How do you know this?

Your offer is 'the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.'

What position would that be called?

Rational?

You are certain there is no God?

No.

What do you believe to be the substitute for christian faith?

What do you believe to be the substitute for drinking?

What do we christians do? Can you help us?

What do you mean 'do'? I'll help wherever I can, if I can... what do you want help with?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There you go, so when are you going to listen to yourself and take your own advise?

I'm not the one with specific emotional attachments to certain (religious) worldviews.
I'm not the one who's desperatly trying to forcefit scientific data and theories into my a priori beliefs.

That's what you do.
Me, I'm happy just accepting the science as is, without some faith based religious sauce on top.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does not matter if there was something here before.

Except that it does.

It is like walking into the middle of a movie. For them the story begins with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

The story, yes. Reality however, does not.
Reality puts the rise of homo sapiens at some 150.000 to 200.000 years ago. And it was a population of thousands, not a single breeding pair.

They ignore whatever was here before that.

Uhu. I don't ignore reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So gravity is not certain tomorrow?

Not absolutely certain.

It is certain enough to assume gravity will work just the same as it always did.
There also is not reason to think otherwise.
There however is a big difference between that and being "absolutely certain".

To be "absolutely certain", you would need 100% exact proof (not mere evidence, but proof). How could you ever have that about wheter or not gravity will work tomorrow like it does today?

You can't. Hence why "absolute certainty" is not a part of the equation here.

Conny "What would be some examples of these "certainties" which u do not deal with?"
What other "certainties" do you not deal with?

If you still aren't clear about what I mean with "absolute certainty" and why it is unwise to assume such certainties about pretty much anything, then I don't think that even more examples will be of much help.

So something unknowable that can be known is life on other planets?

Don't change all the language just to confuse and obfuscate the point please. It is very dishonesty to do so.

I don't know what was unclear about what I said. Seems pretty straightforward.
A claim of life on other another planet is verifiable in principe: all it takes is visiting the planet and you can do your test.
The problem is that currently we don't have the technology to go to another planet.

Dito with the example of a hypothesis in physics.
It can be perfectly verifiable in principle, but the test could require a more powerfull particle accelerator then the ones that exist today.

So, while the claim is verifiable, it currently can not be verified due to limitation of technology - not due to limitations imposed by the claim itself.

Contrast with the claim of an undetectable dragon again....
That claims is not verifiable in principle. It is defined as being "undetectable". So NO technology can be developed to detect it. Not today, not tomorrow.

Get the difference now?

Is that a form of hope?

No.
It's just logical reasoning. It's an attempt at trying to get you to understand what the difference is between a useless claim defined as being unverifiable/unfalsifiable, and a usefull claim that is verifiable/falsifiable at least in principle.

Verifiable / falsifiable claims are worth considering and spending energy on. Unverifiable / unfalsifiable claims are not worth spending energy on, because by definition you will not be able to distinguish what is true from what is false.

So you believe there is a God?

Ow, ok. So you're one of those people who doesn't understand that "not accepting X" is NOT the same as saying "X is false".

Let's illustrate with the "jar of gumballs" analogy...

There's this jar of gumballs. We don't know how many balls are inside and we can't count them. The amount of balls in the jar is either odd or even.


Suppose you claim "there is an even amount of balls in the jar, do you accept this as true?"
I answer "no, I do not accept that as true".

Does that mean that I believe that the amount is odd instead?
Off course, it does NOT.

Not accepting a claim as true does NOT automatically mean that you'll accept the opposite claim as true.

The correct answer here, is "i don't know if it's odd or even".
Which means that the answer is "no" to both:
- do you believe it is even? => no
- do you believe it is odd? => no

Because I don't know what the correct answer is. Why would I commit to an answer, if I don't know?

So you would be positive to Christianity but it would depend on the interpretation. What interpretation would you accept?

Making the same mistake of black and white thinking again....
Same as above. To not accept something as false, doesn't automagically mean that you'll accept it as true instead. Consider the gumballs again:
"the amount of gumballs is NOT even, do you believe me?"
"no"

=> does again not mean that I believe the number is even instead.

The point was NOT about an interpretation that I would accept as true. It was about interpretations that I would say are FALSE instead.

A literalist YEC interpretation for example, is definatly false as it contradicts with the evidence of reality.

A "moderate" interpretation that takes the evidence of reality and merely adds (unfalsifiable) things to it, would be compatible with observable reality. I could not call it false, because it could not be demonstrated to be false.

I would also not accept it as correct, because one wouldn't be able to live upto the required burden of proof in order for it to be rationally acceptable....

And then we're back to the idea of unfalsifiable claims being potentially infinite in number and not being worth spending energy on it - because you wouldn't be able to tell what is correct from what is false.

See?

Lets just say i want one. Can you cannot give me a substitution?

A substitution for what, exactly? Your emotional attachment to your religious worldview?
No. Nore do I see why it would be relevant.

So what would you recommend?

To treat the religious claims of your particular religion, in the exact same way as you treat all other claims (both from rivaling religious and otherwise).

To only believe those things that can be reasonable supported / demonstrated with independend evidence. To not believe things simply because it brings you comfort or whatever.

Reality is what it is, regardless of how that makes you feel.
If you are diagnosed with a cancer, you might not like it. But then not believing it, simply because it doesn't bring you comfort, doesn't seem very wise.

What would you call the position you follow?

"reasonable".

Do you not seek comfort?

Off course I do. But not at the expense of my rationality, reason and human dignity/integrity. I also don't see how it would be comfortable to lie to myself.
False hope is false, after all...

So you cannot offer me anything?

I can't offer you what you are asking.

You want a model of reality that makes you feel good.
I want a model of reality that is just accurate. Regardless of how it makes me feel.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty? Who wrote these passages and how do you know this for sure? There's so much agape here I hardly know where to start...

Hope you had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Years


Hey bugs dont let your mouth be too wide open in surprise or wonder. I wrote them my dear.

I am certain i had a bath. How about you provide me with an example you disagree with from my list of certainties

How does knowing someone like you give an 'inkling of uncertainity'? Do you not exist bugs?

How do you know your God didn't just create you and everything else in this universe 5 minutes ago - you with your memories of an entire lifetime, everyone else as well, with all their memories, the earth, universe and everything in it as if it were here for billions of years but wasn't, etc.

I am unsure how to answer this. The last parts of this statement do not seem to fit in with the first part.

How are you sure of that at all let alone 100% certain? Could you be mistaken?

I have had experiences with God through the Holy Spirit. Ive had great experiences which were transforming and left me with no doubt what so ever. Ask

I was cut and the scar has never healed That is to say - i felt a new person. I felt the presence of God.

Iam not mistaken. I followed the Christian formula and got a result. I went through Christ. I did not receive nirvana. I gave my self to God. I did not give it to Zeus.

To be sure is to be completely confident that one is right. To be convinced means to be certain of something. To be certain, an experience must be able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case.

It happened to me. I saw it. I felt it. I lived it. Its like a comet. Either you saw it or you didnt. If you didnt, it is not reasonable to say i did not.

Im 100% sure i had an encounter with God. Im certain with no error. Just like i am 100% certain i saw my friend last night. No accounting for error here.

I believe in degrees of certainty. Any degree of certainty is proportional to the evidence in support of it.

"but I do so on a reasoned background of prior experience and/or evidence, just as this child example of yours does. I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before".

You seem certain here?

Sure, it's very similar to "purports to reality". Why do you keep asking this as if it hasn't been answered a number of times now... is there a point?

Icon - "Its exactly the same. I put the meaning of 2 words together. "

Im repeating what Dog said in an expanded form. Im asking dog questions. I have my reasons friend

I don't know.

Do you want to know?

Do the Hindu Gods exist?

I have never encountered a hindu god. I believe them to be either fallen engels or unGodly spirits. I have God and i know Him.

Science is demonstrably the best way by which we come to determine accurate things about reality.

You have complete trust in science?

This is an excellent framework to finding out about things. There is no authority

You are not an authority on reality? Are you unreliable?

I don't know how you came to your belief - How do you know what you believe is in accordance with reality?

Just asking. do you?.

The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This can only be experienced, observed and rationalized. An experience happened. I piece of fruit fell on my head. Reality - a piece of fruit landed on my head. The result - hurt head.

I came to my belief through experience and seeking the Christian God.

I donate to Fred Hollows foundation for improving sight in third world countries for degenerative eye diseases that we hardly know about in the first world, I give to the Red Cross Foundation to help sick and orphaned children, I also volunteer at our local RSPCA for Animal welfare, occasionally partake in blood drives (usually around holiday season), I support my family, both financially and support as a family wherever I can (I have young children of my own I travel 2600km each way every month to see, I support them financially as well as being the adopted 'Dad' for my new partner's teenagers in all the same ways). I vote for my political representatives according to their appropriately assessed policies on their campaigns, etc. I engage in educating and advocating critical thinking to circumvent faulty reasoning wherever I find it to ensure fair and safe existence for all people regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or ideology.

Good work friend. i would just like to hightlight the father aspect. Im glad your children have a dad and are secure. You are a marvel

Just curious. What would you do if one of your children were disobedient and uncooperative?

How do you know this

How does one know anything? You are either taught or you learn for yourself.

God has promised me something. I know God to be real and i have no reason to doubt Him.

Why do you doubt?

Rational?

You can not offer me anything. You have nothing my friend.

No

What proof do you need to be sure?

What do you believe to be the substitute for drinking?

To not drink water would lead to death. There is no substitute.


Does this mean there is no substitute to christian faith???


Did you just agree with me?!?!

What do you mean 'do'? I'll help wherever I can, if I can... what do you want help with

Christianity is wrong. Therefore Christians must be wrong. We are not in the light of truth we are in the darkness of lies.

We need your help.


What belief system should we follow. What should we put out trust in. What do you trust in?

Cheers

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Not absolutely certain.


It is certain enough to assume gravity will work just the same as it always did.

There also is not reason to think otherwise.

There however is a big difference between that and being "absolutely certain".


To be "absolutely certain", you would need 100% exact proof (not mere evidence, but proof). How could you ever have that about wheter or not gravity will work tomorrow like it does today?


You can't. Hence why "absolute certainty" is not a part of the equation here.

If you still aren't clear about what I mean with "absolute certainty" and why it is unwise to assume such certainties about pretty much anything, then I don't think that even more examples will be of much help.

Hey DH

Hope you had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Years

Gravity is an example of a 'Certainty' you do not deal with.

Certainty - firm conviction that something is the case.

We have an example my friend - gravity. Just to make sure i do in fact 'get it'. How would you define the difference between a certainty and an absolute certainity?

Is the word absolute used here in relation to total or complete?

Don't change all the language just to confuse and obfuscate the point please. It is very dishonesty to do so.

Connie - What would you consider something as unknown that could be knowable?

DogmaHunter - An example of that might be..... life on other planets in other solar systems, for example.
It is knowable in principle

Connie - 'So something unknowable that can be known is life on other planets?'

DogmaHunter - Don't change all the language just to confuse and obfuscate the point please. It is very dishonesty to do so.




My friend please dont be rash.

I don't know what was unclear about what I said. Seems pretty straightforward.

A claim of life on other another planet is verifiable in principe: all it takes is visiting the planet and you can do your test.

The problem is that currently we don't have the technology to go to another planet.

Verifiable - able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.

In Principle - as a general idea or plan, although the details are not yet established.



Dh- " A claim of life on other another planet is verifiable in principe"

A claim of life on another planet is able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate or justified, as a general idea or plan although the details are not yet established.


Would you call it an expectation?

all it takes is visiting the planet and you can do your test.
The problem is that currently we don't have the technology to go to another planet.

Dito with the example of a hypothesis in physics.

It can be perfectly verifiable in principle, but the test could require a more powerfull particle accelerator then the ones that exist today.


So, while the claim is verifiable, it currently can not be verified due to limitation of technology - not due to limitations imposed by the claim itself.

Please excuse me my friend iam confused - as always . It seems you are suggesting that life on other planets is a sure thing. What do you mean here? Should some things be accepted as true until proven false?

Contrast with the claim of an undetectable dragon again....

That claims is not verifiable in principle. It is defined as being "undetectable". So NO technology can be developed to detect it. Not today, not tomorrow.


Get the difference now?

Sort of. Im Getting there my dear .

If there was an undetectable dragon how would you know it existed or was in fact a dragon?

X seems to equal dragon?

Ow, ok. So you're one of those people who doesn't understand that "not accepting X" is NOT the same as saying "X is false".

Let's illustrate with the "jar of gumballs" analogy...

There's this jar of gumballs. We don't know how many balls are inside and we can't count them. The amount of balls in the jar is either odd or even.


Suppose you claim "there is an even amount of balls in the jar, do you accept this as true?"
I answer "no, I do not accept that as true".

Does that mean that I believe that the amount is odd instead?
Off course, it does NOT.

Not accepting a claim as true does NOT automatically mean that you'll accept the opposite claim as true.

The correct answer here, is "i don't know if it's odd or even".
Which means that the answer is "no" to both:
- do you believe it is even? => no
- do you believe it is odd? => no

Because I don't know what the correct answer is. Why would I commit to an answer, if I don't know?

I assume the jar of gum balls equals God.

Why dont you just open up the jar and count! That way you will find out the answer. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free

Mat 7:7
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Ow, ok. So you're one of those people who doesn't understand that "not accepting X" is NOT the same as saying "X is false".

X = God

Not accepting God is not the same as saying that God is false.

Do you not accept God or do you believe God to be false?

To treat the religious claims of your particular religion, in the exact same way as you treat all other claims (both from rivaling religious and otherwise).

What happens if i had an experience with God using the Christian method - I got a result?

To only believe those things that can be reasonable supported / demonstrated with independend evidence. To not believe things simply because it brings you comfort or whatever.

What would be an example of a thing which can be "reasonable supported / demonstrated with independent evidence". Would this be an absolute certainty?

Ps life on another planet is an example of something which is "verifiable in principle".

Reality is what it is, regardless of how that makes you feel.
If you are diagnosed with a cancer, you might not like it. But then not believing it, simply because it doesn't bring you comfort, doesn't seem very wise.

Say for example, we had a picnic together and enjoyed each others conpany. I saw a fox in the woods and you did not. Does the fox exist?

Say i had a puzzle. I could not solve it but you could. Am i wrong to say the puzzle cannot be solved?

Say i had an experience and you did not. Does that mean it did not happen to me or effect me?

I can't offer you what you are asking.

You want a model of reality that makes you feel good.
I want a model of reality that is just accurate. Regardless of how it makes me feel.

My dear im just asking you what your position is. To be honest iam not interested in accepting what you have to offer. I have made a commitment to God . I ask questions to get answers




I have answers. Some highlights.

You want a model of reality that is accurate. It is certain enough to assume gravity will work just the same as it always did.
There also is not reason to think otherwise - it is and it isnt.

A claim of life on other another planet is verifiable in principe: all it takes is visiting the planet and you can do your test. Not accepting X" is NOT the same as saying "X is false".

It's just logical reasoning.





Your position is having sound judgement; fair and sensible.

Do you have complete trust in your judgement?

Cheers

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hope you had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Years

I Did! Thank you, I hope you and your family & friends had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too!

Hey bugs dont let your mouth be too wide open in surprise or wonder. I wrote them my dear.

I am certain i had a bath. How about you provide me with an example you disagree with from my list of certainties

How does knowing someone like you give an 'inkling of uncertainity'? Do you not exist bugs?

Sure I exist. The question I asked though is also going to address the next question of yours:

I am unsure how to answer this. The last parts of this statement do not seem to fit in with the first part.

Let me simplify this: How do you know your God didn't create you, this universe and everything in it 5 minutes ago, complete with all your memories of a full life in this universe as if you'd been here all along? Couldn't your God do that if he wanted to?

I have had experiences with God through the Holy Spirit. Ive had great experiences which were transforming and left me with no doubt what so ever. Ask

I was cut and the scar has never healed That is to say - i felt a new person. I felt the presence of God.

How did you know it was a God and your specific God, and not say, your imagination or your dreams?

Iam not mistaken. I followed the Christian formula and got a result. I went through Christ. I did not receive nirvana. I gave my self to God. I did not give it to Zeus.

What other formulas have you thoroughly tested, are you aware of all the other religious people who have tested their faiths and came up verifying their God(s) and not Yours? How can that be? Who is wrong and how would you find out?

To be sure is to be completely confident that one is right. To be convinced means to be certain of something. To be certain, an experience must be able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case.

It happened to me. I saw it. I felt it. I lived it. Its like a comet. Either you saw it or you didnt. If you didnt, it is not reasonable to say i did not.

Im 100% sure i had an encounter with God. Im certain with no error. Just like i am 100% certain i saw my friend last night. No accounting for error here.

Could Satan have fooled you? After all, Satan is a very powerful supernatural being too, right? How can you tell it wasn't Satan messing with your meagre and fallible human mind?

"but I do so on a reasoned background of prior experience and/or evidence, just as this child example of yours does. I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before".

You seem certain here?

Sure, but not 100% certain.

Do you want to know?

Of course! If there is a God, then I definitely need to know this.

I have never encountered a hindu god. I believe them to be either fallen engels or unGodly spirits. I have God and i know Him.

Are you aware that the Hindu religion predates your religion by several centuries to a milennia and a half? Back to my earlier question about verifying that experience. How do you verify what you experienced? Could it be that your God is just one of the Hindu religion Gods fooling you into thinking he is the Only God of your religion? Do you think you can discern the difference if an all-powerful supernatural entity wanted to fool you?

You have complete trust in science?

No.

You are not an authority on reality? Are you unreliable?

I could be, Yes.

Just asking. do you?.

The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This can only be experienced, observed and rationalized. An experience happened. I piece of fruit fell on my head. Reality - a piece of fruit landed on my head. The result - hurt head.

I came to my belief through experience and seeking the Christian God.

But that reality can be verified any number of ways. You could be on security camera when the piece of fruit landed on your head and others could see it. You could go to a Doctor or Forensic Technician and they could verify your bruise as having been created by a fruity object, etc. you might've been in company of friends and they too saw you catch it with your head, so on.

Seeking post-hoc justification of a presupposed belief isn't the same thing if you wanted to actually know what is true.

Good work friend. i would just like to hightlight the father aspect. Im glad your children have a dad and are secure. You are a marvel

Just curious. What would you do if one of your children were disobedient and uncooperative?

why Thank you! This happens on occasion, I help my children understand and rationally evaluate the effects of their actions on the people around them. If they understand why what they're doing is not acceptible, then they'll more likely be able to adjust their behaviour permanently for the better. It is quite effective I have to say. If it doesn't have the desired effect, then I might need to take it further, either by revoking tv/online access, or assigning chores, etc. but this is a rarity these days.

How does one know anything? You are either taught or you learn for yourself.

God has promised me something. I know God to be real and i have no reason to doubt Him.

Why do you doubt?

Because there's no evidence. This is why I ask how you could even know there is a God to start with, let alone all the things he wants us to do, etc.

You can not offer me anything. You have nothing my friend.

Well, rationality is very valuable in reality, it prevents us from being ripped off by psychics, con artists and faith healers, etc. It also saves us from being swindled out of hard-earned cash by Nigeria 419 scams and other online cons, and so on. it gives us pause to understand that magic and ghosts aren't real and gives us an understanding of the nature of evidence and the ability to rationally consider any evidence provided in support of a proposition, any proposition at that. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but needless to say, being rational is a very practical and useful trait for the real world.

What proof do you need to be sure?

I'm not sure, what do you have? (standard disclaimer: If there is a God and he has the traits most bible believers says he has, then he knows what would convince me and hasn't done so yet - therefore he either doesn't want me to know he exists, or doesn't care about me enough to make himself known.)

To not drink water would lead to death. There is no substitute.

Does this mean there is no substitute to christian faith???

Did you just agree with me?!?!

sadly, no. I was imagining alcoholic drink, not water - but let me suggest Smoking then - what would you suggest as a replacement for smoking? or just recently I heard another good one, Cancer. What would you replace Cancer with?

Christianity is wrong. Therefore Christians must be wrong. We are not in the light of truth we are in the darkness of lies.

We need your help.

What belief system should we follow. What should we put out trust in. What do you trust in?

Cheers

Rational thinking and secular governance. I'd put your trust in that. Much of the civilised world now does that. There are some states that still base their governance on religious doctrine (Turkey, Pakistan, UAE, Iran, ISIS), but for the most part, none of the civilised nations base their laws on any religion (and lucky too...), instead they are based on a secular outlook instead. There is a direct inverse correlation of health, welfare and happiness to the religiosity of its governance, that is to say, the more religious a society is, the worse they are by pretty much any measurable metric you want to quote, whether it be teen pregnancy, repeat teen pregnancy, crime, societal health and happiness, STDs, economy, etc.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I Did! Thank you, I hope you and your family & friends had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year too!

Hey hey there my spectacular rabbit you!

Thank you for the kind words.

Sure I exist. The question I asked though is also going to address the next question of yours:

Bugs "How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty?"

My dear why is the knowledge of your existance linked to uncertainty?

Do you exist, is that an absolute certainty?

Is death an absolute certainty?

Let me simplify this: How do you know your God didn't create you, this universe and everything in it 5 minutes ago, complete with all your memories of a full life in this universe as if you'd been here all along? Couldn't your God do that if he wanted to?

Thank you friend

5 mins ago from when you wrote this or 5mins from my time - now? 5mins from last month when we conversed or 5mins from an arbitrary position?

My answer.
Experiences and the results of those. What you think?

Because there's no evidence. This is why I ask how you could even know there is a God to start with, let alone all the things he wants us to do, etc

Back to my earlier question about verifying that experience. How do you verify what you experienced? Could it be that your God is just one of the Hindu religion Gods fooling you into thinking he is the Only God of your religion? Do you think you can discern the difference if an all-powerful supernatural entity wanted to fool you?

How did you know it was a God and your specific God, and not say, your imagination or your dreams?

Nice question. Lets look at my big experience.

I had 'hands laid on me' and there was 2 ladies who were speaking in tongues and i was praying in deep focus to God.

I was sitting on a chair upright at 10-11am on sunday. I went into a dream like state and found muself soaring through the air. I could feel the wind on my face and could not have made this image up.

When i finally got the courage to look around and see my surroundings i noticed a volcano starting to get closer. On further inspection i realised i was heading straight for the lava.

I started to struggle and became stressed. Just as i was about to hit the point of 'no return' and hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus (help)'. Immediately i was 'caught' in the air and lifted up. I felt the relief and was still slightly stressed.

I was point back in the air - by invisible hands or force field - and continued to soar.

Then the picture suddenly 'flamed' over and i was presented with 3 silhouettes all joined together and overlapping each other. There was fire everywhere, i could hear the sizzle. I stared for what seemed like 10-15 seconds. It was remarkable.

I came to and 'woke up'. The 2 ladies were puzzled and looked worried. They asked me what just happened. I told them what i told you. I was changed again and now more so.



How do we speak to someone? We call them by there name and direct our attention to them. I do not address you as dogmahunter.

If i want to speak to Jim. I do not call him alex and look a different way. I focus on Jim.

Jim has an option to ignore me or reciprocate. If i do not engage Jim, it may not be likely that we will know each other.

I did not have a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep or had a cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal.

I had a practical and legitimate contact with God. It was an important experience that happened and the occurrence left an impression on me. It was a revelation - the making known of something - one formed without conscious thought.

Ive had dreams. This experience was something else. This was not from the part of the mind that imagines things. It produced powerful feelings and left me changed.

I know it was from God. The experience lines up with christian doctrine. I receieved the Holy Spirit - flames. I can feel the presence of God. I call it The Power. I can feel it leave and i can feel it come on.

Once you have felt this sensation. You know. The Holy Spirit is like an intuition in the heart. I love it. If this is a dream. I do not want to wake. Leave me sleeping in my beautiful Lord.


Wait!!! Im awake. There is only one thing i want and i can not have it on this earth. I want to hug Jesus.

i want to feel like a child secure in his fathers arms. Im going to cry also i can finally hug my dad after 10 years. I cant wait to see my dad.

What other formulas have you thoroughly tested, are you aware of all the other religious people who have tested their faiths and came up verifying their God(s) and not Yours?

Let them have their Gods if they want them.

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet

How can that be? Who is wrong and how would you find out?

I know. People and their free will to have a different belief system. Shame on them. Only me and you can have a belief system.

How would you find out? If you are interested you should cpnverse with many ppl from many religions and come to a conclusion.

Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

1 Peter 4:6
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

How do we know what is true. You make a decision with the facts that you have.
What religion are you aware where people have tested their faiths and came up verifying their God? What verification did they get?







Why should i accept pagan gods when you dont?

Could Satan have fooled you?

How can you tell it wasn't Satan messing with your meagre and fallible human mind?

Did satan fool me into having faith in Jesus Christ?!?! My friend does that not sound counter productive?

My dear this statement does not look good on you!

After all, Satan is a very powerful supernatural being too, right?

What attributes does satan have that make him very powerful?

Sure, but not 100% certain.

Bugs - "I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before."

Friend, that statement has 100% certainty. You observed someone else sit down therefore it is safe. If you were not completely certain you would have doubt. You would test the chair.


What about this

Bugs - "I know that my society protects me as a consumer and patient by requiring this person to go through a stringent and comprehensive six year medical degree at a university that ascribes to the standards set out by my government on evidence based medical science, I know this person also had to intern and be supervised at a medical facility for at least another year of further medical training before they can register with the medical board to even be able to practice in the first place"

Wow, you got very detailed here, having all the necessary parts.

You have certainty here to the great extent.

Of course! If there is a God, then I definitely need to know this

What would you do bugs? Would you seek Him?

Are you aware that the Hindu religion predates your religion by several centuries to a milennia and a half?

Wow!

No

Icon - "Do You have complete trust in science?"

Bugs - "no".

However in a previous discussion.

Bugs - " I have trust that I proportion to the claim and the evidence in support of it. The scientific method, which I think is the process you describe here, is the single most reliable method by which we have all the technology and progress we enjoy in our modern lives."

This statements implies that for you, science is consistantly able to be trusted? How is this statement not complete trust?

I could be

Ok. You are unsure if you are an authority to reality.

Yes

Ok. You have agreed to that you are unreliable.

But that reality can be verified any number of ways. You could be on security camera when the piece of fruit landed on your head and others could see it. You could go to a Doctor or Forensic Technician and they could verify your bruise as having been created by a fruity object, etc. you might've been in company of friends and they too saw you catch it with your head, so on.

So we can accept outside observation as a form of proof. My friend this statement really backfired on you.

The above statement has made the below statement redundant.

Bugs - "How do you know your God didn't create you, this universe and everything in it 5 minutes ago, complete with all your memories of a full life in this universe as if you'd been here all along? Couldn't your God do that if he wanted to?

why Thank you!
This happens on occasion, I help my children understand and rationally evaluate the effects of their actions on the people around them. If they understand why what they're doing is not acceptible, then they'll more likely be able to adjust their behaviour permanently for the better. It is quite effective I have to say. If it doesn't have the desired effect, then I might need to take it further, either by revoking tv/online access, or assigning chores, etc. but this is a rarity these days.

What happens - in the rarest of occasions - if revoking tv does not work and you have exhauted all those other options. The child still refuses to cooperate and is now disrespectful?

Because there's no evidence.

We have discovered you are unsure, uncertain, unreliable and inconsistent.

You are what we call an unreliable witness. Your view point re evidence and God is useless. Please excuse the bluntness friend.

Well, rationality is very valuable in reality, it prevents us from being ripped off by psychics, con artists and faith healers, etc.

You are unsure if you are an authority to reality. How does rationality work if you are uncertain, unsure and unreliable?

Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but needless to say, being rational is a very practical and useful trait for the real world.

Bugs - "I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before."

I'm not sure, what do you have? (standard disclaimer:

This statement shows how consistent you are with being unsure. You dont even know.

If there is a God and he has the traits most bible believers says he has, then he knows what would convince me and hasn't done so yet - therefore he either doesn't want me to know he exists, or doesn't care about me enough to make himself known.)

Do you believe God must make the effort?

sadly, no.

Fair enough.

I was imagining alcoholic drink, not water - but let me suggest Smoking then - what would you suggest as a replacement for smoking?

Chew gum.

or just recently I heard another good one, Cancer. What would you replace Cancer with?

I would replace a deadly disease which is an illness with health. A banana sounds better than cancer

Rational thinking and secular governance. I'd put your trust in that.

The same rational thinking that led to your uncertainty and unreliability?

In your case, do you trust turnball and his decisions or trump?

Much of the civilised world now does that. There are some states that still base their governance on religious doctrine (Turkey, Pakistan, UAE, Iran, ISIS), but for the most part, none of the civilised nations base their laws on any religion (and lucky too...), instead they are based on a secular outlook instead.

Lets join the 'band wagon' my friend. Like you said before "because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it" - the fact that many people do something as a form of validation.

There is a direct inverse correlation of health, welfare and happiness to the religiosity of its governance, that is to say, the more religious a society is, the worse they are by pretty much any measurable metric you want to quote,

What irreligious country fits this model of health, welfare and happiness.






My friend im getting you. Any possibility as long as its not God and His teachings? Is this a form of confirmation bias?


I like you

Cheers

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Bugs "How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty?"

My dear why is the knowledge of your existance linked to uncertainty?

Do you exist, is that an absolute certainty?

Is death an absolute certainty?

You believe with 100% certainty that your God is real and you're practising the right religion. How could I exist as a non-believer if you have 100% clarity on this? I'm quite convinced I exist, though there's an incredibly slim to buckley's chance I'm a simulation... (?)

Thank you friend

5 mins ago from when you wrote this or 5mins from my time - now? 5mins from last month when we conversed or 5mins from an arbitrary position?

My answer.
Experiences and the results of those. What you think?

Well, perhaps you misunderstood what I said - you would have all the memories implanted by your God as well, so you wouldn't have any Experiences that wouldn't confirm you always being there. Is your God able to do that in the same way he created Adam and Eve (and every other creature and plant ready to go and fully functional)?

Nice question. Lets look at my big experience.

I had 'hands laid on me' and there was 2 ladies who were speaking in tongues and i was praying in deep focus to God.

I was sitting on a chair upright at 10-11am on sunday. I went into a dream like state and found muself soaring through the air. I could feel the wind on my face and could not have made this image up.

When i finally got the courage to look around and see my surroundings i noticed a volcano starting to get closer. On further inspection i realised i was heading straight for the lava.

I started to struggle and became stressed. Just as i was about to hit the point of 'no return' and hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus (help)'. Immediately i was 'caught' in the air and lifted up. I felt the relief and was still slightly stressed.

I was point back in the air - by invisible hands or force field - and continued to soar.

Then the picture suddenly 'flamed' over and i was presented with 3 silhouettes all joined together and overlapping each other. There was fire everywhere, i could hear the sizzle. I stared for what seemed like 10-15 seconds. It was remarkable.

I came to and 'woke up'. The 2 ladies were puzzled and looked worried. They asked me what just happened. I told them what i told you. I was changed again and now more so.

Do you know what Lucid Dreaming is? This is a well-known phenomenon: Lucid dream - Wikipedia - You already have the belief that your God exists and your Religion is True, so it could simply be confirmation bias feeding on your lucid dream state, which of course reinforces your prior belief.

I suggest this because there's any number of believers of other religions who have done exactly what you say you've done, but instead they see images, visions and iconography related to their religion. Do you agree you can't both be right?

You say you're 100% certain, yet doesn't your religious doctrine tell you that you are in fact a fallible human being? These two positions are mutually exclusive, are they not? Which one do you hold?

How do we speak to someone? We call them by there name and direct our attention to them. I do not address you as dogmahunter.

If i want to speak to Jim. I do not call him alex and look a different way. I focus on Jim.

Jim has an option to ignore me or reciprocate. If i do not engage Jim, it may not be likely that we will know each other.

I did not have a series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep or had a cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal.

I had a practical and legitimate contact with God. It was an important experience that happened and the occurrence left an impression on me. It was a revelation - the making known of something - one formed without conscious thought.

Ive had dreams. This experience was something else. This was not from the part of the mind that imagines things. It produced powerful feelings and left me changed.

I know it was from God. The experience lines up with christian doctrine. I receieved the Holy Spirit - flames. I can feel the presence of God. I call it The Power. I can feel it leave and i can feel it come on.

Once you have felt this sensation. You know. The Holy Spirit is like an intuition in the heart. I love it. If this is a dream. I do not want to wake. Leave me sleeping in my beautiful Lord.


Wait!!! Im awake. There is only one thing i want and i can not have it on this earth. I want to hug Jesus.

i want to feel like a child secure in his fathers arms. Im going to cry also i can finally hug my dad after 10 years. I cant wait to see my dad.

More confirmation bias? You've admitted that all of these experiences happen in your head and nowhere else are these experiences manifesting. You also acknowledge that your experiences are not able to be verified in any way as being from your God outside your own head, right?

Let them have their Gods if they want them.

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet

For outsiders like me, we see all the various religions, all expressing 100% certainty in their God(s), yet they're all mutually exclusive, meaning no more than one of you can be right, if even that. You have no way of demonstrating what happened in your head is even legitimate, let alone caused by your God, right?

I know. People and their free will to have a different belief system. Shame on them. Only me and you can have a belief system.

How would you find out? If you are interested you should cpnverse with many ppl from many religions and come to a conclusion.

Mark 16:15
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

1 Peter 4:6
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

How do we know what is true. You make a decision with the facts that you have.
What religion are you aware where people have tested their faiths and came up verifying their God? What verification did they get?

Why should i accept pagan gods when you dont?

Why do you accept Your God when you don't even test all the other Gods let alone accept them?

Did satan fool me into having faith in Jesus Christ?!?! My friend does that not sound counter productive?

My dear this statement does not look good on you!

It does if the Jewish people are right and Satan fooled you all into thinking that Jesus is God too... You are aware they wrote the Torah, keep the Old Testament and don't accept Jesus to be the Messiah, right?

What attributes does satan have that make him very powerful?

Not sure, I don't know Satan, but plenty of Christians believe he is capable of all forms of supernatural trickery, in some cases completely fabricating an entire planet of Fossils to fool scientists that the earth is old, and mind tricking people into accepting Evolution to be a fact (like me for both those points!) - this is not a worldly ability and would have to be supernatural - are you saying that you don't know how powerful Satan is?

Bugs - "I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before."

Friend, that statement has 100% certainty. You observed someone else sit down therefore it is safe. If you were not completely certain you would have doubt. You would test the chair.

rong, that I've seen others do it is test enough for me. That's not to say I'n 100% confident that it won't break (chairs have broken on me before, and I've seen them break for others too, quite hilariously so in fact), but it isn't so tenuous that I feel it necessary to test it before taking a seat.

What about this

Bugs - "I know that my society protects me as a consumer and patient by requiring this person to go through a stringent and comprehensive six year medical degree at a university that ascribes to the standards set out by my government on evidence based medical science, I know this person also had to intern and be supervised at a medical facility for at least another year of further medical training before they can register with the medical board to even be able to practice in the first place"

Wow, you got very detailed here, having all the necessary parts.

You have certainty here to the great extent.

I sure do, Yes! But not 100% certainty. We've got documented cases of malpractice, and even fraudulent qualifications - but again, these are so rare as to be background noise in the quality and assuredness of their medical capabilities on the whole.

What would you do bugs? Would you seek Him?

I have done, for many decades - not so much these days though.

Icon - "Do You have complete trust in science?"

Bugs - "no".

However in a previous discussion.

Bugs - " I have trust that I proportion to the claim and the evidence in support of it. The scientific method, which I think is the process you describe here, is the single most reliable method by which we have all the technology and progress we enjoy in our modern lives."

This statements implies that for you, science is consistantly able to be trusted? How is this statement not complete trust?

Is 99.9% complete trust? There are documented examples where science and/or the scientific process has failed - it isn't a perfect system, just the most reliable system we have so far.

Ok. You are unsure if you are an authority to reality.

No, I'm not entirely sure, but I have a working model of reality that continues to provide consistent and reliable results. Also, that you believe you are an authority on reality (along with my Muslim friends and Hindu friend) and believe something very different to what I accept as reality gives me at least a little pause to double-check my working model of reality.

Ok. You have agreed to that you are unreliable.

No, I said I could be unreliable, I didn't say I AM unreliable. I have to acknowledge I may not be entirely 100% reliable because there are so many ways in which I could be fooled - Magicians or Illusionists can sometimes fool me (in fact, many of them are so good at fooling people, that they are professionals and sell tickets to performances). If I lack sleep, I could possibly see hallucinations, I might also experience a lucid dream (as discussed earlier) - I'm not sure I have, but knowing I'm not 100% infallible (as are you), I have to at least be sceptical about the reality I experience, just in case. If you don't acknowledge your fallibility, then you're in danger of becoming one of those people that get taken away and put in a padded room because if you do experience something like a delusion, then delusions are real to the people that experience them and act on them as if they are - and I'm not saying you're delusional, but how would you know if you experience delusions?

So we can accept outside observation as a form of proof. My friend this statement really backfired on you.

The above statement has made the below statement redundant.

Bugs - "How do you know your God didn't create you, this universe and everything in it 5 minutes ago, complete with all your memories of a full life in this universe as if you'd been here all along? Couldn't your God do that if he wanted to?

So, you've completely failed to understand the point I made - that is your God would've created absolutely everything required for you to be doing what you're doing now as if you'd been there the entire time. Do you think your God couldn't create an entire universe with you in it, complete with all your memories and hard evidence as if you'd been there all along? He did this during creation week, right?

What happens - in the rarest of occasions - if revoking tv does not work and you have exhauted all those other options. The child still refuses to cooperate and is now disrespectful?

then they get banished to their rooms - this hasn't happened yet, but of course, there's quite a lot I can do to effect a punishment before this, I'd certainly have sat down with them and asked them why they're acting that way ("what's the problem?") to get to the root of the issue, I could also assign them more chores, I'd impress further on them how their actions affect me and everyone else around them,how they look to other outsiders, etc.

We have discovered you are unsure, uncertain, unreliable and inconsistent.

Not in the least. All I have done is acknowledged that I'm not infallible. Are you Infallible? I understand your religion agrees with me that you're indeed as fallible as I am. The difference between you and I is that I acknowledge it while you exhibit cognitive dissonance by simultaneously holding positions of 100% certainty while holding to a religion that condemns you for being a fallible human being. How do you see this?

You are what we call an unreliable witness. Your view point re evidence and God is useless. Please excuse the bluntness friend.

That's okay, excuse my bluntness for pointing out your hypocrisy and dishonesty by claiming to be equal 100% infallible as your God and trying to equivocate my 99.9% certainty as 100% uncertainty. Is this how you honestly want to represent your religion? Is your God watching you do this right now?

You are unsure if you are an authority to reality. How does rationality work if you are uncertain, unsure and unreliable?

As indicated, I'm not 100% uncertain, unsure and unreliable, and I'm disappointed you resort to such dishonest and disreputable methods in this discussion. I may hold up to 99.9% confidence in a position, acceptance or idea, but I'll always be open to examining the evidence I might be wrong. It's the only way we can learn from our mistakes, to be 100% certain in an idea is to literally be irrational. This is a damaging and dangerous position to be in. This is what causes especially faithful parents to let their children die of trivially curable diseases because they had faith in prayer. It's how people come to positions of anti-vaccination ideals despite the mountains of evidence that shows the benefits of vaccinating, it's also how people who are otherwise nice people turn into irrational bigots about who other people are and make predisposed opinions that cause their deaths through flying planes into buildings, or bombing family planning clinics, and so on.

Bugs - "I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before."

Yes, this is rational thinking, wouldn't you agree?

This statement shows how consistent you are with being unsure. You dont even know.

Continuing to be dishonest here. Being 99.9% sure in other contexts is not the same as being 100% unsure. In this respect though, I can think of a number of things that would convince me - just that many of them would require them to be double-checked by others to make sure I'm not experiencing a delusion, or suffering from confirmation bias, etc. Wouldn't you agree though, that a God would know what would be convincing to me in exactly the way for me to believe straight away?

Do you believe God must make the effort?

If he wants rational thinking people to know he exists, of course, why wouldn't he? After all, I made the effort for the first three or so decades of my life and I got nothing from it.

Chew gum.

lol! Sure, what would you replace Chewing Gum with?

I would replace a deadly disease which is an illness with health. A banana sounds better than cancer

is Health a quantifiable element? i.e. if you remove the cancer illness from someone, do you have to fill them up with health (or a banana) after the illness removal made space for it? in other words, health is a normal state in the absence of any illness, right? or do things work differently where you live?

The same rational thinking that led to your uncertainty and unreliability?

In your case, do you trust turnball and his decisions or trump?

Nope, the same rational thinking that led me to recognise human failings and minimise them while rationally evaluating the evidence around me.

My elected leader is Turnbull, so obviously I have a vested interest in him making valid and rational decisions on my behalf. Trump on the other hand has put back his Nation's relations and international respect so far that it will be recovering for decades from the damage he's done. It'd be comical if it were any other nation...

Lets join the 'band wagon' my friend. Like you said before "because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it" - the fact that many people do something as a form of validation.

Nope - that it has a demonstrably better outcome is why you should adopt it.

What irreligious country fits this model of health, welfare and happiness.

Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, China, Australia...? What exactly are you after, references?

Religious Belief & Societal Health: New Study Reveals that Religion Does Not Lead to a Healthier Society

The Atheists' Case for Fighting Poverty :

"Some data from American states, discussed by columnist C. J. Werleman at Alternet, support the idea that social dysfunction is associated with higher religiosity. As Werleman notes:

Staying with the U.S., this correlation between a high rate of poverty and high degree of religiosity is supported by a 2009 Pew Forum “Importance of Religion” study that determined the degree of religious fervor in all 50 states. The study measured a number of variables including frequency of prayer, absolute belief in God, and so forth. Led by Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, nine of the top 10 most religious states were southern. Oklahoma ruined the South’s clean sweep by sneaking in at number seven.​

Not coincidentally, led again by Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, nine of the top 10 poorest states are also found in the South, while northern and pacific [sic] states such as Wisconsin, Washington, California, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont are among the least religious and the most economically prosperous.

The relationship among countries of the world, then, is mirrored among states within the U.S. And politicians recognize this. Since religion helps people cope with hard lives, encouraging religiosity not only pacifies the population, but also keeps them from taking social action to better their lot."​

Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

My friend im getting you. Any possibility as long as its not God and His teachings? Is this a form of confirmation bias?

No, you're getting from me - Any possibility as long as it is supported by reality, rational assessment and/or evidence, no matter where it comes from, or where it leads. I guess wanting to conform to reality is a form of confirmation bias - don't you want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible? Rational discourse is how we achieve it.

I like you

Cheers

Thanks @_-iconoclast-_ , I like you too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We have an example my friend - gravity. Just to make sure i do in fact 'get it'. How would you define the difference between a certainty and an absolute certainity?

Let's try with an example...................

1. I'm certain I took a shower this morning.
2. I'm not absolutely certain I did.

I can't be absolutely certain because I can easily imagine scenario's where that shower actually never took place. I could have been dreaming or hallucinating for example. It's not like there are no precedents of people having false memories.
Technically, I could also be a brain in a vat that didn't actually take a shower (ever).
Technically, the universe and everything in it could have also been created 5 sec ago with a mere memory of me taking a shower - which in that case I obviously didn't, since I didn't exist yet.

See?

Connie - What would you consider something as unknown that could be knowable?

DogmaHunter - An example of that might be..... life on other planets in other solar systems, for example.
It is knowable in principle

Connie - 'So something unknowable that can be known is life on other planets?'

DogmaHunter - Don't change all the language just to confuse and obfuscate the point please. It is very dishonesty to do so.

My friend please dont be rash.

Consider the words I bolded. That's changing the language. "unknown" and "unknowable" are not the same thing.

Nothing rash about that.

Verifiable - able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
In Principle - as a general idea or plan, although the details are not yet established.

Dh- " A claim of life on other another planet is verifiable in principe"

A claim of life on another planet is able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate or justified, as a general idea or plan although the details are not yet established.

Would you call it an expectation?

Sounds like you are trying to sow confusion through semantic trickery.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about it....
We can verify in principle if life on other planets exists, because it is a knowable thing. Life is detectable, as demonstrated right here on this planet.
The problem is simply that we currently have no way of going to other planets outside our solar system. It is however not unimaginable that one day we might be able to do so one way or another.

If on the other hand, the claim would be that there are undetectable unicorns living on those planets, that's a completely different story. Even if we could reach those planets, we would still not be able to detect the undetectable.

So regular life on other planets is verifiable in principle.
Undetectable entities on any planet are not verifiable in principle.

Please excuse me my friend iam confused - as always . It seems you are suggesting that life on other planets is a sure thing.

For crying out loud.....................................
I'm not and neither is it the point of the examples.

I'm just illustrating what I mean by the words "verifiable", "verifiable in principle" and "unverifiable".

What do you mean here? Should some things be accepted as true until proven false?

No.

If there was an undetectable dragon how would you know it existed or was in fact a dragon?

Excellent question. The answer is that you can't.
Now, substitute the word "dragon" with "god" or any other unfalsifiable supernatural thing.
Indeed.... how could you ever know? Why would you even give it 5 sec of thought?
Such claims are infinite in number and entirely useless......

I assume the jar of gum balls equals God.

You assume wrong. This analog has actually nothing to do with gods and everything with the question "when is accepting a claim as accurate justified?" as well as "not accepting claim X as true" not being the same as "assuming X is false".

Why dont you just open up the jar and count!

The point of the analogy is to not having access to the gumballs in such a way that you can count them.

That way you will find out the answer. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free

True. And at that point, it would be actually verifiable knowledge. If I count them and then claim it's an odd number, then you don't need to take my word for it and "have faith". Instead, you could just count them yourself and verify my claim. That's exactly the point... I would be in a position where my claim of "it's an odd number" would be actually demonstrable.

But if none of us have access to the gumballs, why would you ever accept the "odd" or "even" claim?

X = God
Not accepting God is not the same as saying that God is false.
Do you not accept God or do you believe God to be false?

When it comes to the existance of anything, including god, there are 2 claims that can be made:
1. X exists
2. X does not exist

In the theism-atheism debate, it is the first claim that is being addressed.
Theists claim that God exists. Atheists reject that claim.

I don't see the point of the second claim. It's a useless claim without merrit, meaning, value,...

What happens if i had an experience with God using the Christian method - I got a result?

Plenty of stuff to be said here. In fact, one could write an entire book about it. Some people actually did exactly that. I'll just stick to a few points that pop into my head on the spot:
1. what about the muslims who had an experience with Allah using the Islamic method?
2. what about the <insert religious follower> who had an experience with <insert deity> using the <insert any religion> method?
3. corrolation does not imply causation
4. your personal experiences mean nothing to other people
5. I'ld ask you to repeat your results under controlled conditions
6. I'ld point out the very likely fault of confirmation bias

These are rather vague and rather generic answers, but it's the best I can do in response to your rather vague and generic statement. We'ld actually have to look at it on a case by case basis, taking all the details and specifics into account. But those 6 points are anyway all very likely things that would turn up. Every time a specific claim of that sort came up in a conversation, it turned out to be infested with such problems.

What would be an example of a thing which can be "reasonable supported / demonstrated with independent evidence"

Any well established scientific idea, will do.

Would this be an absolute certainty?

No. Nothing is.

Say for example, we had a picnic together and enjoyed each others conpany. I saw a fox in the woods and you did not. Does the fox exist?

I don't need your testimony of seeing a fox in the woods to know that foxes exist.
Would I believe you that you saw one? Likely, assuming we find ourselves in an area where foxes live.

Let's go a step further.
We are at the north pole and I claim to have seen a giraf walking around on the permafrost and you did not. Would you believe me? How about if I told you I saw an alien space ship (anywhere on the planet)?

I'll go ahead and assume you would answer "no" to both. Why?

Say i had a puzzle. I could not solve it but you could. Am i wrong to say the puzzle cannot be solved?

Since I could solve it, obviously your claim would be wrong. Solving the puzzle would disprove the claim.

Let's again go a step further...
Suppose I can't solve it either.

Would that make your claim of it being unsolvable correct? Or would it require something more then just "you and I can't solve it"? If yes, what? If no, why not?

Say i had an experience and you did not. Does that mean it did not happen to me or effect me?

You ask the wrong question here.
I don't doubt that people have experiences.

When an alien abductee gives his testimoney while passing a lie detector test about how they were abducted from their bedroom, taken on a spaceship and had experiments done on them,... I don't doubt they had an experience.

They pass lie detector tests, they really do believe their own testimoney.
Clearly their beliefs are attached to very real experiences they had from which those beliefs sprang up.

However.... experiences and reality aren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, lot's of times, they aren't.

When you say you had some experience, I believe you.
It's how you explain your experience where the problem is....

Take a schizofrenic for example (not comparing you with psychiatric patients... it's just an easy example to illustrate what I mean).

They have auditory hallucinations. The infamous "hearing voices". They REALLY DO hear those voices. The thing is though, that what they "hear" isn't really there.
So yes, they most certainly have a very very real experience of hearing things.
The experience itself is very real. But it plays out between their ears.... not in actual reality.

To be honest iam not interested in accepting what you have to offer.

Then asking for what I have to offer, doesn't really sound like an honest question anway.

I have made a commitment to God .

I know. It's called dogma.

I ask questions to get answers

You just said that you aren't interested in the answers.... because of your a priori commitment to a mere belief.

Do you have complete trust in your judgement?

No. Which is why I tend to require independent objective evidence and verifiability/falsifiability of claims before I accept them.

Our personal judgement is the result of our senses and our brain interpreting our senses. And it is well known how very badly we can be tricked by that process.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

let's try with an example...................


1. I'm certain I took a shower this morning.

2. I'm not absolutely certain I did.

Hey there doggy

My dear you must have a bad memory. Do you not use soap? Hehe

So therefore if there is no absolute certainty, there is no absolute doubt?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

You believe with 100% certainty that your God is real and you're practising the right religion. How could I exist as a non-believer if you have 100% clarity on this? I'm quite convinced I exist, though there's an incredibly slim to buckley's chance I'm a simulation... (?)

Whats up doc. Pls excuse my delayed response.

Bugs - How could you exist as a non believer if i have 100% clarity on this?

My dear Im confused. Could you re word this.

In the meanwhile...

Bugs "How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty?"

Why is the knowledge of your existance linked to uncertainty?

Well, perhaps you misunderstood what I said - you would have all the memories implanted by your God as well, so you wouldn't have any Experiences that wouldn't confirm you always being there. Is your God able to do that in the same way he created Adam and Eve (and every other creature and plant ready to go and fully functional)?

Is God capable of implanting memories into my head, is He able to do so in the same way He created Adam and Eve?

Im more confused now friend?

Do you know what Lucid Dreaming is? This is a well-known phenomenon: Lucid dream - Wikipedia - You already have the belief that your God exists and your Religion is True, so it could simply be confirmation bias feeding on your lucid dream state, which of course reinforces your prior belief.

Of course my dear. I have experienced both.

Dream v vision.

A vision is where you see something; you get a heavenly perspective either in your literal eyes or in your mind's eye. A dream is what you see when you're asleep.

You have never had a vision. Until then you will never know the difference. This was a life changing experience. Afterwards i received the Holy Spirit - this was a form of confirmation not confirmation bias. i got a result.

I had a divine experience and it effected me. This experience changed me. I have never neen so effected by a dream, lucid or not.

This was during day 11am. Dreams happen when you sleep. I was conscious before it happened. I had breakfast. I have never neen abused. I have never seen the visuals i experienced before on tv or in my travels. I was not sick.

My last lucid dream. I found my self at high school and i was stressed over a test i had to do. In my mind i was feeling dread that i did not study when i realised wait... im 30yro and work for a living. I do not go to school.

I realised i was dreaming. I started to become awake and i woke up.

The only time i was able to control one of my dreams ie a made a tower appear. I woke up within a short period of time. I had become aware of the dream.

I was aware in my vision. It went for what felt like 10mins. It was real time and i haf no control over it.

I suggest this because there's any number of believers of other religions who have done exactly what you say you've done, but instead they see images, visions and iconography related to their religion. Do you agree you can't both be right?

Well my dear lets compare. Can you give me an example of these experiences that are exactly the same?

You say you're 100% certain, yet doesn't your religious doctrine tell you that you are in fact a fallible human being? These two positions are mutually exclusive, are they not? Which one do you hold?

I have the capability of making mistakes or being wrong. This is true. Being a fallible human being does not discredit confidence or certainty in one's own abilities or experiences. Being a fallible human being does not mean i cannot get some things right my dear.

Even a broken clock can display the correct time twice a day.

You are suggesting for me to doubt God and myself. You have suggested that i interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms my preexisting beliefs or hypotheses - this is not the case. I had a practical contact with God and observed facts and events.

My experience was so profound it effected me.

More confirmation bias? You've admitted that all of these experiences happen in your head and nowhere else are these experiences manifesting.

Where did i say that?


I trust it is not confirmation bias, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others have a relationship with God & the experience of having one myself.

Sound familiar?

You also acknowledge that your experiences are not able to be verified in any way as being from your God outside your own head, right?

How does one prove a personal experience?

You have no way of demonstrating what happened in your head is even legitimate, let alone caused by your God, right?

How does one prove personal experiences?

Why do you accept Your God when you don't even test all the other Gods let alone accept them?

You seem to suggest applying the scientific method to a spiritual matter. This is an error on your behalf.

I know God is real. I have a relationship with Him. God is the truth.

It could be luck, co incidence or fate. Ill accept either one. There is only 1 truth- what actually happened no matter the quantity or sequence of parts.

I know the truth. I got a result.

Again my friend. Your folly is applying the scientific method to God when you need the spiritual method. God has choosen the way to approach Him. You will not do so. You will always be lost my dear.

Now you my friend.

Why should i accept pagan gods when you do not?

It does if the Jewish people are right and Satan fooled you all into thinking that Jesus is God too... You are aware they wrote the Torah, keep the Old Testament and don't accept Jesus to be the Messiah, right?

Hehe ok. You are fun!

Last time i checked, the Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible and first 5 books of the tanakh.

What about the reverse, the Jews were wrong and rejected the messiah. Satan fooled the scribes, pharisees, sadducees and the learned!

Do not forget my friend. The early church was made of exclusively of Jews. Jews who knew the Law and were waiting for their messiah.

Now heres where things get interesting. Are you aware that modern rabbis reject satan - render as human adversary - and reject hell?

My dear when we consider modern Judaism, satan is not a malevolent being or super natural, or exists how tou know him. The jews would not consider me fooled by satan.

Not sure, I don't know Satan, but plenty of Christians believe he is capable of all forms of supernatural trickery, in some cases completely fabricating an entire planet of Fossils to fool scientists that the earth is old, and mind tricking people into accepting Evolution to be a fact (like me for both those points!) - this is not a worldly ability and would have to be supernatural - are you saying that you don't know how powerful Satan is?

Satan has as much power as I allow him to have over me. I have authority through Jesus Christ. 'Get behind me satan'. He is a liar, a coward and the accuser.

In the book of Job we Satan is given a measure of 'power' from God to test Job - not an eternal power but limited. What ever power he is allowed to have is only allowable if God decides it.

I do not know if satan did those things. That is speculation. Lets dance!

rong, that I've seen others do it is test enough for me. That's not to say I'n 100% confident that it won't break (chairs have broken on me before, and I've seen them break for others too, quite hilariously so in fact), but it isn't so tenuous that I feel it necessary to test it before taking a seat.

If you do not test then you do not have doubt. 100% certainty.

Test = doubt. No test = no doubt.


My cousin you have shown an inconsistency.

Previous discussion

Bugs - "Yes, I check the plank to make sure it is fine, and Yes, I Do 'rock' the chair."


Now....


Bugs - "but it isn't so tenuous that I feel it necessary to test it before taking a seat."



These 2 statements are not consistant. This does not look good.

You are inconsistent my dear.

I sure do, Yes! But not 100% certainty. We've got documented cases of malpractice, and even fraudulent qualifications - but again, these are so rare as to be background noise in the quality and assuredness of their medical capabilities on the whole.

There you go. Assuredness - The fact or condition of being without doubt.

Brother you are digging your self in!

As indicated, I'm not 100% uncertain, unsure and unreliable, and I'm disappointed you resort to such dishonest and disreputable methods in this discussion.

I have not been behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way. I have been civil.

My methods are not disrespectable in character or appearance. I have been polite.

My dear, you yourself said yes to being unreliable. Unless you are reliable - which would be another inconsistent statement you made.

Bugs "How can you be 100% certain of all this, isn't just knowing people like me existing, enough to sew at least an inkling of uncertainty?"

Your existance is linked to uncertainty.

You are inconsistent, uncertain and unreliable. This is not an attack. This has been observed.

I have done, for many decades - not so much these days though.

What methods did you use? How did you seek Him?


Consider this below remark you made previously.

Bugs - I don't even know his only Son actually existed,.

Is 99.9% complete trust? There are documented examples where science and/or the scientific process has failed - it isn't a perfect system, just the most reliable system we have so far

Looks like 0.1% doubt. 99.9 is very close to complete.

Science is the most reliable system. Yet you have no faith in it.

Science is in a state of flux. What is true today may be false tomorrow - theories. Your position will always change. You will never be sure or certain. You will accept the word of science which has uncertainty. Your position is therefore uncertain with acceptance of modern theoretical science.

No, I'm not entirely sure, but I have a working model of reality that continues to provide consistent and reliable results.

Therefore you are unsure. You are not an authority to reality. You must accept someone elses version of it.

No, I said I could be unreliable, I didn't say I AM unreliable. I have to acknowledge I may not be entirely 100% reliable because there are so many ways in which I could be fooled

Icon - Are you unreliable?

Bugs - yes.

You did not say you could be unreliable. You agreed and said yes, you are unreliable. Therefore what you say cannot be trusted. What methods you used cannot be trusted.

Your point of view re God is invalid. No one should listen to you my dear.

Magicians or Illusionists can sometimes fool me (in fact, many of them are so good at fooling people, that they are professionals and sell tickets to performances)

You use observation as a fact. Observation is part of the scientific method. Observation can sometimes fool you. Observation, measurement and experiment are core to the method. We have just proved 1 out of the 3 core methods has failed you.

My friend your position is erroneous.

If I lack sleep, I could possibly see hallucinations, I might also experience a lucid dream (as discussed earlier) - I'm not sure I have, but knowing I'm not 100% infallible (as are you), I have to at least be sceptical about the reality I experience, just in case.

You have never experienced a lucid dream or a vision. So you are 100% uninformed and do not know the experience through observation or testing. I have experienced both so know the difference.

Lucid dreams = asleep.
My vision - awake and praying with 2 spirit filled ladies.

If you don't acknowledge your fallibility, then you're in danger of becoming one of those people that get taken away and put in a padded room

I may be fallible. That does not me a cannot be right sometimes. Even a broken clock displays the correct time twice a day.

because if you do experience something like a delusion, then delusions are real to the people that experience them and act on them as if they are - and I'm not saying you're delusional, but how would you know if you experience delusions?

Exactly a crazy person does not know he is crazy. If i feel like im going crazy i must to be insane.

Thank you for agreeing that spirituality is not a mental disorder.

So, you've completely failed to understand the point I made - that is your God would've created absolutely everything required for you to be doing what you're doing now as if you'd been there the entire time.

Bugs - "But that reality can be verified any number of ways. You could be on security camera when the piece of fruit landed on your head and others could see it".

God is not a puppet master. What would be the point in God doing so?

Do you think your God couldn't create an entire universe with you in it, complete with all your memories and hard evidence as if you'd been there all along?

I do not know. Nor do i care. This is speculation.

He did this during creation week, right?

No.

The difference between you and I is that I acknowledge it while you exhibit cognitive dissonance by simultaneously holding positions of 100% certainty while holding to a religion that condemns you for being a fallible human being. How do you see this?

This is not the case. This question was answered previously

That's okay, excuse my bluntness for pointing out your hypocrisy and dishonesty by claiming to be equal 100% infallible as your God

I have never said i was infallible. so therefore no hypocrite. Not acting in a dishonest way - as mentioned previously.

Never claimed 100% equality with God. Im unworthy compared to God. Being right some of the time is not infallibility my dear. Nice try though.

and trying to equivocate my 99.9% certainty as 100% uncertainty. Is this how you honestly want to represent your religion? Is your God watching you do this right now?

My dear you are confusing faith ie complete trust/100% certainty sith infallibility.

Yes! God sees my faith

then they get banished to their rooms - this hasn't happened yet, but of course, there's quite a lot I can do to effect a punishment before this, I'd certainly have sat down with them and asked them why they're acting that way ("what's the problem?") to get to the root of the issue, I could also assign them more chores, I'd impress further on them how their actions affect me and everyone else around them,how they look to other outsiders, etc.

Imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. Why would you punish your child for wrongdoing?

As indicated, I'm not 100% uncertain, unsure and unreliable,

Your existance is linked to uncertainity. You said yes in regards to being unreliable and you do not hold a firm opinion. Show me otherwise?

I may hold up to 99.9% confidence in a position, acceptance or idea, but I'll always be open to examining the evidence I might be wrong.

What is this 0.1%? What do you have 0.1% doubt in?

It's the only way we can learn from our mistakes, to be 100% certain in an idea is to literally be irrational.

Its called complete trust = faith.

This is a damaging and dangerous position to be in. This is what causes especially faithful parents to let their children die of trivially curable diseases because they had faith in prayer. It's how people come to positions of anti-vaccination ideals despite the mountains of evidence that shows the benefits of vaccinating, it's also how people who are otherwise nice people turn into irrational bigots about who other people are and make predisposed opinions that cause their deaths through flying planes into buildings, or bombing family planning clinics, and so on.

This is an appeal to emotion. This is not a sound argument. This statement is only highlighting worst case scenerios. Bad cases do not make good laws or rules. Doing something in the name of God does not always mean it is.

Islam is not christianity. It would be ignorant to lump all religions together and say they are one. There is always bad fruit and good fruit. You seem to ignore all the good Christian works.

Yes, this is rational thinking, wouldn't you agree?

Bugs - "I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before."

If you say so.

I trust that Jesus Christ is real because of plenty evidence in seeing others with faith and the experience of having got the proof my self.

Then you cannot disagree with the above statement of faith. It is rational thinking. The same reasoning you used.

Being 99.9% sure in other contexts is not the same as being 100% unsure.

You are unsure. Inconsistency is unpredictability. Unpredictability is a state of being unsure.

Are you 99.9% sure your children are yours or 100% sure?

In this respect though, I can think of a number of things that would convince me - just that many of them would require them to be double-checked by others to make sure I'm not experiencing a delusion, or suffering from confirmation bias, etc.

In other words you need another person to validate you. This is the method of a person who is unsure.

Wouldn't you agree though, that a God would know what would be convincing to me in exactly the way for me to believe straight away?

I do not know the answer to that question. This is speculation.

If he wants rational thinking people to know he exists, of course, why wouldn't he?

God has ordained a different way. Life is a test. God has a harvest. Earth is a learning ground.

To find God you must have 100% trust. Something you believe is impossible.

This will always be an obstacle for you. You are the problem. Your decisions and philosophy will stop you from knowing God. You will have no excuse.

After all, I made the effort for the first three or so decades of my life and I got nothing from it.

Considering 99.9% is the highest you can ever offer. What effort did you make? Please provide a detailed response.

lol! Sure, what would you replace Chewing Gum with?

Faith in Jesus Christ

is Health a quantifiable element? i.e. if you remove the cancer illness from someone, do you have to fill them up with health (or a banana) after the illness removal made space for it? in other words, health is a normal state in the absence of any illness, right? or do things work differently where you live?

No. You asked for a subsitute and i gave you one. Having fun

Nope, the same rational thinking that led me to recognise human failings and minimise them while rationally evaluating the evidence around me.

Yes human beings can get it wrong but we can get it right.

But you can be fooled by magicians - fallible men. Observation is flawed. How could you rationally evaluate anything?

My elected leader is Turnbull, so obviously I have a vested interest in him making valid and rational decisions on my behalf.

Did you vote for him? Do you trust him?

Trump on the other hand has put back his Nation's relations and international respect so far that it will be recovering for decades from the damage he's done. It'd be comical if it were any other nation...

Bugs - Rational thinking and secular governance. I'd put your trust in that.

By your logic you and i must put our trust in trump and the decisions he makes?

Why should i trust a system that delivered you trump as potus - leader of the free world?

Should i have 100% trust in rational thinking?

Nope - that it has a demonstrably better outcome is why you should adopt it.

Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, China, Australia...? What exactly are you after, references?

All good. Ill supply the references.

Japan

Japan: The Most Religious Atheist Country

Agency for Cultural Affairs commissioned a report into religious beliefs in Japan, they were initially confused by their results. Totaling up the number of people who belonged to religious groups in Japan, they got the result that 209 million people belonged were religiously affiliated. The problem? This was almost twice the population of Japan!

This anomaly seemed to suggest that Japan was highly religious. However, further research showed that this strange result was caused by respondents happily checking the boxes for numerous religions without seeing any contradiction. After all, as the old saying goes a Japanese person is born to Shinto rites, married with Christian rites, and buried with Buddhist ones.



Sweden

Irreligion in Sweden - Wikipedia

writes that several academic sources have in recent years placed atheism rates in Sweden between 46% and 85%, with one source reporting that only 17% of respondents self-identified as "atheist".

Only 1 in 10 Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life.Only 1 in 10 Swedes has trust in a religious leader.


Statistics from the Church of Sweden states that:

Under 5 out of 10 children are christened in the church]Around 1 out of 3 weddings take place in church.Around 3 out of 4 Swedes have Christian burials.

Christianty still plays an important part in sweden. Sixty-four per cent of the Swedish population are members of the Church of Sweden.



Finland.
Religion in Finland - Wikipedia
2016.

72% evangical lutherian church of finland.



Norway

Religion in Norway is mostly Lutheranism, with 71.5% of the population belonging to theEvangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2016



China

Is not a good example for human rights. Including this country does not help your cause.



Australia

Wiki Australia

In the 2016 census, 52.1% of Australians were counted as Christian, including 22.6% as Roman Catholic and 13.3% as Anglican; 30.1% of the population reported having "no religion"

It would seem china would be the most irreligious. I would not use china as a good example considering how many millions of ppl suffered under atbeist communism.

No, you're getting from me - Any possibility as long as it is supported by reality, rational assessment and/or evidence, no matter where it comes from, or where it leads.

No. Im getting you. Any possibility as long as its not God and that is a 99.9% certainty the Christian God is not real.

Why would there be 0.1% doubt? Why are you not willing to have absolute doubt in God?

I guess wanting to conform to reality is a form of confirmation bias - don't you want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible? Rational discourse is how we achieve it.

So you agree. You have confirmation bias as well. Thank you for stating the obvious. You will interpret and favour information as long as it agrees with your position.

I have had experiences with God that confirm His existance.





You are inconsistent, unreliable, unsure and uncertain.

You are a lost soul who has convinced himself there is no God. You will not humble yourself and need validation from fallible human beings with poor logic.

You hide behind the scientific method - flawed -, secular governance - flawed - and 'rational thinking' - misconstrued. You have no faith and no hope.

You cannot offer me anything as your position is reactionary. Spiritually, you have nothing, you want nothing and you can only offer nothing.

God can offer you something. Anytime you want He is waiting for you to do the right thing and admit your failures. Admit you cannot do it without Him and open your heart to him.

Life is hard. You cannot do it alone. The relief is worth it. You could have God in your life and certainty in your life.

Come over bugs. What do you need to make this leap of faith?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey there doggy

My dear you must have a bad memory. Do you not use soap? Hehe

So therefore if there is no absolute certainty, there is no absolute doubt?

You asked a question and I answered it. I also explicitly explained in detail what reasoning lies behind the answer, but curiously - you didn't quote that part and instead choose to simply ignore it.

That's on you, not me.
I gave you my answer. Upto you what you do with it.

Apparantly, you choose to ignore it and then reply with condescending undertone (cfr: the "doggy" thing).


EDIT: also quite mentionworthy to note how you not only ignored my reasoning behind my answer to that single question... you also ignored everything else I wrote, which was quite a lot. So what's up with that?