Ask a Christian...

[Acts2:38]

Like the Quran, Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Veda, Tripitakas, Guru Granth Sahib, Kitáb-i-Aqdas you mean ?

I did, why do you assume I did not ?

I meant any book in general (intro/body/conclusion much like writing an essay). You would (twice in fact) post "what evidence?" before actually posting a response to the evidence I provided. This is why I responded with:

Why do you waste your time with this kind of quote reply? You clearly responded to it later just like you did previously.

Proclaiming evidence is not the same as providing it, so I ask again, what evidence?

Proclaiming, would be me just stating without bringing any evidence to the table, only what I think to be true, via only words. I did not do this. I "provided" evidence.


Law of Causality = "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it."


furthermore,


"To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved."


"Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance."


This is not a proclamation, but provided evidence. I am sorry that you are not seeing this.


Secondly, the Law of Biogenesis =


"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.


However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from nonlife. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life."

These laws are all conducted by observation, tests, what have you. They are indeed, "provided" evidence, not a proclamation.

1st law of thermodynamics = "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy."

2nd law of thermodynamics = "The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state."

Just these laws alone disprove the "no God" stance. Everything didn't just pop into existence for no reason at all, so on and so forth. This is the evidence you are trying to categorize as just a "proclamation". No my friend, real scientist did real research to come to these real conclusions of these laws I bring to the table.

How do observations and understanding of what is prove a higher being ?

Because people have tested and tried and observed to come to these conclusions that just so happen to show that nothing can just spontaneously come into existence without a cause, the cause being an ultimate being, since we know matter just doesn't create itself from nothing.

Is life made of matter ?

"All things — living and nonliving — are made of matter, and all matter is composed of tiny particles called atoms. Atoms combine together to form molecules."

Yes, matter.

Dead matter = "(1) Dead or not living. (2) Inanimate body or object. Supplement. ... A non-living thing is one that lacks or has stopped displaying the characteristics of life. Thus, they lack or no longer displaying the capability for growth, reproduction, respiration, metabolism, and movement."

Living matter = ". (1) The aggregate of living bodies of biosphere organisms, which are expressed numerically by elementary chemical composition, mass, and energy.
Materially and energetically the biosphere is connected with living matter through the biogenic migration of atoms that occurs with breathing, eating, growth, and the multiplication of organisms. Living matter is exemplified by autotrophic organisms (green plants and autotrophic microorganisms), heterotrophic organisms (plants without chlorophyll, all animals, and human beings), and mixotrophic organisms, which live on ready-made organic compounds, although they are also able to synthesize them."

Just out of curiosity, did you even read the laws I stated before this post? If so did you understand them? Questions like this that I am answering to just made me wonder.

Well we don't know how life started, but surely the honest answer to that is 'I don't know' instead of inventing a god, leave ignorance where it belongs.

So you are saying that you know for a fact, there is no God?

That is a pretty bold claim. If you know there is no God, then perhaps you might divulge some of that evidence here?

I would now send you to the "Scientific Method" and state that for you to know that God does not exist, would mean that you know all things. You would then have to be a God, to know that God does not exist.

Atheism's favorite Doctor A.G.N Flew couldn't answer the simplest questions when debating Doctor Thomas Warren.

Warren-Flew Debate Warren-Flew Debate - YouTube

Actually no it does not evolution really does not concern itself with the origins of life, and how does it debunk atheism. ?


As for evolution that itself is accepted by many Christians, simply because no serious scientific institution believes that the earth is a young as the bible says and it's a constant source of amusement to people like myself to see this debate within Christianity itself.

Actually it does.

Telling me that "many christians" believe this doesn't really help your cause since there is no evidence. I've seen times were 5 people were correct over 50 people. The majority doesn't make it right by default.

Most of those people you mention claiming to be christian are the ones I see in this chapter and verses Matthew 7:13-14 and Matthew 7:21-23.

Again you provide no evidence, you simply proclaim what you believe to be true, to be true.

Only in the eyes of one who is in denial. I actually did present evidence and not proclamation.

Again to proclaim inspiration you would have to provide evidence of an inspirer

I know that gentleman you mentioned is not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the apostles were because of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10.

I did a quick search, not only are they not certain that Tall el-Hammam is actually the biblical Sodom and Gomorah, but that there are many theories around it's sudden evacuation (something that did not happen in the biblical account, suggesting that the writer may have written about it long after the event). There are many competing theories ranging from and asteroid strike to an earthquake amongst others.


No serious respectable scientific paper describe and 'supernatural' event. You do know don't you that saying 'we don't really know what happened' is not the same as saying 'the bible must be true' ?

You must have searched quite a bit. I found this site at the very top of the search in 2 seconds.
The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

Of course if they merely quoted earlier parts of the same collection of books, why would they be contradictions, that does not point to or provide evidence of a supernatural source.

Questions are not contradictions. I never said that. Claims that there are contradictions in the bible are not questions. They are accusations. Those accusations are found wrong.

No, this does prove supernatural. Humans are faulty and bound to make mistakes. The fact that the bible has no mistakes and contradictions from centuries apart writers shows divine inspiration.

Asking a question is not twisting anything, you are the one claiming one of many holy books to be true.

The problem with "other holy books" is that they have been found to be contradictory. The bible has not.

Actually i never accused you

Fair enough.

 

[possibletarian]

I meant any book in general (intro/body/conclusion much like writing an essay). You would (twice in fact) post "what evidence?" before actually posting a response to the evidence I provided. This is why I responded with:
Proclaiming, would be me just stating without bringing any evidence to the table, only what I think to be true, via only words. I did not do this. I "provided" evidence.

Well then, what is that evidence, explain why you think it is evidence, and evidence of what ?

Law of Causality = "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it."

furthermore,
"To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved."

"Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance."

This is not a proclamation, but provided evidence. I am sorry that you are not seeing this.

But that cause could have been anything, it does not point to a 'god' unless by god you mean a completely unknown casual agent that came before the big bang, including another universe or one of many theories.

If you then claim one of many gods was in fact the cause, then more or even just some evidence is needed I mean evidence aside one of many books and writings that claim their god made everything.

Secondly, the Law of Biogenesis =


"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.


However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others are aware of just how complex life is and the many failed and foolish attempts to explain how life came from nonlife. They duck the question by claiming that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life."

These laws are all conducted by observation, tests, what have you. They are indeed, "provided" evidence, not a proclamation.

Like i said previously, and this is a very common mistake that theists make, Evolution has nothing to do with, nor does it try and explain the origins of life. There is heaps of scientific evidence for Evolution.

How do we know that evolution is really happening?

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Misconceptions about evolution

1st law of thermodynamics = "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy."

2nd law of thermodynamics = "The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state."

Okay

Just these laws alone disprove the "no God" stance.

How, give reasons why this supports the idea of a Christian god, or for that matter any being we commonly would call a god ?

Everything didn't just pop into existence for no reason at all, so on and so forth.

I'm confused I've never heard anyone least of all me make that claim, yet another common theist misconception perhaps, but how does that bring your god into play, what are your reason for believing that the cause is in fact the Christian god.

This is the evidence you are trying to categorize as just a "proclamation". No my friend, real scientist did real research to come to these real conclusions of these laws I bring to the table.

Again I'm oddly confused here, no one was claiming that nothing caused life or the universe, simply that we didn't feel the need to invent a god when really we simply don't know.

It brings zero scientific evidence for your or any one of many proclaimed gods.

As for the start of life scientists are getting closer each day, maybe some day we will know, just like we now know that many 'acts of god' really are just everyday natural predictable explainable occurrences.

How Did Life Start On Earth? | Las Cumbres Observatory

The secret of how life on Earth began

How Did Life Arise on Earth?

What is known though is that the biblical timescale is completely false if taken at face value.

Because people have tested and tried and observed to come to these conclusions that just so happen to show that nothing can just spontaneously come into existence without a cause, the cause being an ultimate being, since we know matter just doesn't create itself from nothing.


"All things — living and nonliving — are made of matter, and all matter is composed of tiny particles called atoms. Atoms combine together to form molecules."

Yes, matter.

Dead matter = "(1) Dead or not living. (2) Inanimate body or object. Supplement. ... A non-living thing is one that lacks or has stopped displaying the characteristics of life. Thus, they lack or no longer displaying the capability for growth, reproduction, respiration, metabolism, and movement."

Living matter = ". (1) The aggregate of living bodies of biosphere organisms, which are expressed numerically by elementary chemical composition, mass, and energy.
Materially and energetically the biosphere is connected with living matter through the biogenic migration of atoms that occurs with breathing, eating, growth, and the multiplication of organisms. Living matter is exemplified by autotrophic organisms (green plants and autotrophic microorganisms), heterotrophic organisms (plants without chlorophyll, all animals, and human beings), and mixotrophic organisms, which live on ready-made organic compounds, although they are also able to synthesize them."

Long cut and paste, It's worth pointing out that when you cut and paste other's work, then you should at least give credit, to not do so is called plagiarism, though I doubt it was your intention to claim it of yourself.

But back to the point, how does this point to your god, or any being commonly understood as a god ?

Just out of curiosity, did you even read the laws I stated before this post? If so did you understand them? Questions like this that I am answering to just made me wonder.

I did, but the connection to your god is simply non existent, so I simply ask for proof of your god (or even anything we commonly call a supernatural god or spirit) is that so hard ?

So you are saying that you know for a fact, there is no God?

I don't think anyone could make such a claim, which is why proof would be really nice, settle the question once for all hey

That is a pretty bold claim. If you know there is no God, then perhaps you might divulge some of that evidence here

It certainly would be had i made that claim, you are aware of what an agnostic is .. right ?

I would now send you to the "Scientific Method" and state that for you to know that God does not exist, would mean that you know all things. You would then have to be a God, to know that God does not exist.

Why, I'm simply not making that claim, I'm looking for evidence of existence, not non existence.

Your stance is a bit like me saying a giant red invisible jelly baby caused the universe, and if you cannot prove scientifically otherwise then you have to accept my faith claim.. it's utter nonsense.

Atheism's favorite Doctor A.G.N Flew couldn't answer the simplest questions when debating Doctor Thomas Warren.

Warren-Flew Debate Warren-Flew Debate - YouTube

and ?

Actually it does.

Telling me that "many christians" believe this doesn't really help your cause since there is no evidence. I've seen times were 5 people were correct over 50 people. The majority doesn't make it right by default.

Of course not, though I was not making a point about it's truth or not, just that it was funny

Most of those people you mention claiming to be christian are the ones I see in this chapter and verses Matthew 7:13-14 and Matthew 7:21-23.

Ahh the old trustworthy 'not real Christians' argument.. got ya

Only in the eyes of one who is in denial. I actually did present evidence and not proclamation.

Denial of what? no one is arguing that nothing caused the big bang. My problem is you didn't present any evidence at all for your god.

I know that gentleman you mentioned is not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the apostles were because of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10.

What gentleman ?

You must have searched quite a bit. I found this site at the very top of the search in 2 seconds.
The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

I tend to go to unbiased scientific sites, rather than sites craving to prove the bible.

Questions are not contradictions. I never said that.

Okey dokey

Claims that there are contradictions in the bible are not questions. They are accusations. Those accusations are found wrong.

Found wrong where, did you look at the link ?

No, this does prove supernatural.

How so ?

Humans are faulty and bound to make mistakes.

Of course, didn't humans write the bible ?

The fact that the bible has no mistakes and contradictions from centuries apart writers shows divine inspiration.

So you believe everything in the bible, do you for instance believe that is young, that unicorns exist, that there was a worldwide flood just a few thousand or so years ago ?

The problem with "other holy books" is that they have been found to be contradictory. The bible has not.

The followers of these religions may very well say differently.

 

[Acts2:38]

Well, I do thank you kindly for your inquiries into this matter, but I do not see these really going anywhere. Maybe an impasse on expressing and pointing out to each others evidences, who knows.

As a last minute effort at people who have explained this better then I can, a few links, if you cared to follow up on them. There were times that you said you were earnestly seeking the evidence and other times that seemed you actually pushed against. If you were seeking then here are the sites:

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality Explains Causality

Is There a God? Goes into each of the laws mentioned previously

Genesis Apologetics Contains numerous videos that show "old earth" and "evolution" false/ "carbon 14 dating" unreliable.

A debate between christian / atheist you get a perspective on both sides here

Long cut and paste, It's worth pointing out that when you cut and paste other's work, then you should at least give credit, to not do so is called plagiarism, though I doubt it was your intention to claim it of yourself.

I thought I put quotations indicating it was not my own work?

Your stance is a bit like me saying a giant red invisible jelly baby caused the universe, and if you cannot prove scientifically otherwise then you have to accept my faith claim.. it's utter nonsense.

If it seemed as if I was trying to beat you in the head with this I am sorry. That was not my intention. You are free of course to believe whatever you wish. All I can do is state the facts I come across, you choose whether you believe or not.

Ahh the old trustworthy 'not real Christians' argument.. got ya

This is a WHOLE other discussion that I would gladly get into if you so desired. The evidence I would provide though is scripture on this point. You can decide if this is what you wish to go through with me or not.

My problem is you didn't present any evidence at all for your god.

Well, I did, your problem is you are not seeing it. I refer back to the top of this post with the links on people who can explain it better or in another way that I cannot.

What gentleman ?

?? Follow back to why I responded like this. What did you post previously that made me post this? You are chopping my posts up so unnecessarily you might be confusing yourself a bit. It is a bit exhausting to follow they way you reply.

I tend to go to unbiased scientific sites, rather than sites craving to prove the bible.

No, you tend to pick the stance you agreed with just as well as I did through our knowledge in the debate we are discussing.

Found wrong where, did you look at the link ?

I've actually looked at many links in reference to them saying that the gospel is contradictory. They, or at least the ones I have seen, have already been answered and debunked.

Of course, didn't humans write the bible ?

This is where I would not convince you at this point. It deals with 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. However this is the answer that I would give.

So you believe everything in the bible, do you for instance believe that is young, that unicorns exist, that there was a worldwide flood just a few thousand or so years ago ?

I do believe in the bible from the knowledge and evidences I have seen for myself and am convinced. However, there is no evidence for unicorns.

The followers of these religions may very well say differently.

They do indeed. The blind will lead the blind. There books have been chalk full of errors that cannot be explained by their most knowledgeable people in the matter.

 

[possibletarian]

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality Explains Causality

Causality (outside say a Christian or Muslims head.. add your own religion of choice) has never inferred anything supernatural

Is There a God?

Goes into each of the laws mentioned previously

But again all it does is infer a god in the heads of religious people Christians amongst many, unless by 'god' you mean 'cause' but there is absolutely no evidence for what we commonly call a 'god'.

Genesis Apologetics

Contains numerous videos that show "old earth" and "evolution" false/ "carbon 14 dating" unreliable

Again, against all common scientific evidence. and carbon dating is only good for around 50,000 years. Its a bit like taking a 30cm rule putting it out on your back yard and saying.. ''look i told you my yard was only 30cm long''

They don't date the earth using carbon dating, they use many methods here is an example from Harvard and one from Oxford, Amongst the most respected universities in the world.

1964ASPL....9..169R Page 175

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old? | Smart News | Smithsonian

How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth

Age of the Earth from Lead Isotope Abundances | Geophysical Supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society | Oxford Academic

and here are some answer to creationism nonsense

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

A debate between christian / atheist you get a perspective on both sides here

You do know that not knowing an answer to something does not mean proof of a different opinion, that other person would have to provide proof that their conclusions were correct.

This did not happen

If it seemed as if I was trying to beat you in the head with this I am sorry. That was not my intention. You are free of course to believe whatever you wish. All I can do is state the facts I come across, you choose whether you believe or not.

Again I follow where evidence leads me, so far I have seen none that leads me to believe in the Christian god, the Muslim god, or anything we commonly understand a god to be.

I've actually looked at many links in reference to them saying that the gospel is contradictory. They, or at least the ones I have seen, have already been answered and debunked.

So have I, oddly the so called 'debunking' consists of 'maybe this happened' or 'gods ways are not our ways' and other biblical drivel. you get exactly the same from people of many other religions who claim their way is the right way.
What's more they are just as convincing (or not) as Christians.

This is where I would not convince you at this point. It deals with 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. However this is the answer that I would give.

Again, these are things they would have had to believe in order for them to take any authority, unless you believe it's from god it simply disintegrates leaving with nothing but drivel. And then like now, instilling such belief in followers means you have control over them. But in order for something to have been inspired by a god, you would first have to provide proof of that god, otherwise just proclaiming it is silly.

I can see how people of that time would find comfort in believing there is a god, and that god inspired their particular beliefs, but now it's time to move onward from such ignorance and fear.

I do believe in the bible from the knowledge and evidences I have seen for myself and am convinced. However, there is no evidence for unicorns.

Okey dokey

They do indeed. The blind will lead the blind. There books have been chalk full of errors that cannot be explained by their most knowledgeable people in the matter.

So says you, but they would argue just as convincingly as you that this is not the case.

 

[Noxot]

not knowing is a kind of understanding. also the brain is way more complicated than the thought processes that we think of as being how we come to a conclusion.

there are longer chains of neurons in some parts of the brain. there is some kind of collective unconscious in us. there is our personal subconscious where we seem to take in much more information than we are consciously aware of. things such as our sexual nature and the reward system tied to it tends have an effect in what we do and how we are. there are numerous other states of being that we and or brain can get in.

did you know that judges tended to be more lenient to people if those judges had ate food recently and they tended to be harsher if they had not had food. and of course many judges would deny that such a thing exist in them. not knowing and knowing are both crucial to understanding and to truth and thus also to justice.

emotions are probably far far older than word-thinking. so to think you are fully rational and not controlled or directed by your emotions in some measure is laughable.

we do what we do whether we know it or not. if you know that you don't know then you might be able to learn more. part of our brain can see tiny bits of reality but more clearly. part of our brain can see a bigger picture but it is more blurry. our eyes are like that too. we see clearly in only a tiny part of our vision and then we see things less clearly in a bigger part of our vision and we don't see what is behind our head with our eyes at all. and it's the brain trying to make sense of all the information that the eyes take in and what they don't take in.

 

[Uber Genius]

The scenario deals with you just finding yourself in that situation, not whether you should or not accept the premises of it. It is what it is. You are where you are.

You made philosophical claims based on skeptical assumptions that the majority of atheist philsophers reject.

You got called out for those false assumptions.

"You are where you are," is not a response.

I can't fathom any hypothetical scenarios cause you to respond the way you are, like it's a debate

you seem ignorant of the fact that when someone makes claims they have arguments and premises and a priori assumptions hidden in those claims.

The first week of every entry-level college philosophy class covers that point clearly. Not sure why you are dodging the significant problem with your skeptical assumptions that undergird your "hypothetical scenario."

So I have another couple hypothetical scenarios that are analogous, 4-sided triangles and married bachelors.

 

[Non sequitur]

you seem ignorant of the fact that when someone makes claims they have arguments and premises and a priori assumptions hidden in those claims.

You seem ignorant of the fact that I am aware of that.

Not surprised, though.

The first week of every entry-level college philosophy class covers that point clearly. Not sure why you are dodging the significant problem with your skeptical assumptions that undergird your "hypothetical scenario."

So I have another couple hypothetical scenarios that are analogous, 4-sided triangles and married bachelors.

You remind me of Clark from Good Will Hunting.

Your hypothetical scenarios are not analogous. Sorry. Learn my actual positions, before patting yourself on the back.

Think you have a valid point? Think I'm incorrect? Then have an actual conversation about it. Don't data dump, project, and pretend to be an intellectual.

Your commentary is trite and banal, and your methods are uninspiring.

 

[Uber Genius]

You seem ignorant of the fact that I am aware of that.

Not surprised, though.


You remind me of Clark from Good Will Hunting.

Your hypothetical scenarios are not analogous. Sorry. Learn my actual positions, before patting yourself on the back.

Think you have a valid point? Think I'm incorrect? Then have an actual conversation about it. Don't data dump, project, and pretend to be an intellectual.

Your commentary is trite and banal, and your methods are uninspiring.

Your are just getting further and further off track from any type of support of your premises.

Attacking the man instead my claim that you are making an argument with false premises.

If you are not ignorant as you claim then by all means start engaging the fact that your premises are rejected but most atheists philosophers as I pointed out and justified weeks ago. Stops the dodges, rhetorical flourishes, and logical fallacies.

 

[Uber Genius]

If you see this as self-refuting, ok. I don't, and was welcoming a discusion about *that*.

I would advise those who don't want to have a discussion, and merely proclaim themselves right, to do so elsewhere.

Wow. Missed this sad response.

Straw man!

I gave as justification a group of lectures by a professor of epistemology talking about the body of knowledge qua skepticism!

You misrepresented that expert and the body of knowledge as me, " Proclaiming myself to be right!"

Dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge!

Your pretense had "having a discussion," is getting old.

Deal with the expert atheist philosophers who claim your premises about knowledge are self-refuting!

Stop misrepresenting people's claims.

Stop ad hominem attacks and focus on the argument.

Stop rhetorical flourishes and logical dodges.

Answer the claims that your argument defeats itself.

 

[Non sequitur]

Wow. Missed this sad response.

Unfortunately, I never miss all of your sad responses

Straw man!

I gave as justification a group of lectures by a professor of epistemology talking about the body of knowledge qua skepticism!

You misrepresented that expert and the body of knowledge as me, " Proclaiming myself to be right!"

Dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge!

Your pretense had "having a discussion," is getting old.

Deal with the expert atheist philosophers who claim your premises about knowledge are self-refuting!

Stop misrepresenting people's claims.

Stop ad hominem attacks and focus on the argument.

Stop rhetorical flourishes and logical dodges.

Answer the claims that your argument defeats itself.

You started off the discourse by dumping videos and citing other people.

I've tried to take it one step at a time, instead of having to address 8,000 things at once (of what other people have said), but you just keep mass posting the same stuff.

If you want to declare yourself and others the winner, before anything starts, fine. Here's a sticker:

If you genuinely have any interest, start with the #1 point I said and simply address that. Don't merely quote other people to try and do your work, but you address it. We can go from there.

 

[Uber Genius]

You started off the discourse by dumping videos and citing other people.

I've tried to take it one step at a time, instead of having to address 8,000 things at once (of what other people have said), but you just keep mass

Now you arenisrepresenting me yet again. This is an integrity issue.

You know I reached out to you to have a one on one conversation about the fact that 95+% of professional atheistic Philosphers reject your assumption. I did that privately and gave you some videos you could engage by a secular professor of philosophy at your own leasure.

I showed you the reasearch and gave you links to do your own investigation.mtaking you at face-value that you were interested in finding out what you could.

However you misrepresented my private offer by saying you were familiar with the research. APPARENTLY NOT.

THE REASEARCH DEFEATS YOUR A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS!

Stop faking interest in a discussion.

Stop misrepresenting people's good faith attempts to have a discussion in private where you won't be embarrassed when you find out the shallow nature of you argument.

These are things that people are taught not to do their first semester in college..

Why are you even out here?

Propaganda.

 

[Non sequitur]

Now you arenisrepresenting me yet again. This is an integrity issue.

You know I reached out to you to have a one on one conversation about the fact that 95+% of professional atheistic Philosphers reject your assumption. I did that privately and gave you some videos you could engage by a secular professor of philosophy at your own leasure.

I showed you the reasearch and gave you links to do your own investigation.mtaking you at face-value that you were interested in finding out what you could.

However you misrepresented my private offer by saying you were familiar with the research. APPARENTLY NOT.

THE REASEARCH DEFEATS YOUR A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS!

Stop faking interest in a discussion.

Stop misrepresenting people's good faith attempts to have a discussion in private where you won't be embarrassed when you find out the shallow nature of you argument.

These are things that people are taught not to do their first semester in college..

Why are you even out here?

Propaganda.

I don't want to talk about what conclusions others have come to. In Christian philosopy, things are discussed over and over. Nobody posts a link and says, "Done!"

I thought you said you were done and leaving, anyway? Let others judge for themselves, based on their conversation with me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You appear to have restated it correctly. I can see how you could arrive there, but not how one could be sure (to the extent they are).

Like with sceince, i think it can only take things so far. Anything after that is on a sliding scale. But never a "truth", as Christian seems to claim

To cut to the chase, and despite the fact that the nature of Truth in and of itself as an entity of philosophy and is open to various attempts at definition, I think we can also say the if we take into consideration the epistemic indicia which are present within the Bible, then the cognitive entity we might identify as "Christian truth" should be seen as another order of truth, one not identical in structure to secular truth(s) that can come through typical human means involving typical human reason.

Christian truth includes a human component in not only its current handling and in its perpetuating of its central narrative and information pertaining to Jesus, but it also includes a God component, one which has to be delivered or orchestrated by God in a person's own life and mind.

What this means, then, is that Christian truth is only truth for those who are either Christian or are being enlightened by God so as to be brought into the epistemic sphere of knowledge about God, knowledge that is only partly on a rational plane, and is at the same time on a mystical or spiritual plane that leads to communion with God.

And this is, I think, the answer to some of your questioning here. God delivers impressions to us who are Christians through His Spirit, and these impressions which are orchestrated within the various social and psychological contexts of our lives add to and interact with our ongoing exploration of those more usual type of truths reflected by the Bible. These additional spiritual impressions are not something that can necessarily be shared with and understood, or believed, by person who are not presently being led by God's Spirit. (This is basically the gist of the epistemic indicia we find in the Gospels and in Pauline writings.)

So, in essence, we have an 'outside' source for at least some truth that you don't have.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Non sequitur]

To cut to the chase, and despite the fact that the nature of Truth in and of itself as an entity of philosophy and is open to various attempts at definition, I think we can also say the if we take into consideration the epistemic indicia which are present within the Bible, then the cognitive entity we might identify as "Christian truth" should be seen as another order of truth, one not identical in structure to secular truth(s) that can come through typical human means involving typical human reason.

Christian truth includes a human component in not only its current handling and in its perpetuating of its central narrative and information pertaining to Jesus, but it also includes a God component, one which has to be delivered or orchestrated by God in a person's own life and mind.

What this means, then, is that Christian truth is only truth for those who are either Christian or are being enlightened by God so as to be brought into the epistemic sphere of knowledge about God, knowledge that is only partly on a rational plane, and is at the same time on a mystical or spiritual plane that leads to communion with God.

And this is, I think, the answer to some of your questioning here. God delivers impressions to us who are Christians through His Spirit, and these impressions which are orchestrated within the various social and psychological contexts of our lives add to and interact with our ongoing exploration of those more usual type of truths reflected by the Bible. These additional spiritual impressions are not something that can necessarily be shared with and understood, or believed, by person who are not presently being led by God's Spirit. (This is basically the gist of the epistemic indicia we find in the Gospels and in Pauline writings.)

So, in essence, we have an 'outside' source for at least some truth that you don't have.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Interesting.

How can you know or tell this outside source is actually from where it says/you think it is?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting.

How can you know or tell this outside source is actually from where it says/you think it is?

I don't have a direct link, of course, if that is what you mean? But what I do have is access to the notion that other people are questioning (philosophically) the whole issue of our ontology as human beings, as well as that of the universe, and I have access to the written testimonies of early Christians (i.e. New Testament) along with those from an ethnic lineage of people who have identified themselves as a people 'chosen' of God. I also have an aesthetic response at work within my mind that finds Jesus, over and above the alternatives, to be a highly beautiful concept.

But, do I "KNOW" from any of the above that God is in these details? NO.

Do I "KNOW" that those bits and pieces that I've put together on my own epistemic accord, or that those additional waves of emotional response that I think I sense from "outside" myself indeed come from the one sole Being whom I think I identify as having caused them? NO.

But here's the rub, NV. Whether we like it or not, the Epistemic Indicators which the various biblical writers have left us, for better or for worse, infer that our interaction with God is not going to be simply according to the epistemological rationalizations of Enlightenment, Modernist thinking, nor is it simply going to be some solipsistic, Post-Modern mode where one just intuits and defines one's self socially into the Christian frame of spiritual reference.

No, the rub is this: our personal response to God is not one to be demarcated and identified by some sheer fact that we have some kind of Correspondence of Truth with God and things of God. No, it isn't that we "know" God, but rather that according to Christian Tradition, we "understand" that what is most important is that if we are truly moving toward God (in Christ), with honest intentions full of integrity within our minds and hearts.......THEN God "KNOWS" us.

As I said, Christian belief emerges from a different 'order' of truth than that which is promulgated by Modernist, Post-Modernism, or even given by Pre-modernism. No, according to Christian doctrine, what matters most is that God knows, and for those who are earnestly doing their best out of care to respond to the fragments in life that God has given in His overall Revelation and Creation, then He knows who those of us are who believe. So, as you can see, Christians are only partially in the Modernist or Post-modernist camp as far as epistemic qualities are concerned; and I say this despite what some Christian apologists would like to have us think in regard to what constitutes Christian truth or knowledge.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Non sequitur]

I don't have a direct link, of course, if that is what you mean? But what I do have is access to the notion that other people are questioning (philosophically) the whole issue of our ontology as human beings, as well as that of the universe, and I have access to the written testimonies of early Christians (i.e. New Testament) along with those from an ethnic lineage of people who have identified themselves as a people 'chosen' of God. I also have an aesthetic response at work within my mind that finds Jesus, over and above the alternatives, to be a highly beautiful concept.

But, do I "KNOW" from any of the above that God is in these details? NO.

Do I "KNOW" that those bits and pieces that I've put together on my own epistemic accord, or that those additional waves of emotional response that I think I sense from "outside" myself indeed come from the one sole Being whom I think I identify as having caused them? NO.

But here's the rub, NV. Whether we like it or not, the Epistemic Indicators which the various biblical writers have left us, for better or for worse, infer that our interaction with God is not going to be simply according to the epistemological rationalizations of Enlightenment, Modernist thinking, nor is it simply going to be some solipsistic, Post-Modern mode where one just intuits and defines one's self socially into the Christian frame of spiritual reference.

No, the rub is this: our personal response to God is not one to be demarcated and identified by some sheer fact that we have some kind of Correspondence of Truth with God and things of God. No, it isn't that we "know" God, but rather that according to Christian Tradition, we "understand" that what is most important is that if we are truly moving toward God (in Christ), with honest intentions full of integrity within our minds and hearts.......THEN God "KNOWS" us.

As I said, Christian belief emerges from a different 'order' of truth than that which is promulgated by Modernist, Post-Modernism, or even given by Pre-modernism. No, according to Christian doctrine, what matters most is that God knows, and for those who are earnestly doing their best out of care to respond to the fragments in life that God has given in His overall Revelation and Creation, then He knows who those of us are who believe. So, as you can see, Christians are only partially in the Modernist or Post-modernist camp as far as epistemic qualities are concerned; and I say this despite what some Christian apologists would like to have us think in regard to what constitutes Christian truth or knowledge.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hmm.

Sounds like there's no reason to believe in this god, based off what you said, aside from someone wanting to. That appears to be the root of it.

"we 'understand' that what is most important is that if we are truly moving toward God (in Christ), with honest intentions full of integrity within our minds and hearts.......THEN God "KNOWS" us."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm.

Sounds like there's no reason to believe in this god, based off what you said, aside from someone wanting to. That appears to be the root of it.

"we 'understand' that what is most important is that if we are truly moving toward God (in Christ), with honest intentions full of integrity within our minds and hearts.......THEN God "KNOWS" us."

Yep. That's what the biblical writers have basically said that skeptics will say. So, again, it is a different order of truth. The only reason anyone acts surprised about it is because people (Christians) have often ignored this bit of Christian epistemology and have tried to trump up the meaning of Christianity as something empirical and open to modernist thought in all of its scientific splendor. "Oops" on their part!

 

[Non sequitur]

Yep. That's what the biblical writers have basically said that skeptics will say. So, again, it is a different order of truth. The only reason anyone acts surprised about it is because people (Christians) have often ignored this bit of Christian epistemology and have tried to trump up the meaning of Christianity as something empirical and open to modernist thought in all of its scientific splendor. "Oops" on their part!

Never knew the root (or heard it admitted) was wanting to believe.

Sounds rather X-files-y.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never knew the root (or heard it admitted) was wanting to believe.

Sounds rather X-files-y.

Yes, it is rather X-files-y. Which is why we can argue on a Modernist level as to whether or not some 1st century Jewish person (or prior entity of Jewish thought) existed with an identity known as "Jesus of Nazareth," but then, according to the epistemology of the Bible, it will be God who enables us apart from our Modernist inquiries to personally come to an understanding where we see this same Jesus as "the Son of God." Do you remember what Jesus told Peter?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, it is rather X-files-y. Which is why we can argue on a Modernist level as to whether or not some 1st century Jewish person (or prior entity of Jewish thought) existed with an identity known as "Jesus of Nazareth," but then, according to the epistemology of the Bible, it will be God who enables us apart from our Modernist inquiries to personally come to an understanding where we see this same Jesus as "the Son of God." Do you remember what Jesus told Peter?

2PhiloVoid

Nope.

As non-offensively as I can say it, I liken that/this behavior to wanting to believe magic is real (cuz the tricks are cool and wouldn't it be neat).