Disobedience has consequences.

[LostMarbels]

Since you are so certain, please provide

I cannot "accept" that which I perceive as only a character in a book. Belief is not a conscious choice.

How can you form an opinion or make a decision about something you have no choice to do so?

falsifiable hypothesis. Can you either prove or disprove God's existence?

 

[LostMarbels]

Can you read minds? Have you any idea how many hours I have invested in the topics of religion and science?

And yet you have not even the basest idea of who or what Christ is. No mater how you try to explain, you are quite simply wrong.

Well, the answers to date have consisted of unevidenced assertions and religious rhetoric. Do you have anything else?

I cannot prove a metaphysical being by physical means. You have to search that out for yourself.

Can you read minds?

No. But I can read English, and come to understand that you only wish to keep me running in circles. That's fine. I have learned more about my God talking to you guys on this forum than by going to a church, and I thank you for building my faith.

What is this "evidence" that you allude to?

I'm not going to shut up..... I'm not going to concede.... I will do this on this very thread until Christ return. I do not know how many times your going to ask yet provide nothing, but here we go again.

You want evidence you will have to do the foot work yourself and ask God.

 

[LostMarbels]

Who told you that?

But yes, I am a proponent of free will and free expression. Are you?

Yes, of course.

 

[Davian]

Since you are so certain, please provide


How can you form an opinion or make a decision about something you have no choice to do so?

Where have I said that I was unable to form an opinion or make a decision?

falsifiable hypothesis. Can you either prove or disprove God's existence?

Not if you are unable to define what you mean by "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, any more than I could prove or disprove the existence of Santa.

Keep in mind that the burden remains on the religionist to define their terms, and present their evidence. I am not here to promote my beliefs, or to champion science. I am only here to observe.

It would appear that you cannot meet that burden.

 

[Skavau]

Yes, of course.

Until of course, I die, and God decides to exile/torture/torment me for my conviction?

 

[LostMarbels]

Do not mistake my practice of not making absolute statements for lack of confidence.

I don't. It is a way of making ones position indefensible while not giving the other person a defined position to attack. This is used to keep someone in the constant defensive. Then the other person can just keep taking pot shots.

There are two kinds of truth.

Truth of the first kind is known by reason alone. An example of this kind of truth would be the axiom of logic: "a thing cannot be what it is and what it is not simultaneously". We can only deny this axiom by descending into contradiction or blather. In my experience this is where most Atheists like to keep the conversation.

Truth of the second kind is known by experience. An example of this kind of truth would be: "The sun will rise tomorrow". This statement is almost certainly true and yet there is no necessary contradiction in denying its truth. In this case it is not "absolutely" true that "the sun will rise tomorrow", because it could be that it is false.

Given these two different kinds of truth, I think we can see how people can say that "absolute truth does not exist" and yet, by that statement, not contradict themselves. So, other words. Never commit yourself to an actual stance, keep on the offensive, and do not make definitive statements that can be refuted. It's all about winning the argument.

I do not make the claim that gods or the supernatural do not exist, but, earlier in this thread I asked for you to define what you meant by "God". You provided nothing.

Man.... have you read my posts? The ones about an all sovereign God with Immutably unmitigated authority?

AKA: Jesus, our Christ.

I asked for robust, independently verifiable evidence in the form of a testable hypothesis. You provided nothing.

Asked for a "test", and you present an exercise in self-deception.

Do you need more proof than that that you have nothing?

And I told you Christianity can only provide empirical proof in the sense of first hand experiences.

 

[Davian]

And yet you have not even the basest idea of who or what Christ is.

A character in a book.

No mater how you try to explain, you are quite simply wrong.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate, apparently.

I cannot prove a metaphysical being by physical means. You have to search that out for yourself.

I am not asking for proof. I am asking for something, anything, that might establish we are not simply taking about characters in books.

No. But I can read English, and come to understand that you only wish to keep me running in circles.

The circles are of your own making. I am here to observe what religionists do when pressed to substantiate their religion's claims.

That's fine. I have learned more about my God talking to you guys on this forum

Anything of significance?

than by going to a church, and I thank you for building my faith.

If that gives you comfort, great. I do not seek comfort, I seek an accurate description of reality.

I'm not going to shut up..... I'm not going to concede.... I will do this on this very thread until Christ return.

Is he not overdue by a couple thousand years? How long can we expect to hear about this rumoured return?

I do not know how many times your going to ask yet provide nothing, but here we go again.

You concede that you have nothing. Are we done here?

You want evidence you will have to do the foot work yourself and ask God.

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

 

[LostMarbels]

Where have I said that I was unable to form an opinion or make a decision?

Not if you are unable to define what you mean by "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, any more than I could prove or disprove the existence of Santa.

Keep in mind that the burden remains on the religionist to define their terms, and present their evidence. I am not here to promote my beliefs, or to champion science. I am only here to observe.

It would appear that you cannot meet that burden.

I don't think you understand. It isn't my job to make you believe, only to show you the way. If you do not believe fine. That's your choice.. and no. I will not change that stance. No matter how many times you hammer me. You are making a conscious decision.

If you wish to know or understand my God you have to deal with him on his terms. And that is it. If your not willing to ask him then your not looking for answers.

 

[LostMarbels]

Until of course, I die, and God decides to exile/torture/torment me for my conviction?

Not at all. You have free will to do with this life as you please. Gods will be done. You have known about hell for how many years now?

 

[Skavau]

Not at all. You have free will to do with this life as you please. Gods will be done. You have known about hell for how many years now?

I don't believe in hell. I don't "know" about hell anymore than I do any other realm I consider fictional.

In any case, you miss the point. You're obviously not in favour of free expression because when I die, if I die as a Non-Christian God will torture me and to you, that is just.

 

[LostMarbels]

A character in a book.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate, apparently.

I am not asking for proof. I am asking for something, anything, that might establish we are not simply taking about characters in books.

The circles are of your own making. I am here to observe what religionists do when pressed to substantiate their religion's claims.

Anything of significance?

If that gives you comfort, great. I do not seek comfort, I seek an accurate description of reality.

Is he not overdue by a couple thousand years? How long can we expect to hear about this rumoured return?

You concede that you have nothing. Are we done here?

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

Can you contribute anything to this conversation?

 

[LostMarbels]

I don't believe in hell. I don't "know" about hell anymore than I do any other realm I consider fictional.

Then don't believe. Go on with your life. Myself, I will not make a decision unless I know what I'am deciding on.

In any case, you miss the point. You're obviously not in favour of free expression

That is your opinion. Why can you not see that? I just don't agree with you. But I completely believe this is your live to live as you so chose.

because when I die, if I die as a Non-Christian God will torture me and to you, that is just.

Being Christian wont save you either. You have to accept Jesus Christ, not the religion. I'm not being difficult here either for the sake of argument. The bible clearly states allot of churchy people will go to hell because they only practiced religion, and did not accept Jesus.

But yes, I find God just. If you do not accept him hell is waiting.

 

[Davian]

I don't.

It did appear that you made that mistake.

It is a way of making ones position indefensible while not giving the other person a defined position to attack. This is used to keep someone in the constant defensive. Then the other person can just keep taking pot shots.

I do have a defined postion. As I told oi_antz in this same thread, it would appear that you would need to falsify most of mainstream science and knowledge to accommodate your religion. Tackle that if you wish.

There are two kinds of truth.

Truth of the first kind is known by reason alone. An example of this kind of truth would be the axiom of logic: "a thing cannot be what it is and what it is not simultaneously". We can only deny this axiom by descending into contradiction or blather. In my experience this is where most Atheists like to keep the conversation.

Truth of the second kind is known by experience. An example of this kind of truth would be: "The sun will rise tomorrow". This statement is almost certainly true and yet there is no necessary contradiction in denying its truth. In this case it is not "absolutely" true that "the sun will rise tomorrow", because it could be that it is false.

Given these two different kinds of truth, I think we can see how people can say that "absolute truth does not exist" and yet, by that statement, not contradict themselves. So, other words. Never commit yourself to an actual stance, keep on the offensive, and do not make definitive statements that can be refuted. It's all about winning the argument.

There is nothing to win here. I am here to observe and learn, for my benefit and that of my children. While we have some religious relatives, we have little exposure to religion where we live, and few chances at discussion. So, here is where I get to practice, and they occasionally watch over my shoulder.

Man.... have you read my posts? The ones about an all sovereign God with Immutably unmitigated authority?

AKA: Jesus, our Christ.

Unevidenced assertion. Untestable and unfalsifiable. This is of no significance to me.

And I told you Christianity can only provide empirical proof in the sense of first hand experiences.

First hand experiences are not empirical proof. They fail to meet the requirements of scientific methodology or the concept of falsifiability.

 

[Davian]

I don't think you understand. It isn't my job to make you believe, only to show you the way. If you do not believe fine. That's your choice..

Belief is not a choice.

and no. I will not change that stance.

Good to see that you keep an open mind. Or whatever.

No matter how many times you hammer me. You are making a conscious decision.

Even when you cannot make that conscious decision yourself. Seems fair.

If you wish to know or understand my God you have to deal with him on his terms. And that is it. If your not willing to ask him then your not looking for answers.

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

 

[Davian]

Can you contribute anything to this conversation?

I would ask the same of you. Will you not answer the question?

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

 

[LostMarbels]

Unevidenced assertion. Untestable and unfalsifiable. This is of no significance to me.

Then why are you here?

QUOTE="Davian, post: 67988430, member: 285427"] First hand experiences are not empirical proof. They fail to meet the requirements of scientific methodology or the concept of falsifiability.[/QUOTE]

empirical
adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

 

[LostMarbels]

Belief is not a choice.

That is your opinion. and one I will not back down from.

Good to see that you keep an open mind. Or whatever.

I am not open minded to all things. Why do you believe I must care what everyone thinks?

Even when you cannot make that conscious decision yourself. Seems fair.

There is no decision to make. This construct of yours is an attempted trap so you can say... Ah ha! you see?!?? Sorry I don't play such games.

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

Oh my... I don't see the intentions behind this question. Man this is a hard one. Let me see.... Its a reference to a fairy tale in accordance to belief. Man, I cant tell where your going with that one.

These aren't even genuine questions. There poorly laid traps in attempt to make a moot point.

 

[LostMarbels]

I would ask the same of you. Will you not answer the question?

Tell me, would you feel silly asking Santa for a new bike?

No, I wouldn't feel silly at all.

Santa, I really would like a new specialized touring bike. A 16 speed shamano shift, and saddles. I don't like clip-ons, so if you would please just give me regular pedals. Thanks dude.

 

[LostMarbels]

You know why? He aint real... no power, or authority in O'l Saint nicks name. Or a leprechaun, or the FSM, Or the god in a jar.

All of that is just foolishness to try and confuse the validity of God. It is meaningless.

I do however confess Jesus Christ as the word of God made flesh, and the one true God.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You know why? He aint real... no power, or authority in O'l Saint nicks name. Or a leprechaun, or the FSM, Or the god in a jar.

All of that is just foolishness to try and confuse the validity of God. It is meaningless.

You missed the point. It's not even about God, it's about unverifiable claims and who the burden of proof lies on. You can certainly say Santa isn't real but can you prove it?

I do however confess Jesus Christ as the word of God made flesh, and the one true God.

And the burden of proof lies on you to convince a non-christian of that