Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never understood why you guys think quoting sentence fragments makes a good argument.
It is not needed. That is what is called a strawman argument. And it is why it appears to be more in line with your beliefs.It's a reference to infinite regress that is so often the fall-back for atheistic metaphysics. You assure me that every cause has an infinite number of causes, but if I question a cause you cannot explain the response I get is to discredit my skepticism. So you are like the woman who tells me that there are turtles all the way down when pressed on her belief that the world is on the back of a turtle by asking her what each subsequent turtle is based on.
No, that is merely your belief. The burden of proof is upon you to show that that is the case.It is God's breathed word to us.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Scripture makes some big claims. It's either all true or non is true. None of this cherry picking, well this bit is true but the rest isn't nonsense.
I know it is true because God is true. I trust God and God would not place his name on a book full of half truths.
I am talking about the Hebrew and Greek here. Translations are good and we need them but they always miss something somewhere, even if it is just that an English word like 'death' doesn't explain that means creatures with a soul.
No, that is an unjustified conclusion. All religions could be wrong. There is no need for one of them to be right. Religion may be just an emergent trait of our evolution. Religion helps to keep groups together and that is a positive trait when it comes to survival. No "real religion" needs to exist for there to be some positive outcomes of a religious belief.Other religions exists because the spiritual realm is real. If it wasn't real mankind would not have dozens of religions which span all through the ages from 'primitive' to 'cultured' people. People look for the spiritual in all kinds of places, whether in a church or in tarot card readers. Your position of there being no spiritual realm at all is a small minority.
Evolution won't fail as such, it is one of the signs and wonders. It is a strong delusion.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
No, that is merely your belief. The burden of proof is upon you to show that that is the case.
And no, the scripture is not either all true or untrue. That is a black and white fallacy. Some of it may be right. A lot of it is clearly wrong.
Oh? Then you will justify your assumptions? What do you base your confidence on the laws that govern the universe(whatever they may be) existing in all places at all times?It is not needed. That is what is called a strawman argument. And it is why it appears to be more in line with your beliefs.
By the way, there is no such thing as "atheistic metaphysics". Do you think that atheism is an organized belief?
Incorrect. The Bible says that. You only believe that is the word of God. You cannot seem to support that claim.I'm not here to show proof to you. God says you have enough proof.
Science works. If it did not work then there would be valid reasons to doubt it.Oh? Then you will justify your assumptions? What do you base your confidence on the laws that govern the universe(whatever they may be) existing in all places at all times?
And as for your objection, I've been over this. "Atheistic metaphysics" refers to any metaphysic that posits that there isn't a god governing the universe. Do you know why the Greeks never developed a robust physical science program?
What you are doing is begging the question. If I quoted the Bible to prove God, you would rightly recognize that as inappropriate. Why do you think it's appropriate to refer to science to prove science?Science works. If it did not work then there would be valid reasons to doubt it.
Do you have anything more reliable?
No, that is an unjustified conclusion. All religions could be wrong. There is no need for one of them to be right. Religion may be just an emergent trait of our evolution. Religion helps to keep groups together and that is a positive trait when it comes to survival. No "real religion" needs to exist for there to be some positive outcomes of a religious belief.
And I see that you think that God can lie to others. If that is the case why can't he lie to you? It is a huge theological problem if one's God can lie.
Nope. I made a point that you had no answer to. And begging the question is only an informal fallacy at best.What you are doing is begging the question. If I quoted the Bible to prove God, you would rightly recognize that as inappropriate. Why do you think it's appropriate to refer to science to prove science?
But it really does no such thing.I am not talking about how right or wrong they all are, just by there very existence it points to the truth of the spiritual realm. That it exists.
The vast majority of the world has some form of religion or spirituality. You will find it everywhere, down every age, and in every country.
If indeed it was something made up your numbers would be much greater. Only 7% of the world population identify as being atheists.
God doesn't lie, that is why he gave us scripture.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
No, I've already addressed your point. I don't believe empiricism to be reliable, so if you expect me to take science seriously you've got to justify your claims. Instead I'm given turtles.Nope. I made a point that you had no answer to. And begging the question is only an informal fallacy at best.
I can see that you do not understand the sciences. Technically anything in the sciences is take as provisionally true because formal proofs simply do no apply to the sciences. There is no way to be absolutely sure. One accepts science because it works. Meanwhile you appear to have nothing. At least you were not ready to state your own beliefs and why you believe them. Except for the pointless claims of direct contact with God. Since countless people have had such events and most of them appear to contradict one another such a claim is of no value in a debate.
Nice note of my typo, but again context makes clear I meant 1x10^-27 and simply missed the exponent and that the number was illustrative. Now, taking your claim has there never been a scientific test that failed? No chemistry student ever conducted an experiment and miffed the results?
That is not true. I know that you believe empiricism to be reliable. You could easily show that I am wrong by jumping off of a tall cliff. We both know that you won't do that.No, I've already addressed your point. I don't believe empiricism to be reliable, so if you expect me to take science seriously you've got to justify your claims. Instead I'm given turtles.
Somehow my questioning of science is anti-intellectual, but your derision for every other field of human inquiry isn't.Now your trying to cast the failures of chemistry students onto physics. Chemistry students! Ha Ha Ha!
I could guess what you meant, but I've lost any desire to be magnanimous. I'm not here to fix your ignorance.
It doesn't matter, since the number is clearly just made up. You've provided no reference, just trying to make the scientific examination of the fundamentals of reality look inadequate. Classic anti-intellectualism.
I quote a fragment so there are less words to my overall post. I tend to switch off if a post contains a wall of text. The last time I included all the words in a section I was asked about burning people in fires. So make up your minds.
It is the misapplication that causes the derision.Somehow my questioning of science is anti-intellectual, but your derision for every other field of human inquiry isn't.
Read through the discussion. I recognize empiricism is reliable for mechanical questions, but questions on the nature of reality are not mechanical questions. Questions of history are only partially mechanical questions, but require other fields. Your claims rest upon metaphysical assumptions, which I am skeptical of. You deride my skepticism and refuse to justify your claims except through appealing to the very thing in question. Why should I be skeptical of God, but credulous of irrational universal laws? Why shouldn't I be skeptical of everything until it has been sufficiently justified?That is not true. I know that you believe empiricism to be reliable. You could easily show that I am wrong by jumping off of a tall cliff. We both know that you won't do that.
You have been misapplying philosophy and relying on a nihilistic argument. As I told you, I won't play that game.
Not at all, because the main thing I have done is question the assumption that physical laws are uniformly distributed, which is an absolute claim. Absolute claims require absolute proof. How much of the universe do all of those tests amount to? 1x10-27%? Yet that is foisted upon me as sufficient justification for simply questioning the *assumption* as if that sliver of tests somehow amounts to confirmation. All I am asking is that you justify your claims, but of course skepticism only applies to the things you deem worthy of being skeptical of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?