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.
Ok... let's say "no meaning outside of itself".We can't acknowledge the correctness of something unless it has meaning.
It's even meaningful to say something is meaningless.
The meaning in it is that you're claiming it's meaningless.
Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).That simply reiterates the problem - if what you will do is already 'written', you have no free will because you cannot choose to do otherwise. How does your interpretation resolve this?
Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).In theology, there is a difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting'; eternal is without beginning or end, and outside time (literally 'timeless'), and everlasting is within time (i.e. time-like), starting (in the case of God, starting with respect to the universe) and continuing forever. As usual, bible translations don't have consistent usage.
But, if you prefer, just consider the arguments to refer to within time and outside time.
Nope, not convoluted, at all.Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).
Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).
I have $10 in my pocket.
Evidence can be the substance of the claim, e.g. "These accounts are evidence of fraud". The claim is about the evidence.If a claim also contains evidence of the claim, it is no longer just a claim, but a claim made in conjunction with evidence.
It's actually two related claims, the second claiming evidence for the first. You could restate the fraud claim above as "There has been a fraud, and these accounts are the evidence", which shows it's a compound claim of two related claims, the first asserting a fraud and the second asserting that the accounts are evidence of the truth of the first claim. The second is still a claim substantially about the evidence, but now it's clear that it's about the evidence for both claims.If the prosecutor states; the defendant is guilty of the crime and his DNA would found on the murder weapon, that is a claim and evidence combined.
Yes, whether the evidence really does support the claim must be substantiated. If it doesn't support the claim, then presumably it wasn't really the evidence it was claimed to be...Than of course, all evidence is open to cross examination, to determine if the evidence actually points where it claims to be pointing.
How does this explain that something meaningless can be correct?
Nevermind, it's clear you can't explain what you're claiming.
Imagine if it (prayer) did (work)
Unless you're an amputee. Then not so much.
But if God 'wrote' the story 'long ago', as you maintain, we don't have free will; God 'wrote' what we would do 'long ago'.Again...it only appears we have free will (present tense) - because the story is finished. But...when it actually took place...THEN...we did have free will (past tense).
As I said, if you don't like the theological usage of the terms, just consider the arguments to refer to 'outside time' and 'within time' respectively. You appear to want it both ways - that God is outside time, and yet can interact with the world within time; these are logically incompatible. How does your interpretation reconcile this conflict?Theology is the study of... All of which is interesting - and thank you, but I was referring to the reality of...(those terms).
There are no such things as demons, jins, goblins, ghouls or trolls.
How can something correct be meaningless?
In the same way something meaningless can be correct.
Link? from meta-analyses of studies, it is clear that (as is usual with this kind of claim) the more rigorous the study, the less significant the results obtained, with the most rigorous showing no significant effects at all.No need - IF one is open minded, it can be easily empirically ascertained...
As has recently been done in the medical field...
How did you control for confirmation bias and expectation bias? what were your criteria?I did it myself - Secretly prayed for some, and not for others, when I first became a Christian - I didn't believe this pray for me garbage - And then simply payed attention to how their lives progressed... I was shocked at the results...
No, you just called potential facts not facts at all...simply because YOU yourself did not have the proof. And now after defining truth as only limited to your own knowledge...you accuse me of doing the same, simply because you aren't in the know.It seems to me, your outlook is this; anything or anyone that doesn't see things as you do, is convoluted.
That simply reiterates the problem - if what you will do is already 'written', you have no free will because you cannot choose to do otherwise. How does your interpretation resolve this?
In theology, there is a difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting'; eternal is without beginning or end, and outside time (literally 'timeless'), and everlasting is within time (i.e. time-like), starting (in the case of God, starting with respect to the universe) and continuing forever. As usual, bible translations don't have consistent usage.
But, if you prefer, just consider the arguments to refer to outside time and within time respectively.
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?