I have no idea; I was just clarifying that he wasn't Christian and didn't believe in an Abrahamic god, in case that's a requirement of being saved. But it makes no difference to me whether believers think he was saved or not.
Upvote
0
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 have no idea; I was just clarifying that he wasn't Christian and didn't believe in an Abrahamic god, in case that's a requirement of being saved. But it makes no difference to me whether believers think he was saved or not.Then he got saved ... right?
Thanks for your reply, Quatona.
I am in this thread into an experiment to see whether folks who are atheists or in league with atheists, are really into hide and seek (which they are in fact), in their discussion on the existence of God.
The information of the concept of God is already most crucial in coming to the existence of God, that is why when you read writings by enemies of God's existence, search for any mention from their part of their information on the concept of God, and you will notice that they are playing hide and see, by blasphemously applying ridiculous descriptions to God, calling Him like as with Bertrand Russel, an orbiting teapot in space - I think he is the first to resort to this hide and seek trick to avoid altogether from giving his information, because he knows that from the correct information of God in concept, it is inevitable that he will come to the existence of God, conforming to the concept of God, namely:
"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."
Russell calls God an orbiting teapot in space, nowadays atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, etc., all of which exposes them to be into bad faith playing themselves to be irrational and un-intelligent, by which they could avail of the defense from ignorance for not accepting God's existence.
But it is not ignorance but insanity, i.e., they seek to show themselves insane, wherefore they are 'faultless'.
So, how to prove the existence of God?
Like this:
1. Get to know the correct information on the concept of God.
And then?
What about in step No. 2. accepting this statement:
2. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?
What do you say, Quatona?
Dear Quatona, I like very much to have a sustained exchange with you, on the present trend I am developing, namely, how to prove God exists, step by step.
[ Note to operators of the forum: Please just merge this 'new thread' into the most appropriate current thread(s) from me, or see if you can put them three threads under just one thread. I should have just made what I call a new topic as the title of a new post from myself. Sorry for the trouble. ]
I suspect that with Pachomius, you'll be living up to your sig. If my experience so far is anything to go by, a response seems unlikely...You appear to think you are engaging in mind reading. Do you really believe that you have the ability to examine the motivations of people who you don't know at all? When they tell you their motivations, why do you disagree? Do you think atheists are lying to you regarding the reasons why they lack belief?
Just as you would like to start the conversation with a point of agreement regarding the "concept of god"......you'll also need to agree that you cannot read minds and any discussion where you pretend that you can read minds will ultimately be fruitless.
""In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.""
How do you know that the universe requires a creator? How do you know that the universe has an initial "first" cause? How do you get from "first cause" to the conclusion that this is a god and not an unintelligent and natural process?
Yes, we all have parents, and the concept of god/s exists.Dear Loudmouth, when you come over, I hope to read your thinking on Have you searched where you come from? in re babies coming from their parents.
When you have come to certainty that you come from your papa and mama, I am happy that we can now proceed to think further on reason and observation, and more expansively on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas from the best thinkers among mankind, from the dawn of consciousness and reason and intelligence to the present, today with us two to think further, now that we have ascertained that we come from our respective papa and mama.
Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.
Where am I going with the fact that babies come from parents?
I am into proving that there is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?
Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?
There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.
Dear Quatona, you are now going into confusion mode in order to escape from thinking that is grounded on reason and observation.
I suspect that with Pachomius, you'll be living up to your sig. If my experience so far is anything to go by, a response seems unlikely...
As dear atheists you may find this post too long to read, please just produce one objection to God’s existence that is not an instance of playing hide and seek with yourselves.
That's what you tag any evidence which goes contrary to your pet preconceptions.
Just as gravity can be evidenced by its effects, so can God.
An apple falls from a tree = evidence of gravity.
AD = evidence of God.
Didn't Jesus tell the disciples of John the Baptist to go back and tell John, who was in prison, that the things they were going to witness about Him was proof that He was Jesus?
That's okay, Ana.I've never seen a calendar made by god AV...
I actually have a clue, that you don't have a clue
Do you know what's that? Thats' your hair follicle. It's called Flagellum Motor. And it's an engine. AN ENGINE. A rotary type mechanism which has a specific purpose.
So you are telling me that cosmic dust MADE THAT, BY MISTAKE?
You need to read more about biology I guess.
That's okay, Ana.
I've never seen an apple made by gravity.
No test is needed to conclude that there is something which they have tagged dark matter, is gravitationally affecting the stars-correct?. If I demanded a test to justify that necessary, initial, logical conclusion based on observation and repetitive pattern, I would be tagged irrational-right? Why? Because the conclusion based on observation is justifiable. In short, its justifiability is a given. In a similar manner, we conclude that nature displays mind due to complex organization of towards a goal or purpose. That to us is a given.
There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.
Speaking for myself, it's not a question of replacing God with nothing as an ultimate cause, but with simply admitting that I don't know the origins of the universe. I don't know whether an ultimate cause is necessary, and if one is, I don't know how it could be satisfactorily explained. Introducing a supernatural entity just adds an unjustified level of complication - it isn't an explanation if it raises more questions than it answers, particularly if those questions are unanswerable. If something can exist without a cause, and without a beginning, it would be more parsimonious and raise fewer unanswerable questions if that something was the universe itself (applying Occam's Razor).Dear atheists here, please also join us, to search where you come from, in re babies come from their parents.
...
Now, where are you atheists going or coming, with denying that God exists, and that nothing is the ultimate cause of you when babies, and forever as a piece of cosmic information having come from your parents all the way back to when nothing was the default status of things in the totality of reality?
Well, in which case you have changed the name of God from God to nothing; that is all right with me: because what’s in a name? as long as the entity plays its role of ultimate origin of the universe and man and everything with a beginning?
There is this emulating version of Occam’s Razor: When the function of a thing is saved, even though folks want to use an exactly opposite name to call it, yet they assign the exact same function to it, let them be happy, because what’s in a name, a rose by any other name is just as fragrant.
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?