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.
Your definition of faith isn't the biblical one.You didn't get that straight - the statement implies they were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they had no good reason to believe (i.e. for faith).
That is the answer. From his viewpoint I have presented no evidence whatsoever so he could have never actually rejected any evidence at all-just bogus data or unadulterated drivel.Try actually answering his question.
From your standpoint what is being dismissed isn't evidence-it is drivel.So 'no evidence at all' is being 'unceremoniously dismissed'?
If that's not what you meant, what evidence, from your viewpoint, is being 'unceremoniously dismissed'?
The logical parsing is that they were martyred for their beliefs, that were held without a good reason or justification and for which they gave faith as the excuse for holding.... they were martyred because they gave excuses.
That red-herring doesn't answer the question.From your standpoint what is being dismissed isn't evidence-it is drivel.
It's not my definition. I'm helping you parse Skreeper's simple statements - take it up with him.Your definition of faith isn't the biblical one.
How did the Bible writer KNOW that from space the Earth looks as if it is hanged on NOTHING?
Job 26:7
Now, dear Loudmouth, Do you have any at all firm conviction on the existence of God or non-existence of God?
Here is my firm conviction in this thread of mine where you are also exuding your fruits of thinking:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
And here is my concept of evidence, as follows:
#863 from Pachomius:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see.
The question is are Pachi's questions being answered or is he being ignored?
I find that what he is trying to do is to point out that the atheist position of questioning the existence of an intelligent designer is illogical to begin with.
As to my pointing out the irony of claiming atheism and then not claiming atheism but claiming agnosticism and yet claiming atheism, it is something so quaint that I felt I had to mention it. But if it is indeed a deviation from the thread topic I will try to refrain from mentioning it again. Thanks fort pointing it out. My apologies.
Like abiogenesis.
The whole proposition seems like a joke since we both know that you have already rejected all possible explanations and all possible presentations of evidence as unsatisfactory. So it really constitutes an invitation to an exercise in futility.
Well, it’s well nigh two days already and no sight of Loudmouth.
This is not an isolated case, for I have if memory serves met this kind of a development with two posters here - but they turned up afterwards when the discussion went to another direction, some days after.
Okay, dear KTS, suppose you take over and you and I will engage in a sustained exchange on evidence, for as you are an atheist you have a correct objection to God existing, in that you don’t see evidence of His favor.
So, let you and me discuss evidence, what is it, what is its target, and how does evidence hit its target.
Okay, just you in case you want to continue from where Loudmouth leaves off, here are so far the statements presented by yours truly and Loudmouth.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
Addendum:
From Pachomiuis, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence:
DNA.
On target of evidence:
From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples of evidence is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, or what is DNA evidence, evidence to?
Loudmouth waxes eloquent on what is DNA in his one example of evidence, but becomes completely silent and absent when I asked him, "Pray, what is the target of the DNA evidence?"
Again:
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for now two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
Okay, KTS, will you take up the challenge to discuss with me about evidence: what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.
You have the option to continue where Loudmouth takes to his leave of absence, and appropriate the so far only one statement of Loudmouth, his concept of evidence, scil., "Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Take notice of the term “falsifiable” in Loudmouth’s concept of evidence, I recall that you are a specialist in falsifiability, that makes you a scientist if your being a specialist in falsifiability is falsifiable.
My data is prominently posted. So there is no excuse for the repeated requests that I make it known.
That is the answer. From his viewpoint I have presented no evidence whatsoever so he could have never actually rejected any evidence at all-just bogus data or unadulterated drivel.
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?