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 believe that's basic doctrine I'm espousing.
Those are really weird reasons to believe that God or gods exist. It is tantamount to saying that we believe that something exists because we believe that something exists. Where did you derive that concept from?
Square one in the philosophical sense. All I know is my mind. From that extends my senses, from which I can see/hear/smell/feel/taste that things exist, or at least that my mind perceives that things exist.
Excluding dark energy, my sensory experiences.
Cogito ergo sum.And how do you know that "mind" actually exists?
You can go and read about the scientific process that led to that theory if you're curious.How does one end up holding belief in something like big bang theory, where sensory experiences cannot directly detect things like dark matter or dark energy, or inflation, or space expansion?
Cogito ergo sum.
You can go and read about the scientific process that led to that theory if you're curious.
I'm simply pointing out to you that you wouldn't even exist to write any math formulas were it not for God/The Universe, and there is more empirical physical evidence to support a living universe than there is to support *mainstream* cosmology theory.
I'll be happy to demonstrate that claim to you if you like:
An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)
So it's possible for you to hold belief in intangible things like "mind" without direct sensory confirmation.
I'll be glad to.Since you're the one KTS derived this concept from. It is only fitting that you answer for it.
I'll be glad to.
Just as gravity, which is invisible, is known by observing its effects, I submit that God, who is invisible, can be known by observing His effects.
Time divided into BC/AD; churches and other edifices erected in His name; hymns, carols and songs; holidays; iconography; the Bible, bumper stickers, books and slogans; personal testimonies and anecdotes, TV shows and public debates; and martyrs all point to God.
Notice here how Jesus promotes Himself ...
Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Those are really weird reasons to believe that God or gods exist. It is tantamount to saying that we believe that something exists because we believe that something exists. Where did you derive that concept from?
I beg your pardon?So basically: "Humans made 'ileofpoop:', therefor God"
You want me to change my story, do you?gudz23 said:This is just a rehash of what you already told us.
I thought I did defend my reasoning with both science (mentioning gravity) and Scripture (quoting from Luke).gudz23 said:You are called to defend your reasoning, not reiterate the exact same thing.
And if Radrook likes my reasoning, will you follow suit?gudz23 said:Even Radrook indirectly thinks that your reasons are weird.
We can all agree that we wouldn't be here to discuss, were it not for the Universe. What function God serves in your particular worldview, is still a complete mystery.
I haven't read all the 70 or so pages of the threads you started, but I take note that none of the scientists you refer to in your opener, have had anything so fantastical to say about their findings. All they done is to solemnly describe detectable physical phenomenons, and explaining how they operate or occur.
To say that the existence of electrical charge in the universe, is evidence that the universe itself is a great big mind, aka. God, is equivalent to saying that chemicals react because they fall in love (before filing for divorce, some time later).
So, in your view, is there any "evidence" that the universe has made any conscious and intelligent decisions lately?! I certainly don't think so... It appears rather mechanical.
Well, I suppose that our brain appears rather "mechanical" as well, from a purely anatomical perspective (We certainly can't find a "mind" by dissecting one). So yeah, lets imagine that the universe is one functioning mind... What then makes you think that this mind is able to perceive and/or alter its own "make-up"?
This is rather a futile exercise, I don't really care for it... Yes, we assume that the world is real.
Even if everything else is fake (including my brain and body), I can't really escape the fact that I experience "something", now can I? So of course I must exist, even if everything else is fake. I can't know for sure about you guys, but I certainly "assume" that you exist also. It's sort of a no-brainer, even if it kind of isn't. We'll get nowhere down this path... Continue down this path, and I might myself be God.
I want you to elaborate how you come think that "things" and "concepts" made and made up by humans represent evidence for the existence of God.I beg your pardon?You want me to change my story, do you?
Ain't gonna happen.
I thought I did defend my reasoning with both science (mentioning gravity) and Scripture (quoting from Luke).
It was good enough for Jesus.
And if Radrook likes my reasoning, will you follow suit?
-_- most atheists are agnostic. Agnostic is the knowledge statement, atheist is the belief statement.Dear readers, yes all who read this thread, including in particular atheists, and in most particular one agnostic but in acts and words an atheist no less, to wit, Loudmouth: with whom by mutual consent we he and I are having an exchange at present on what is evidence, in re the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning,
It gets no less insulting when you repeat that while ignoring my posts. Who's fooling oneself here?I have said nth times that atheists do not think except if that is thinking, i.e. when the issue is God exists or not, they are into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
Why would he need more examples? If you want more examples, you could've just asked. Preferably without using the diction that makes me wonder if you type these using a thesaurus. The word salads don't make you sound smarter, they just make you sound condescending. Not that you'll bother to respond to me.Take this example of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, the definition of what is evidence from Loudmouth:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
And so far he gives only one example of evidence, namely, DNA.
What super sense of consciousness? Is this a reference to human intellect, or some sort of spiritual awareness you think humans have? In terms of how consciousness fits Loudmouth's definition, it's measurable as electrical impulses in our brain. It's existence is both falsifiable (since we know what to look for) and is based in factual observation.Dear readers, you have got to be into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism as to fashion that kind of a definition for evidence, and then to further go deeper into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, to give an example of evidence thus defined, namely, DNA.
How can anyone with reason and intelligence and with grasp on the reality of our environment where we breathe and move and have our being, by observation of everything we can access with our senses, starting of course with our super sense of consciousness, how can anyone fit that kind of an example of evidence, namely, DNA, into that kind of a definition of evidence, to wit, from Loudmouth, scil.:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
Example, DNA.
By your definition, a monster I imagined up has valid evidence to support its existence in reality in the fact that it exists in my mind. This is not a workable definition for evidence.Here, below, dear readers, is my definition of evidence and several examples of evidence, including DNA:
“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."
For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:
"Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus."
And you have no authority on what words mean or what qualifies as scientific evidence for anything, so none of what you claim has any weight to it.Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.
Dear all readers of this thread, I have not read the posts here since I was last here yesterday morning.
But I like to share with readers here of all religious and/or non-religious stripes, and also humans here who are hostile or not hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
The atheist posters here are the ones I see to be hostile to God.
Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic; in terms of generics, he is in doubt in regard to God exists or not, but in actual acts and words he is hostile to God.
So, I know for a certainty that all atheists here and together with Loudmouth who self-labels himself as agnostic, they are all hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Their number one ‘argument’ against God is to make fun of God - and period, because they don’t really have any arguments against God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And most important, aside from making fun of God owing to their emotional hostility to God, they also engage in what I call negative epistemology against God.
What is negative epistemology against God?
First, what is epistemology?
Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology:
Click on the link as follows,
Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY
“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.”
So, dear readers here, can you already know by extrapolating in a way from Webster, what I mean by the negative epistemology against God, on the part of atheists and one Loudmouth who identifies himself as an agnostic but in acts and in words, also imbued with the hostility of atheists against God?
Here is how I would draft the meaning of negative epistemology against God, as I see it in atheists and one agnostic, Loudmouth:
“It is the studious effort to infect with obfuscation and obscurantism the knowledge of God in oneself, the atheist, and also in others so that no genuine knowledge of God existing will be harbored in the atheist’ heart and mind.
That includes also Loudmouth who though self-identifying as an agnostic, a human who is in doubt about God existing or not, but in acts and in words, an atheist.
Now, I will go and read the new posts from since yesterday, and see what Loudmouth is into, in regard to his understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Well, whenever G is introduced 2+2 no longer equals four since logic flies right out the window while quacking like a duck.
Server not found
Firefox can’t find the server at www.christianforums.com.
Good! Server is again working.
_________________________
Dear Loudmouth, you are again into wasteful profusion of words to no purpose except to engage in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.
[ From Pachomius Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181 ]
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
Okay, dear readers, let us await with bated breath to witness four examples of evidence or more aside from DNA, coming from Loudmouth, the absence of which is the ground why for Loudmouth there is no God, in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
ANNEX
Yesterday at 4:17 AM #1181
Pachomius
Now, dear Loudmouth, you state:
“Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Will you just explain how DNA as example of evidence fits your definition of evidence?
And please also present four or more other examples of what is evidence that you see to fit your definition of evidence, scil., “Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim."
It is this kind of thinking that I find you to be a very confused mind in thinking on things as to put them in writing that should be clear, precise, simple, and definitive, but they are not, which is a tribute to the habitual mindset of atheists, which is to sow confusion.
[ End of ANNEX ]
Tell readers, what is the falsifiable claim that DNA is evidence to?
Then I'm Genghis Khan.I am no more against God than you are against Santa Claus.
Then I'm Genghis Khan.
Trivia question:
Who is Santa Claus to us?
- doesn't exist
- Satan
Trolls don't feed trolls, do they?I'm not feeding the troll today.
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?