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.
Lol. Nice try, but not buying it. I called you on a claim, you couldn't support it. I offered to participate in an experiment you thought up, and asked what would be the outcome if you didn't get your desired result. Your responses are becoming increasingly emotional indicating you feel the discussion is not going in your favour.Your cowardice is noted.
That doesn't seem to prevent dad from using those same 'faith based details' to propagate misinformation (and get nowhere) about how science works, though ..Strathos said:Because it ends up going nowhere. It's like you're speaking two different languages.SelfSim said:Why?
So all you can consider is infinite regression? "All effects are caused". First Cause is not an effect.Then why consider it at all? Sounds like a big cop out.
Why support the tried and proven with the folks that play 'let's wave it all away'?Always excuses to avoid supporting your claims.
Good to hear Bertrand's opinion. That is all it is.Always excuses to avoid supporting your claims.
Discretion?Ie: he exercises self-restraint on one aspect, but acts completely the opposite when it comes to the other(?)
The OED is always a good starting point. Otherwise you can reflect on the impractical value of the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicology you seem to favour.You may object to my use of the word, "empirical", there, but who has the authority to set the boundaries on its application, use, or meaning?
So the premise of 'truth' is deliberately used to exclude more than 75% the population of the planet, then? How more divisive than that can something get?Mark Quayle said:What Theologians refer to as Salvific Faith, is much more than emotion, and according to the Bible is not engendered by the individual possessing it. So IF the Bible is true, there is something causing it, or someone, giving the individual possessing that faith empirical evidence not available to science, nor to unbelievers. You may object to my use of the word, "empirical", there, but who has the authority to set the boundaries on its application, use, or meaning?
I don't disagree that the pov I scorn has its uses. I just find it difficult to attach the same meaning in one use to the meaning in another use. And the dictionaries don't really lend any light in the meaning of some words. Faith is one of them. "Salvific Faith", that is...The OED is always a good starting point. Otherwise you can reflect on the impractical value of the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicology you seem to favour.
75% is nowhere near as divisive as truth is. Your statement is nearly meaningless --but I do get some sort of scorn intended --so, what is wrong with "divisive" if it hinges on truth?So the premise of 'truth' is deliberately used to exclude more than 75% the population of the planet, then? How more divisive than that can something get?
Not sure what you are asking here. Almost all effects are also causes. Are you asking if the Bible is a causeless effect? Of course it is not causeless. But there is a pun involved upon a deeper pun, better than just a riddle, having to do with the Word of God and the Son of God and the Creator. I'll leave it to you.(Otherwise the premise of 'the Bible is true' is false .. and thus so too, is it as a 'cause').
How is exclusion of 75% of the world's population not also pure evil?.. so, what is wrong with "divisive" if it hinges on truth?
75% wasn't my number. If the number is relevant, it is worse than 75% as far as I can tell. But the number is irrelevant. We have a habit of attributing value beyond our prerogative. Not only that, but our type, our idea, of value is off. We want to compare ourselves to God, who alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. Our Creator is the only one to whom belong all honor and respect. (No, I am not saying we shouldn't show respect and certain amount of honor to our fellow human beings, but we are not God's 'fellows'). He has no such reason to honor and respect us as apart from himself. We are not his peers.How is exclusion of 75% of the world's population not also pure evil?
(The purpose of this meaning of 'truth' sounds like a keycode to a weapon of mass destruction to me!?)
We're deluded in thinking you might stop waving it away one day?Why support the tried and proven with the folks that play 'let's wave it all away'?
I don't know if you are talking above me, beneath me, or past me, but the end result it the same.I don't disagree that the pov I scorn has its uses. I just find it difficult to attach the same meaning in one use to the meaning in another use. And the dictionaries don't really lend any light in the meaning of some words. Faith is one of them. "Salvific Faith", that is...
I do not have to accept your beliefs and faith. Thank you very much. You do need more when offering a scientific position. I do not wave away all of Scripture and history because they record spirits. Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.You're projecting again. You're the one who waves it all away, not me.
Your arguments about what should be honored and respected appears confused... Our Creator is the only one to whom belong all honor and respect. (No, I am not saying we shouldn't show respect and certain amount of honor to our fellow human beings, but we are not God's 'fellows'). He has no such reason to honor and respect us as apart from himself. We are not his peers.
Purely megalomaniacal reasoning .. where did that come from?Mark Quayle said:If you think it is evil to create vast numbers of creatures for the purpose of showing his glory and justice and power to those to whom he has shown mercy, then you have a pretty poor concept of how great this First Cause, God Almighty, is.
Gobbledegook .. no scientific foundations whatsoever.Mark Quayle said:We don't compare. We aren't even alive, compared to him.
You go through a lot of words to simply say you don't believe in God.Your arguments about what should be honored and respected appears confused.
Hierarchies (peer-subordinate relationships) are models created by us to shape behaviors directed towards achieving certain goals.
I'm not seeing any signs of acceptance of the personal responsibility for behaviors here. This appears to be completely abrogated. All humans are being classified as either psychopathic or sociopathic .. which is a clear contradiction with the abundant evidence of human sociological development. Profound denial .. Akin to a complete erasure of the concept of self awareness and self identity.
Are these the goals for unifying the human spirit? (.. good luck if they are ..)
Purely megalomaniacal reasoning .. where did that come from?
Gobbledegook .. no scientific foundations whatsoever.
Its the wrong question to ask in a thread about how science can be applied for establishing existence. Science only aims at devising a best (currently tested) model. Does that mean I 'believe in it'? Absolutely not. Nor does it mean I believe there isn't a 'God' -- it means it is simply not a matter of belief at all, and if I do choose to form a belief on that topic, no one else should even care!You go through a lot of words to simply say you don't believe in God.
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?