- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
One thing He cannot do is lie. He already spoke and it was confirmed by Jesus. No mystery about creation, only belief or unbelief.
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.
One thing He cannot do is lie. He already spoke and it was confirmed by Jesus. No mystery about creation, only belief or unbelief.Yes, I do. In fact, I have my own reasons to distrust the whole mindset that credits evolution, but that is for another day.
Meanwhile, God can do anything he wants to do, or he is not God.
Of course the post hoc ones are. It would be a very sorry state if they weren't! But what about the ones that are wrong?Prophesies are 100% accurate.
Indeed it is. Is yours?Your understanding is limited.
They prove God exists from an evidence standpoint.Of course the post hoc ones are. It would be a very sorry state if they weren't! But what about the ones that are wrong?
Indeed it is. Is yours?
The subjective experiences, claims, and beliefs of individuals, and the actions of those individuals, is not evidence of the objective (physical) reality of the spiritual, but is evidence only of the belief.... Prophecies that are fulfilled are direct evidence as is the resurrection, miracles, spirits that were seen and felt and heard, God working in people and etc. The good that people do as a result is an influence on the world.
Once again, beliefs are not physical evidence for what is believed. That someone believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world is not evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world; that someone says their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero is not evidence that their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero - it is just a claim or an anecdote - however many people come to believe it.Got a meter to measure greater love? Got a ghost detector? Got a time machine to travel to each miracle and check it out? No. Scientific inquiry is less effective in these matters than conversing with swine or cattle.
... To the majority of all people of all ages that believe in the spiritual, they have evidence, or many of them do.
Clearly, women do fall pregnant and temples have been destroyed, but these are mundane events; they're not evidence of the spiritual or supernatural just because people tell and believe stories about them. Storytelling is as old as humanity itself.It has a physical reality. Mary was pregnant for example. The temple was physically destroyed as Jesus said. Etc. Science cannot tell us anything by the physical! All it does is sit around philosophizing about how it all happened without anything BUT the physical! Insane reasoning.
No, they don't. Failed prophecies demonstrate that men make incorrect predictions. There's nothing supernatural about that.They prove God exists from an evidence standpoint.
It is subjective to question spiritual experiences. It is not questioning based on facts! You simply want to declare realities and observations of others that are above all ability of science to deal with as not real. In other words, wave it all away for zero reasons and call that objectivity rather than what it is. Denial.The subjective experiences, claims, and beliefs of individuals, and the actions of those individuals, is not evidence of the objective (physical) reality of the spiritual, but is evidence only of the belief.
Physical evidence alone is not evidence of there either being spiritual realities or not. Mary knew her physical evidence was evidence of God and the truth that the angel spoke that she had observed and heard. It was evidence. For you and science, you cannot go there, it is in the past. Even if you could all you would see is a pregnant woman and have no ability to know how it came to be. In all ways science comes from and speaks from a position of ignorance on the matter.Once again, beliefs are not physical evidence for what is believed.
That someone believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world is not evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world; that someone says their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero is not evidence that their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero - it is just a claim or an anecdote - however many people come to believe it.
Temples that took 40 years to build do not fall on cue for no reason. The temple did not die a natural death! Whatever women generally do has nothing to do with what Mary experienced. Science simply has no power to deny with anything but ignorance and inability and denial for no reason.Clearly, women do fall pregnant and temples have been destroyed, but these are mundane events; they're not evidence of the spiritual or supernatural just because people tell and believe stories about them. Storytelling is as old as humanity itself.
Good thing there is not one of those in Scripture. We deal with perfect accuracy.No, they don't. Failed prophecies demonstrate that men make incorrect predictions. There's nothing supernatural about that.
Not really. It's quite simple - the phenomena are physically (objectively) real, they will have some observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, which makes them amenable to science. If they have no observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, they are not physically (objectively) real.It is subjective to question spiritual experiences. It is not questioning based on facts! You simply want to declare realities and observations of others that are above all ability of science to deal with as not real. In other words, wave it all away for zero reasons and call that objectivity rather than what it is. Denial.
That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically (objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.Physical evidence alone is not evidence of there either being spiritual realities or not.
Not an effect that science could tell was any differently caused than a normal physical event. Mary was influenced by a real angel and a real God and had a real baby and had real relatives also see angels confirming it, etc. For you to deny this an opinion NOT supported by any facts. You have no objective position.Not really. It's quite simple - the phenomena are physically (objectively) real, they will have some observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, which makes them amenable to science.
When lives are changed that affects lives, and the world around them. When a prophesy is fulfilled, it affected things. God affects the world and people. Just because science is blind to that does not mean it is not observable.If they have no observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, they are not physically (objectively) real.
Baby Jesus was real. The angels were real, the shepherds were real, the wise men were real, etc. Your opinion that is was not is subjective.That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically (objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.
See the interesting point here is that we see two differently thinking minds attempting to describe how they give the word 'reality' its meaning. Different minds are thinking differently and so they have produced different meanings. More noteworthy however is that what they leave behind is objective evidence of how the human mind creates dissimilar respective meanings of that word: 'reality'.dad said:Baby Jesus was real. The angels were real, the shepherds were real, the wise men were real, etc. Your opinion that is was not is subjective.FrumiousBandersnatch said:That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically(objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.
In other words: 'I hold that there exists an absolute truth, outside of the requirement to demonstrate that logically or objectively' .. (aka: a belief).If the person is privy to unverifiable (scientifically) evidence, the truth remains true.
More like, in that situation: 'What they said was false' because it would be unreasonable to claim that their (above) notion of 'truth', could be used to prove that they were 'wrong'.Mark Quayle said:If they are wrong, mistaken, they are wrong.
Their orginal notion of 'truth' was a belief .. and beliefs are never 'wrong' .. they're just beliefs.Mark Quayle said:If it is true, they are not wrong.
.. and he would never know that, unless science kicked in, and did its thing.Mark Quayle said:If the plumber is right about your appendix,...
Where his reasons for believing that he was right, were not based on logic or the scientific process, his belief would have been irrelevant to the outcome.Mark Quayle said:I'm not saying you should believe anything the plumber says. I'm only saying he could be right, and might even have some valid reason to believe he is right.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall,See the interesting point here is that we see two differently thinking minds attempting to describe how they give the word 'reality' its meaning. Different minds are thinking differently and so they have produced different meanings. More noteworthy however is that what they leave behind is objective evidence of how the human mind creates dissimilar respective meanings of that word: 'reality'.
Reality is not something which 'exists' independently from any human mind .. that's just another model created by a mind. What we have in the above sub-discussion, is just more evidence of minds at work.
Attempting to use the arbitrary notions behind the words 'subjective' and 'objective' doesn't help to justify the notion of true mind independent reality, either. Those distinctions have always called for a census across a thinking population of what people mean when they use those terms.
You may continue to believe that, but it doesn't make it true. There are a number of well-known failed prophecies in the bible. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them but choose to deny they exist.Good thing there is not one of those in Scripture. We deal with perfect accuracy.
If the person is privy to unverifiable (scientifically) evidence, the truth remains true. If they are wrong, mistaken, they are wrong. If it is true, they are not wrong. If the plumber is right about your appendix, he is right. I'm not saying you should believe anything the plumber says. I'm only saying he could be right, and might even have some valid reason to believe he is right.
I don't know if he does or not (unless you want to get particular about what it means for God to "want"-- he is not like us). If he does, i.e. if he plans for you to believe in him, you will believe in him, sooner or later.
You address the miscommunication between two individuals as being a consequence of semantic differences (with a hint of elitism in the critique), while ignoring the dependence of your own argument upon idiosyncratic terminology. I just found it amusing.Please explain.
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?