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.
Circular is circular.Yes, what I currently believe about God is not 100% accurate because my beliefs are fallible, which is why I rely on Him for correction not myself.
Just because my beliefs are fallible does not automatically mean God must not exist.
My faith in God makes up for my fallible beliefs.
How does your belief in God make up for your fallible beliefs, when your belief in God could be fallible?
That makes zero sense and is circular.
My belief in God could be fallible, but since I believe in God, it makes up for it????????????????????????????????????
Depends if you view beliefs to be the same as faith.
My beliefs are what I accept as true.
My faith is trusting in something I cannot see with my eyes.
You can't see truth with your eyes but you can trust that things are true. IMO, this is what it means to have faith in truth.
Being punished eternally, particularly for something beyond one's control, would be a scary thought, if I thought of it as a possibility.Because the thought of someone denying God and accepting their own desires and being punished eternally for doing so is a scary thought, I wouldn't want that for anyone. Would you?
I cannot see how one could blame something that one considers fictional.Of course it's easier to think this isn't a possibility and just ignore it. Or place the blame on God for allowing it, when all He asks is for us to listen to Him because He knows better than any of us because He is God.
That is a loaded statement. You have yet to establish the possibility of these "realities" that you allude to, and belief is not a conscious choice.Of course it's easier to just lack belief in God so we don't have to face these possible realities.
Belief without objective evidence, is faith.
If one had objective evidence for their beliefs, they wouldn't need faith, to believe in it.
Do you have objective evidence for everything you believe?
Please try to be honest here
I can think of many things that I don't have objective evidence for, but I still believe. For instance: I have never seen objective evidence that proves I have great great great grandparents, but I still believe I do.
Depends if you view beliefs to be the same as faith.
My beliefs are what I accept as true.
My faith is trusting in something I cannot see with my eyes.
You can't see truth with your eyes but you can trust that things are true. IMO, this is what it means to have faith in truth.
Which, if you are only imagining all of this, would be circular.Yes, what I currently believe about God is not 100% accurate because my beliefs are fallible, which is why I rely on Him for correction not myself.
If your beliefs do not comport with observations of reality, I would consider them suspect.Just because my beliefs are fallible does not automatically mean God must not exist.
My faith in God makes up for my fallible beliefs.
I think you may be over-reaching. I find the Chriliman's position to be very difficult to even understand so I would be more generous and make this hypothesis:Science is not irrational.
Hypothesis: This entire thread is an unnecessary witch hunt against science.
Didn't answer my question, so I will state it again.
How does your belief in a God, which you admit could be fallible, make up for the fact that this very same belief, could be fallible?
My point is that my fallible beliefs have no affect on God existing or not existing. To imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must not exist is some kind of logical fallacy that I can't think of right now.
Also to imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must exist is also a logical fallacy, but this is why people have faith in God and don't rely on their fallible beliefs to discern truth.
I think you may be over-reaching. I find the Chriliman's position to be very difficult to even understand so I would be more generous and make this hypothesis:
H: The intent of the thread is to demonstrate that scientific "truth" (I understand that the scientific method has no concept of absolute certainty) is subsumed under, or embedded in, a deeper, more foundational matrix of truths - those embodied in Christian theology.
Having said that, the use of the loaded term "irrational" to characterize science does support your take, as does the occasional mini-statements in favour of a young earth.
Aha, I knew there was a better way to say it. Thank you. I don't really have a firm grasp of the scientific method but I've been attempting to learn it more and more, recently.
That and I was kind of being a bit sassy; that said it was still a genuine attempt.
I did find the thread title to be a loaded question, so perhaps I should have brought that up as well. It was a fun exercise, at least.
My point is that my fallible beliefs have no affect on God existing or not existing. To imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must not exist is some kind of logical fallacy that I can't think of right now.
Nothing related to my question and more gibberish.
How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?
If you don't want to answer the question directly, just be honest and say so, but please refrain from responding with something that has zero to do with the question.
No.You could take all my beliefs away and God would still exist. Or from your perspective, you could take all my beliefs away and God would still not exist.
My point is, the truth of God existing or not existing does not rely on my beliefs. So your question of "How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?" is illogical because the existence of God does not rely on my beliefs. Logically, the existence of God, relies on God.
Does that make sense?
You could take all my beliefs away and God would still exist. Or from your perspective, you could take all my beliefs away and God would still not exist.
My point is, the truth of God existing or not existing does not rely on my beliefs. So your question of "How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?" is illogical because the existence of God does not rely on my beliefs. Logically, the existence of God, relies on God.
Does that make sense?
What this means then, is your statement; believing in God makes up for my belief in God being fallible, is not logical, because it doesn't rely on your beliefs, as you just stated.
Do you want to understand what I'm saying? If not, then you never will.
Do you want my beliefs to be false?
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?