'Knowledge' of Existence

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A pragmatist is completely satisfied with the entirety of what something is being the sum of its parts, interactions, and behaviors. Asking for something beyond that, something more "is" than "is" doesn't make sense. What other descriptive information are you wanting to have about matter?

If this is the case, then the pragmatist is completely satisfied with a falsehood. You can certainly say that it is impossible to come to an understanding of what matter is in and of itself, and we must be satisfied with what our modeling tools can tell us about it, but confusing the two seems like a very ill-advised move.

Ok, but since you're talking to someone who is neither... what do you expect me to be able to tell you? Is there any consensus among philosopher-neuroscientists?

No, there's no consensus on anything, though I think there's been some movement away from reductive materialism.

I don't expect you to be able to tell me anything. I just think you should revisit the idea that it is most logical to assume that materialistic solutions will present themselves. If you can't answer objections, then you can't really make that type of assertion without veering into dogma.

I don't know of any proposed explanation for a universe from absolutely nothing, mechanistic or otherwise, that doesn't sound like magical thinking. That doesn't get us to necessary existence.

If you cannot come up with a feasible alternative to necessary existence, then yeah, that failure actually should get you to necessary existence. Why would you reject the only non-magical solution on the table? We might as well reject the reality of the external world because maybe Descartes' demon exists, toss out all of science because maybe we're wrong about literally all of it, and so forth and so on. Why would you expect absolute certainty here and nowhere else?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
A pragmatist is completely satisfied with the entirety of what something is being the sum of its parts, interactions, and behaviors.

That's an interesting definition of pragmatism (I would call that description mechanistic reductionism deriving from modern philosophy). I suppose the biggest problem with sum-of-its-parts assumptions is that they often don't match up to reality. Some things are the sum of their parts, such as computers or cars. Some things are much more difficult, such as humans, animals, or even plants (things traditionally called organisms). More complex cases would be superorganisms such as bee colonies.

So although consciousness is on point it isn't strictly required, as plants are generally thought to be organisms without consciousness. This is why if you read older philosophy and science you will see the word "soul" applied to plants and animals insofar as it describes an animating principle or principle of life that is not fully explicable by reference to any single part or collection of parts.

An organism combines a number of distinct and cooperative parts, interactions, and behaviors that are subordinated to the good of the whole, and in one way or another, coordinated in an ordered way by some principle associated with the whole itself. For example, the way a plant makes use of roots, leaves, stem, flowers, and fruit in a way that is synergetic and subordinated to the flourishing of the whole plant.

Perhaps you can see the relevance of the Aristotelian philosophical terms "essence" and "accident," as well as the significance of naming organisms according to the whole and having the proper intention in that naming. For when late Medieval nominalism came to challenge the notion of essences (and the philosophy of naming associated with essences) it did so with such gusto that we were carried into the modern period where not only ships and castles were (rightly) considered names given to a relatively arbitrary collection of parts, but even organisms such as plants, animals, and eventually, humans were (wrongly) also thought to be a mere collection of parts.

...But I don't think pragmatism lives or dies by way of the sum-of-its-parts assumption. Maybe certain schools, but not pragmatism itself.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's an interesting definition of pragmatism (I would call that description mechanistic reductionism deriving from modern philosophy). I suppose the biggest problem with sum-of-its-parts assumptions is that they often don't match up to reality. Some things are the sum of their parts, such as computers or cars. Some things are much more difficult, such as humans, animals, or even plants (things traditionally called organisms). More complex cases would be superorganisms such as bee colonies.

So although consciousness is on point it isn't strictly required, as plants are generally thought to be organisms without consciousness. This is why if you read older philosophy and science you will see the word "soul" applied to plants and animals insofar as it describes an animating principle or principle of life that is not fully explicable by reference to any single part or collection of parts.

An organism combines a number of distinct and cooperative parts, interactions, and behaviors that are subordinated to the good of the whole, and in one way or another, coordinated in an ordered way by some principle associated with the whole itself. For example, the way a plant makes use of roots, leaves, stem, flowers, and fruit in a way that is synergetic and subordinated to the flourishing of the whole plant.

Perhaps you can see the relevance of the Aristotelian philosophical terms "essence" and "accident," as well as the significance of naming organisms according to the whole and having the proper intention in that naming. For when late Medieval nominalism came to challenge the notion of essences (and the philosophy of naming associated with essences) it did so with such gusto that we were carried into the modern period where not only ships and castles were (rightly) considered names given to a relatively arbitrary collection of parts, but even organisms such as plants, animals, and eventually, humans were (wrongly) also thought to be a mere collection of parts.

...But I don't think pragmatism lives or dies by way of the sum-of-its-parts assumption. Maybe certain schools, but not pragmatism itself.
You know, I thought about this conversation a lot but I never replied because I felt so out of my depth the way things were going and it was on the heels of another exhausting exchange. My line about pragmatism was an admittedly pedestrian expression of Pierce’s pragmatic maxim, “Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” I took this to mean that whatever we can describe an object as “being” will necessarily be reducible to a description of the effects it has or could have on anything else. With that in mind, asking “what really is matter anyway” could only ever be answered accordingly, and asking for more (while there may actually be more) is asking for something that is entirely beyond our grasp or comprehension. So it’s not so much a “sum of its parts” approach as it is “sum if its effects,” which clears up the problems you described with organisms and super organisms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You know, I thought about this conversation a lot but I never replied because I felt so out of my depth the way things were going and it was on the heels of another exhausting exchange. My line about pragmatism was an admittedly pedestrian expression of Pierce’s pragmatic maxim, “Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” I took this to mean that whatever we can describe an object as “being” will necessarily be reducible to a description of the effects it has or could have on anything else. With that in mind, asking “what really is matter anyway” could only ever be answered accordingly, and asking for more (while there may actually be more) is asking for something that is entirely beyond our grasp or comprehension. So it’s not so much a “sum of its parts” approach as it is “sum if its effects,” which clears up the problems you described with organisms and super organisms.

Interesting, thanks for that clarification. I am fond of Pierce and that makes sense. The Aristotelian-Thomistic approach would also affirm the idea that the epistemic order of knowledge always begins with effects and empirical observations. Yet effects do lead us, inferentially, to other considerations such as powers, natures, species, etc. For example, we might begin by seeing a particular effect of a cardinal: flight. In time we might come to realize that all cardinals have a similar nature, along with powers, behaviors, and effects that flow from that nature. This would allow us to make deductive inferences about the effects that are likely to emerge from any particular cardinal (and at another level of extrapolation, any particular bird). This is particularly helpful in understanding ourselves. Pierce wouldn't have a problem with any of that, though. One of the reasons I like him is that he leans so realist, and was rather unimpressed with folks like Kant. :D

I suppose the only danger with the matter question is arbitrarily selecting some subset of effects to work from (e.g. focusing exclusively on parts or their sum, or characteristically modern quantitative analyses). The dark side of the modern preoccupation with empiricism is the desire to control and shape nature. Practical knowledge is fine and good as long as it doesn't altogether eclipse speculative knowledge. Humans like truth for its own sake, too, after all, not just as a means to an end. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I would really like to re-open the original goal of this post. The reason...? After being on this forum for a few months, I feel this topic is paramount. Why? Many claimed skeptics, scoffers, doubters, 'deniers', 'non-believers', etc, would not have a 'leg' to stand on, if this simple scenario was resolved. Which is... If we all just knew Yahweh was the one real and true God, many philosophical debates would then cease to be needed or exist...

The Bible states that one must believe. According to the bible, this is at least the starting point....

So if the 'knowledge' of existence was provided to humans in a way that virtually no one could refute, like the earth being spherical, or the existence of gravity, then the term 'atheist' would be non-existent. Of course there would always exist minor caveats, but I think most of us here know what I'm driving at...

Moving forward, as stated prior... One would still have plenty of room to reject, disobey, etc., (like Satan and the following angels). And God could still judge the intent of all His claimed followers. Meaning, if someone was merely following orders to be awarded a place in Heaven, verses expressing a genuine love or appreciation for the tenets of claimed salvation.

However, I do find it peculiar that God seems to remain hidden to so many. Some Christians state that everyone knows God exists. However, this appears patently false, as I have spoken to many believers of alternative faiths.

Seems logical, that step 1 would be to clear up the confusion as to WHICH God is the REAL God. One would still have plenty of free will to assess moving forward.
 
Upvote 0

Monna

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2017
1,196
961
75
Oicha Beni
✟105,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So it’s not so much a “sum of its parts” approach as it is “sum if its effects,” which clears up the problems you described with organisms and super organisms.

Personally, I find this is not enough. Indeed, looking at my own life, I would say I am more a sum of my causes (i.e. others' effects on me) and when reflecting on the sum of "my effects" I have to distinguish between my actual and potential effects. If we're talking about being pragmatic, surely this distinction is rather crucial?

Zippy2006 refers a lot to plants. We know today that many plants cannot live "wholly" without 'fungi:' and I cannot survive without myriads of bacteria and viruses, that are quite distinct as organisms from me, as a member of homo sapiens. Are they included in the "sum of parts" that is me?

In the African philosophy of Ubuntu, identity is very much contextual and relational - "I am, because you are, because we are." And adding the spiritual realm, the animist "knows" he is part of a larger and ongoing continuum of generations; while the Christian believer finds his very existence totally dependent on God (however defined or named) as well as being surrounded by, and part of, a "cloud of witnesses." The Christian, as presented in the NT cannot live in love and in isolation at the same time. Christians, by intrinsic nature, are "part and parcel" of a community - a larger organism.

Seems logical, that step 1 would be to clear up the confusion as to WHICH God is the REAL God. One would still have plenty of free will to assess moving forward.

I am convinced that although I believe in and worship "God the Father, and his Son the Lord Jesus Christ" not even I know "the REAL God," in the sense that my comprehension and "knowledge" of God is limited. Romans 1 seems to make it clear that we are not only called to acknowledge God for who (and 'what') He is, but also to give thanks. It is only in expressing genuine thanks that we can begin to understand our dependence on Him - in the most pragmatic sense - and understand that without His sustenance, there are no "parts" of any "sum of parts." "Without me you can do/be nothing."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I would like to re-open this discussion, with another layer added...

As I stated, in the OP, If I received personal 'revelation' to the 'Holy Spirit', or 'God', or other, I might be arguing upon the theistic side, rather than from a skeptical position?

Furthermore, I have to ask, in earnest....

Does the entire topic of apologetics even matter???? -->(video to explain attached at the bottom)....

Or, is apologetics instead just a mental exercise to further defend your unwavering position, no matter what? Could any amount of "reason" change your current belief? Or, is reason not really the 'reason' you believe, to begin with?

I have stumbled across a video... I implore anyone, whom takes this topic seriously, to watch it. It's kind of long, (25 minutes). However, the publication seems to broach points, for which I attempted to portray in this thread ~2 years ago...

As always, your thoughts and additions are greatly appreciated.

And now, the video **** (please disregard the title of the video)!!!! *****:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliban
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
So what specific evidence exists, which concludes the one specific God claimed, verses some other God?

Again, this is in reference to existence.
Other than ones own experience's, what you would be looking for is prophecy (or even perhaps more specifically the "delusion"), in our day, which reveals the invisible God. Something in the likes of what happened to Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, or on a grander scale.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Other than ones own experience's, what you would be looking for is prophecy (or even perhaps more specifically the "delusion"), in our day, which reveals the invisible God. Something in the likes of what happened to Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, or on a grander scale.

Give me your best specific expressed example of a prophecy fulfilled?
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Give me your best specific expressed example of a prophecy fulfilled?
Then truly, you will need to see for yourself (Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter), lets start here, shell we?​

But to let you know, the God/Creator that I serve, the creator of heaven and earth, is the one that sits on the throne, far above any other, and it is His counsel that stands ( Psalm 33:10-15), ..and there is no respect of persons with Him, He judges the heart, "motive" (He made the inside (even one who designed a computer knows it's parameters). He is not unrighteous, but honest and fare, ..what about man, mankind?), and He brings both good and bad (even as it is also written in 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Straightforward, how many beasts do you count in Revelation 13:1-2?
Point them out!​

1 ..And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion..
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Then truly, you will need to see for yourself (Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter), lets start here, shell we?​

But to let you know, the God/Creator that I serve, the creator of heaven and earth, is the one that sits on the throne, far above any other, and it is His counsel that stands ( Psalm 33:10-15), ..and there is no respect of persons with Him, He judges the heart, "motive" (He made the inside (even one who designed a computer knows it's parameters). He is not unrighteous, but honest and fare, ..what about man, mankind?), and He brings both good and bad (even as it is also written in 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Straightforward, how many beasts do you count in Revelation 13:1-2?
Point them out!​

1 ..And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion..

I'm afraid I do not follow?

Let me elaborate... Name a specific prophecy. And by specific, I mean it is clear to it's meaning; using concrete specifics - not left open for interpretation. Thus far, you have provided cryptic messages, which can be loosely translated, virtually at will... And furthermore, why this <yet-to-be-provided> very specific provided prophecy demonstrates your asserted God to boot?

I trust you are also aware we have others in history, whom have prophesized 'successfully'?
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
I'm afraid I do not follow?

Let me elaborate... Name a specific prophecy. And by specific, I mean it is clear to it's meaning; using concrete specifics - not left open for interpretation. Thus far, you have provided cryptic messages, which can be loosely translated, virtually at will... And furthermore, why this <yet-to-be-provided> very specific provided prophecy demonstrates your asserted God to boot?

I trust you are also aware we have others in history, whom have prophesized 'successfully'?
Did I not say "lets start here," and that "you will need to see for yourself," which is not simply my interpretation, but yours?
You already display doubt, why would you except my word, would you not need to understand it for yourself, that you may see and believe? Again, if you doubted these words of a coworker, "all your household possessions have been stolen," would you not need to go, seek this out, and know for yourself, for their word is not enough?

When a small child does not grasp 1+1, or poison and death, does this mean it is not clear, or that their not ready to receive it?

"cryptic messages"?
Is this not straightforward "how many beasts do you count?"
Is that not the same as asking a schooled child, "how many apples do you count?"
If you do not understand this how will you understand anything else? And it will take a little bit of wisdom, and we haven't gotten to that part.

And furthermore, why this <yet-to-be-provided> very specific provided prophecy demonstrates your asserted God to boot?
I thought you understood, else why would you pursue this? Do you not accept prophecy and fulfillment? Otherwise there would not be much point in this.

I am not here to force upon you something you do not see, but to look for sincere hearts, and glorify my God.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I thought you understood, else why would you pursue this? Do you not accept prophecy and fulfillment? Otherwise there would not be much point in this.

I do not accept anyone's proclaimed prophecy, predictions, other, as-of-yet ;) But this could change REAL fast....

(i.e.) A 'psychic' could predict the winning Lotto numbers every single week. No matter of my current skepticism, doubt, other, I would <have to acknowledge> that something 'beyond' does then truly exist.

I am not here to force upon you something you do not see, but to look for sincere hearts, and glorify my God.

Then please re-read my initial response:

"Give me your best specific expressed example of a prophecy fulfilled?"

Please trust that I'm beyond the point of a 'child counting the number of apples' :)


 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
I do not accept anyone's proclaimed prophecy, predictions, other, as-of-yet ;) But this could change REAL fast....

(i.e.) A 'psychic' could predict the winning Lotto numbers every single week. No matter of my current skepticism, doubt, other, I would <have to acknowledge> that something 'beyond' does then truly exist.
Yes again, as I understood, and said, you will not just except my so called proclaimed word, or now to throw in, a 'psychic' word, as I also understand from your comment "I do not accept anyone's proclaimed prophecy, predictions..," but that you would need to see clearly for yourself, which would be because a prophet, or 'psychic', could tell you anything.

Then please re-read my initial response:

"Give me your best specific expressed example of a prophecy fulfilled?"
As I understood, by what you have displayed, and have said, "I do not accept anyone's proclaimed prophecy, predictions..," you will not simply take my word for it, but would need to see clearly for yourself. Which is in the Bible, otherwise it's just my word, and besides that, just my interpretation.

This is what I am hearing from your comments, and your handling of this conversation. - You want me to give you my word of a prophecy without showing you, yet, you will not simply except anyone's proclaimed word of a prophecy, but need to see clearly for yourself, yet, you are not willing to be shown, that you may see for yourself, but just simply want me to tell you.

Please trust that I'm beyond the point of a 'child counting the number of apples' :)
This I am sure of, unless someone else is typing for you, ..but then on the other hand, are you suggesting you've never struggled, but comprehend all things? :)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This is what I am hearing from your comments, and your handling of this conversation. - You want me to give you my word of a prophecy without showing you, yet, you will not simply except anyone's proclaimed word of a prophecy, but need to see clearly for yourself, yet, you are not willing to be shown, that you may see for yourself, but just simply want me to tell you.

You are making this too difficult it seems? In post #689, I asked for, what you feel, would be the most specific and clearest prophecy fulfilled; as given from the Bible. This would be a good starting point. Which is to say, you could furnish the lines of Scripture/Verse, explain exactly what you perceive these Verses to be saying, and then demonstrate how they are so specific and clear, that they could only mean what you think these Verse(s) mean.

At which point, if we both agree, as to what the provided Verse(s) were predicting, we could then move on to the next step. Which is to say, we could then address post #691... Meaning, even if the Bible got something right, how do we know this was foreknowledge from your asserted God?

BUT, if we do not agree, as to what these verses are actually attempting to predict, we could then still explore why we disagree.... For [me], I have read many/most/all Verses of Scripture, at one point or another, and find them vague, and left open to interpretation. Maybe [you] can demonstrate some otherwise???

So please, by all means, list the Verse(s), for which you feel best represents true Bible prophecy. And explain why?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
You are making this too difficult it seems? In post #689, I asked for, what you feel, would be the most specific and clearest prophecy fulfilled; as given from the Bible. This would be a good starting point. Which is to say, you could furnish the lines of Scripture/Verse, explain exactly what you perceive these Verses to be saying, and then demonstrate how they are so specific and clear, that they could only mean what you think these Verse(s) mean.

At which point, if we both agree, as to what the provided Verse(s) were predicting, we could then move on to the next step. Which is to say, we could then address post #691... Meaning, even if the Bible got something right, how do we know this was foreknowledge from your asserted God?

BUT, if we do not agree, as to what these verses are actually attempting to predict, we could then still explore why we disagree.... For [me], I have read many/most/all Verses of Scripture, at one point or another, and find them vague, and left open to interpretation. Maybe [you] can demonstrate some otherwise???

So please, by all means, list the Verse(s), for which you feel best represents true Bible prophecy. And explain why?


This is what I'm avoiding, debating, ..(useless).
I also do not want to influence your understanding.

My question is rather an easy straightforward one, not related to an interpretation, or vague meanings, but simply..
How many beasts do you count in those two verse? I'm not asking for your interpretation, or understanding of those two verses, simply how many.

We could have been onto the second part by now, is how I'm seeing it!

Truly, you do not understand what you are asking,
I'm only offering you a small snapshot.

There are the
2 verses,
1 along with 3 similar understanding verses,
then 1 more passage containing 2 verse.

Red Pill, Blue Pill,
if you wish to proceed,
if not the story ends, ..but you will have to see for yourself!​
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This is what I'm avoiding, debating, ..(useless).
I also do not want to influence your understanding.

Then maybe you do not understand which arena you are attempting to contribute upon?


Christian Apologetics
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith.

**************

If you care not to present your argument, and present evidence to defend it, then you are not here to do what is intended....

Furthermore, I do not need to prepare my mind in a specific way. I asked a very simple, direct, and basic request. (i.e.) No amount of denial could keep me in retaining a current position on a matter, if enough concrete evidence is presented to the contrary.

In post #688, you stated
"Other than ones own experience's, what you would be looking for is prophecy."

Okay, give me a specific prophecy, which was fulfilled? And one that is not open for interpretation?

If you do not feel confident that you have one or more, then maybe my current notion, that Biblical prophecies are all vague passages, or are open for the reader to fill in the the blanks at will; then maybe such 'prophecy' may not hold as much water as you wish or admit to, here in this forum?
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Then maybe you do not understand which arena you are attempting to contribute upon?

Christian Apologetics
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith.

**************

If you care not to present your argument, and present evidence to defend it, then you are not here to do what is intended....

Furthermore, I do not need to prepare my mind in a specific way. I asked a very simple, direct, and basic request. (i.e.) No amount of denial could keep me in retaining a current position on a matter, if enough concrete evidence is presented to the contrary.

In post #688, you stated
"Other than ones own experience's, what you would be looking for is prophecy."

Okay, give me a specific prophecy, which was fulfilled? And one that is not open for interpretation?

If you do not feel confident that you have one or more, then maybe my current notion, that Biblical prophecies are all vague passages, or are open for the reader to fill in the the blanks at will; then maybe such 'prophecy' may not hold as much water as you wish or admit to, here in this forum?


Defense yes, but not interested in an endless deteriorating debate.
I'm trying to put forth, you are either delaying, or refusing to answer the question,
your choice. If there is something you don't understand about the question, you can ask.

What you're not grasping is from the

beginning, it was only an offer.

You do not have to accept,

it's truly your choice:

red pill, blue pill..
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Defense yes, but not interested in an endless deteriorating debate.
I'm trying to put forth, you are either delaying, or refusing to answer the question,
your choice. If there is something you don't understand about the question, you can ask.

What you're not grasping is from the

beginning, it was only an offer.

You do not have to accept,

it's truly your choice:

red pill, blue pill..

What [you] are not understanding, is that before your beginning, there was my beginning. I asked, in post 689...

Please re-address posts 695 and 697, for follow-up.

'True prophecy' does not need for me to first perform 'baby steps', like a child. If you feel the Bible offers clear and concise prophecy, you would have presented accordingly <already>. The fact that you first wish to present a specific 'angle' or 'position', speaks volumes to the plausible conclusion that you are not that confident in proclaimed or professed Bible prophecy - as being rationally warranted or validated.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
What [you] are not understanding, is that before your beginning, there was my beginning. I asked, in post 689...

Please re-address posts 695 and 697, for follow-up.

'True prophecy' does not need for me to first perform 'baby steps', like a child. If you feel the Bible offers clear and concise prophecy, you would have presented accordingly <already>. The fact that you first wish to present a specific 'angle' or 'position', speaks volumes to the plausible conclusion that you are not that confident in proclaimed or professed Bible prophecy - as being rationally warranted or validated.
I'm aware of [your] beginning,
but this is [my] offer, if you are truly interested.

We haven't even started, and aleardy we are in a endless debate.
If you choose not to answer the question in your next post,
I will have to assume you have taken the blue pill, and are not interested in knowing.​
 
Upvote 0