'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

Ok. What exactly do you feel does not appear to align with known reality? I am not sure we can go into all you might cite but for informational purposes, I would like to know.

Honestly, this is a HUGE topic, and maybe better discussed in a new topic. I do not wish to veer away from the main topic at hand. I was simply providing (my) reasoning, for (one) of the fundamental reasons the Bible does not appear to jive with my known reality; (aside) from the fact that I have not received my necessary 'knowledge of existence.'

My point being... All (I) have to go by, is to read the claimed book itself. All (I) have to go by, is to investigate the asserted claims, against my 'known' reality. Thus far, they do not align; not by a long shot. If I 'knew' they were actually given by a divine entity, I would then have (no choice) but to then doubt my prior conclusions to reality, as I currently 'know' them. But as it stands, since I lack knowledge of existence, all I have to go by, is to investigate the claims within the book, which appear to be written by mere human beings.

Faith is that which only comes about after you know that God exists.

Our definitions of 'faith' obviously differ, as our current presuppositions differ You believe, I lack belief. (i.e.) 'Faith' in what HE says (you), verses, instead choosing blind faith in existence (me). Which, for me, is intellectually dishonest to commit blind faith - (in my specific case).

I would be glad to provide some evidence that is convincing to many. I know that evidence however can be dismissed very easily if one wishes to dismiss it.

Give me your BEST piece of evidence?

By questioning in this way you presuppose the Bible being correct to even project Satan's actions. So, if Satan exists which comes from the Bible, you are in turn using the Bible to propose a true God. The Jews are a very interesting subject which comes into the evidences of the God of the Bible. But alas, it is a new topic.

As stated, off topic Completely devoid of this topic. I really should not have brought it up I guess I just wanted to pose other topics, which might be positions to ponder, in light of 'knowledge of existence.' But instead, I'm still left with struggling with the mere existence of God Himself?.?.?.?.?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, this is a HUGE topic, and maybe better discussed in a new topic. I do not wish to veer away from the main topic at hand. I was simply providing (my) reasoning, for (one) of the fundamental reasons the Bible does not appear to jive with my known reality; (aside) from the fact that I have not received my necessary 'knowledge of existence.'

My point being... All (I) have to go by, is to read the claimed book itself. All (I) have to go by, is to investigate the asserted claims, against my 'known' reality. Thus far, they do not align; not by a long shot. If I 'knew' they were actually given by a divine entity, I would then have (no choice) but to then doubt my prior conclusions to reality, as I currently 'know' them. But as it stands, since I lack knowledge of existence, all I have to go by, is to investigate the claims within the book, which appear to be written by mere human beings.

Do you mean your 'know' reality according to Scientific study?

Our definitions of 'faith' obviously differ, as our current presuppositions differ You believe, I lack belief. (i.e.) 'Faith' in what HE says (you), verses, instead choosing blind faith in existence (me). Which, for me, is intellectually dishonest to commit blind faith - (in my specific case).

God doesn't ask for blind faith.

Give me your BEST piece of evidence?

I wouldn't believe with one piece of evidence about most anything, would you?

As stated, off topic Completely devoid of this topic. I really should not have brought it up I guess I just wanted to pose other topics, which might be positions to ponder, in light of 'knowledge of existence.' But instead, I'm still left with struggling with the mere existence of God Himself?.?.?.?.?

OK.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you mean your 'know' reality according to Scientific study?

Pretty much, just to keep things simple.... My point is there exists many things within the Bible that appear not to be reconcilable. If I knew they were given by a higher power, I would instead have to jam them in, or make further attempts, to make them fit, or (replace), my known reality - (like many presuppositionals seem to do).

God doesn't ask for blind faith.

That's fine. I did not insinuate the Bible specifically says to invoke such processes. However, this would need to be MY current mechanism, which would not be honest, obviously

I wouldn't believe with one piece of evidence about most anything, would you?

Depends on what it is. It would sure be a good start. What'za got? Heck, give me your best two then

examples:

- 'My shoes are in the closet'. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

- DNA results found in a rape victim.

- Fingerprint match found at the sight of a location, where the person states they were never there.

- The water in the pot is boiling. If you don't believe me, watch it bubble.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Pretty much, just to keep things simple.... My point is there exists many things within the Bible that appear not to be reconcilable. If I knew they were given by a higher power, I would instead have to jam them in, or make further attempts, to make them fit, or (replace), my known reality - (like many presuppositionals seem to do).

Would you really try to make them fit?

That's fine. I did not insinuate the Bible specifically says to invoke such processes. However, this would need to be MY current mechanism, which would not be honest, obviously

True.

Depends on what it is. It would sure be a good start. What'za got? Heck, give me your best two then

examples:

- 'My shoes are in the closet'. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

- DNA results found in a rape victim.

- Fingerprint match found at the sight of a location, where the person states they were never there.

- The water in the pot is boiling. If you don't believe me, watch it bubble.

Two lines of evidence that I would put forth first then would be:
1. The laws of Logic
2. The ability for Science to be done.

 

[cvanwey]

Would you really try to make them fit?

Honestly, I would have NO CHOICE but to try. Why? Because I would then have knowledge of existence to the real author. I would be FORCED to view the Bible from a completely different perspective. Would I still find fault? Possibly.... However, as it stands, I can only view and reconcile the conclusions made, through natural based discoveries.

Two lines of evidence that I would put forth first then would be:
1. The laws of Logic
2. The ability for Science to be done.

What specifically about them? And how does this lead to Yahweh, and not instead some disconnected or impersonal deity/deities/alien(s)/matrix/imperfect creator/natural processes/etc?

Furthermore, my obtained 'organized thought' would be 'best' explained by being passed down from my parents (nature vs nurture). However, the origin of the original organized mechanism of thought could be in question.?.?.?

Do you subscribe to the conclusion that 'God' created the first beings, and natural processes run from there, moving forward, absent of the further necessity of God's intervention for the ability to apply logic?

Or, do you subscribe to the notion that each individual, even now, requires a higher force to function?

Or maybe other?

Because honestly, this entire category screams of 'argument from ignorance.' Meaning, 'if you can't dispute my conclusion, then (I) win.' When in reality, all such a conclusion leads to, is to state that 'God exists necessarily because I don't fully understand things.' It also shifts the burden of proof. Meaning, if you cannot account for organized thought, and until you disprove me (to my personal satisfaction), then you are obligated to prove (me) wrong, and not vise versa.

In all honesty, I cannot account for the laws of logic. But because I can't, does NOT mean YOU win by default. The burden of proof rests upon you, to demonstrate that the laws of logic are given by Yahweh specifically. If you can't, then all observations, mentioned above in red, are equally as viable mechanisms to such assertions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, I would have NO CHOICE but to try. Why? Because I would then have knowledge of existence to the real author. I would be FORCED to view the Bible from a completely different perspective. Would I still find fault? Possibly.... However, as it stands, I can only view and reconcile the conclusions made, through natural based discoveries.

Fair enough, so you would not find it unusual for those who have knowledge of the real author to view things from a different perspective?

What specifically about them? And how does this lead to Yahweh, and not instead some disconnected or impersonal deity/deities/alien(s)/matrix/imperfect creator/natural processes/etc?

Specifically, it is more reasonable IMHO to attribute it to the Christian God. For two reasons, He has revealed to me He is the author and natural processes do not provide a reasonable answer to the Laws of Logic.

Furthermore, my obtained 'organized thought' would be 'best' explained by being passed down from my parents (nature vs nurture). However, the origin of the original organized mechanism of thought could be in question.?.?.?

Original would be where I would be coming from.

Do you subscribe to the conclusion that 'God' created the first beings, and natural processes run from there, moving forward, absent of the further necessity of God's intervention for the ability to apply logic?

Or, do you subscribe to the notion that each individual, even now, requires a higher force to function?

Or maybe other?

I think this is another topic.

Because honestly, this entire category screams of 'argument from ignorance.' Meaning, 'if you can't dispute my conclusion, then (I) win.' When in reality, all such a conclusion leads to, is to state that 'God exists necessarily because I don't fully understand things.' It also shifts the burden of proof. Meaning, if you cannot account for organized thought, and until you disprove me (to my personal satisfaction), then you are obligated to prove (me) wrong, and not vise versa.

In all honesty, I cannot account for the laws of logic. But because I can't, does NOT mean YOU win by default. The burden of proof rests upon you, to demonstrate that the laws of logic are given by Yahweh specifically. If you can't, then all observations, mentioned above in red, are equally as viable mechanisms to such assertions.

I didn't claim proof. What I said was there was evidence that was convincing to many. I believe that the LOL (Laws Of Logic) are a good piece of evidence that supports and is more reasonable attributed to Yahweh (I used the name you seem to feel more comfortable with).

 

[cvanwey]

Fair enough, so you would not find it unusual for those who have knowledge of the real author to view things from a different perspective?

Nope. I only conclude it becomes a mandatory conclusion, to instead view the Bible from a differing lens than I currently do. Hence, as evidence by the multiple denominations, etc, from all the current believers...

But then you have the 'atheists' or non-believers, whom reject what it says, for virtually no other core reason, then they view it as 'man written', and if the opinions of the ones whom wrote as such do not agree with 'reality', or the ones reading the Bible, it becomes quite easy to simply dismiss (for a multitude of reasons).

Specifically, it is more reasonable IMHO to attribute it to the Christian God. For two reasons, He has revealed to me He is the author and natural processes do not provide a reasonable answer to the Laws of Logic.

So you see how 'knowledge of existence' becomes the root, core, or essential requirement to conclude such a notion? Once such an agent is revealed to YOU, it then becomes easy to 'connect the dots', apply 'intentional meaning', etc...

Much the same as me concluding that 'artificial intelligence' originated from humans. But in my case, the intentional agent is simply another human, or natural processes.

So I again ask the question.... What would be the purpose for God to deliberately avoid my necessary 'knowledge of existence'? I have yet to receive an answer which does not directly conflict with the Bible?

I didn't claim proof. What I said was there was evidence that was convincing to many. I believe that the LOL (Laws Of Logic) are a good piece of evidence that supports and is more reasonable attributed to Yahweh (I used the name you seem to feel more comfortable with).

To conclude Yahweh from an unknown is the 'argument from ignorance' unfortunately. Why? Because you have concluded Yahweh. Which basically asserts something is true until it is proven false. Organization of thought no more explains the existence of God, than a snow flake explains the complex organization from a creator. You appear to be appealing to the 'organization' and 'complexity' as a foundation attributed to an intentional agent? Is this correct?

But aside from all of this... IF I HAD KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE, I WOULD MOST LIKELY AGREE WITH YOU.

So again, what is the reason God deliberately avoids my requests for knowledge of existence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. I only conclude it becomes a mandatory conclusion, to instead view the Bible from a differing lens than I currently do. Hence, as evidence by the multiple denominations, etc, from all the current believers...

But then you have the 'atheists' or non-believers, whom reject what it says, for virtually no other core reason, then they view it as 'man written', and if the opinions of the ones whom wrote as such do not agree with 'reality', or the ones reading the Bible, it becomes quite easy to simply dismiss (for a multitude of reasons).



So you see how 'knowledge of existence' becomes the root, core, or essential requirement to conclude such a notion? Once such an agent is revealed to YOU, it then becomes easy to 'connect the dots', apply 'intentional meaning', etc...

Perhaps, but then again, it depends on how someone examines the reasoning behind such a notion.

Much the same as me concluding that 'artificial intelligence' originated from humans. But in my case, the intentional agent is simply another human, or natural processes.

Another human would need to be a necessarily existent human. There is no necessarily existent human.

I wrote this in another thread (although I was the not the original author of it): LOL are necessary truths, they are not physical matter, they are true in every possible world so they must exist in every possible world. With this in mind, it stands to reason, if there are necessarily existent thoughts, we must have a necessary existent mind; and if there is a necessary existent mind, there must be a necessary existent person. There is no physical necessary existent person, this person must be metaphysical/spiritual in nature. So if there are LOL, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

So I again ask the question.... What would be the purpose for God to deliberately avoid my necessary 'knowledge of existence'? I have yet to receive an answer which does not directly conflict with the Bible?

It could be as simple as timing. It could be you dismiss the evidence for His existence. We can at least look at the last one somewhat.

To conclude Yahweh from an unknown is the 'argument from ignorance' unfortunately. Why? Because you have concluded Yahweh. Which basically asserts something is true until it is proven false.

No, actually, I assert that my worldview has a consistent and cohesive explanation for the LOL; whereas, your view does not.

Organization of thought no more explains the existence of God, than a snow flake explains the complex organization from a creator.

I disagree, Yahweh is very reasonable explanation for the LOL, but why do you feel that way?

You appear to be appealing to the 'organization' and 'complexity' as a foundation attributed to an intentional agent? Is this correct?

No, you are not correct.

But aside from all of this... IF I HAD KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE, I WOULD MOST LIKELY AGREE WITH YOU.

That remains to be seen.

So again, what is the reason God deliberately avoids my requests for knowledge of existence?

You don't know He has.

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps, but then again, it depends on how someone examines the reasoning behind such a notion.

Another human would need to be a necessarily existent human. There is no necessarily existent human.

I wrote this in another thread (although I was the not the original author of it): LOL are necessary truths, they are not physical matter, they are true in every possible world so they must exist in every possible world. With this in mind, it stands to reason, if there are necessarily existent thoughts, we must have a necessary existent mind; and if there is a necessary existent mind, there must be a necessary existent person. There is no physical necessary existent person, this person must be metaphysical/spiritual in nature. So if there are LOL, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

It could be as simple as timing. It could be you dismiss the evidence for His existence. We can at least look at the last one somewhat.



No, actually, I assert that my worldview has a consistent and cohesive explanation for the LOL; whereas, your view does not.

I disagree, Yahweh is very reasonable explanation for the LOL, but why do you feel that way?

No, you are not correct.

That remains to be seen.

You don't know He has.

Rather than addressing a bunch of differing sub-points (which is only common when a topic gets addressed too long), I would like to bring it back to it's core. The 'knowledge of existence'.

I would not mind addressing 'LOL' in another thread maybe, more in depth. I just feel it will start to take away from THIS one

To put it quite simply, I hope you are not implying that I am either in 'denial' to this knowledge or 'unaware' of this knowledge?

I can assure you I am NOT in denial. Actually, I could not be. The same reason I had no other choice, but to conclude Trump was elected president (denial means nothing). And if I instead happened to be unaware, I still am not aware - (pure and simple).

As stated prior, God has the ability to make His presence known - (Sal, doubting Thomas, Moses, you, the 100's I've been in contact with, etc...). Maybe I'm not special enough?

When you state 'timing', this begs the question... I asked genuinely for 30+ years, and no answer. What would He be waiting for?

In closing, I would like you to instead readdress post #190. As I feel I have exhausted all my points; and will instead just regurgitate them...

Next, if you would not mind watching some satire, as it relates to 'existence'. Do not take it TOO seriously though

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rather than addressing a bunch of differing sub-points (which is only common when a topic gets addressed too long), I would like to bring it back to it's core. The 'knowledge of existence'.

This isn't really a sub-point. I am sure you have read the Bible very well in your search for Yahweh and Roman's 1:20 has been cited numerous times. It is rather like air, you breath in and out for all your life but can't see that without it you wouldn't live at all. You can't see it, taste it, smell it but it exists and is necessary for you to live. The LOL are necessary for you to live. However, like air, you use them but do so without thinking about the reason you can reason.

I would not mind addressing 'LOL' in another thread maybe, more in depth. I just feel it will start to take away from THIS one

You can join in with me on the thread "Open call for presups" in this forum. Although this has much to do with the knowledge of existence of Yahweh.

To put it quite simply, I hope you are not implying that I am either in 'denial' to this knowledge or 'unaware' of this knowledge?

I can assure you I am NOT in denial. Actually, I could not be. The same reason I had no other choice, but to conclude Trump was elected president (denial means nothing). And if I instead happened to be unaware, I still am not aware - (pure and simple).

As stated prior, God has the ability to make His presence known - (Sal, doubting Thomas, Moses, you, the 100's I've been in contact with, etc...). Maybe I'm not special enough?

Am I to conclude that you want God to reveal Himself in the way He did with Sal, Thomas and Moses and do you think that is how He did with me? First of all, don't expect revelation to come in a way you expect because that is very unlikely. God doesn't bow down to the expectations of His creation and if He does reveal Himself as He did in those cases you better believe that it would be a monumental responsibility upon your shoulders. He might, but if He does it might mean some heavy lifting on your part.

When you state 'timing', this begs the question... I asked genuinely for 30+ years, and no answer. What would He be waiting for?

We certainly can entertain certain ideas about why or what He might be waiting for if you like. Look at Anthony Flew, he was a strong atheist for most of his life and then he recognized the intelligence necessary in the nature of life and the universe. He didn't as far as I know come to recognize who God was, but was in the process. Was it too late? He had heard all the arguments, but he kept hoping that those arguments would be shown wrong; that Science would find the how of all those arguments. He then according to his story, found that even if Science could know the how, it wouldn't have the answer of why or explain the intelligence in the universe. He said that he went where the evidence led.

In closing, I would like you to instead readdress post #190. As I feel I have exhausted all my points; and will instead just regurgitate them..

.I don't know your story, I don't know your heart. I don't know what you want from God as to how He should reveal Himself to you. There are many unknowns in your assessment of Yahweh not revealing Himself to you. All I can do is explore those things with you and perhaps you will have that revelation you claim to want. Yes?

Next, if you would not mind watching some satire, as it relates to 'existence'. Do not take it TOO seriously though

Watched.

 

[cvanwey]

This isn't really a sub-point. I am sure you have read the Bible very well in your search for Yahweh and Roman's 1:20 has been cited numerous times.

Of course I've read many Bible passages. But again, just as I have stated in post #190. Why do I care what a human author wrote 1,000's of years ago, if I think that human author is dead, and can no longer enforce anything upon the statements of that book? I'm not stating this simply because I'm hedging my bets, adopting the attitude of 'if the cat's away the mice will play', or 'I'm only going to obey if there's is an actual reward.' What I do mean, again, is it's like I stated in post #190. The first question which needs an answer remains... Is there any actual authority behind (who) wrote such text? Or, is it instead just like when your parents trick you as a child, by stating things like, 'you better be good because Santa Claus always knows if you've been naughty or nice.' Furthermore, Romans 1:20 could not be a more classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' expressed by the authors whom wrote as such. Again, as already addressed in #190. Which is, 'how else could the universe have got here, than from my God? And until you have a better answer, my God becomes the default answer.' Which again, is also shifting the 'burden of proof'.

I already stated a few replied back, that 'I actually do empathize with the 'driving force.' Meaning, what 'sparked' gravity, evolution, space/time, etc... However, appealing to Yahweh solves the riddle NO better than practically any other preconception. It may so for you, because you feel Yahweh is real, and are able to easily connect the dots.

Skeptics, non-believers, atheists, etc, have such a question unanswered - and remain so, because we have no apparent 'good' reason to assert or conclude anything specific... Why remain hidden from many?

I'm not afraid to say, "I don't know.' As I have not received my 'knowledge of existence.'

It is rather like air, you breath in and out for all your life but can't see that without it you wouldn't live at all. You can't see it, taste it, smell it but it exists and is necessary for you to live. The LOL are necessary for you to live. However, like air, you use them but do so without thinking about the reason you can reason.

Speaking of the 'laws of logic', appealing to logical fallacies serves no reliable or viable purpose in your quest for truth. Again, because I cannot account for the origin of something, anything, does not then conclude an 'all-watching all-loving monotheistic agent in the sky'. This again, is appealing to - 'this is the answer which best explains what I observe.' However, if I do not have any direct examples for the existence of such a claimed agent, then your assertion is not founded, grounded, or substantiated. It instead becomes a blank assertion.

You can join in with me on the thread "Open call for presups" in this forum. Although this has much to do with the knowledge of existence of Yahweh.

No need. I beat you to that punch I was response #3 in that thread. And everything you are appealing to is perfectly playing into that response I will save you the effort in finding it, by quoting it below:

'The gist of the argument seems to stem from the premise of logic. Meaning, the 'driving force' or initial 'organization' of any and all thoughts, which humans use, can ONLY be orchestrated from a prior organized initial force.

Presups will argue that to deny God means one is denying the very module of logic, which could only be given to you by an organized God. In conclusion, presups attest that it becomes too unlikely that our brains received its logic and complete organization from random chance. The entire embodiment of logic, in which all humans use, could only stem from an organized being, force, entity, etc...'

Am I to conclude that you want God to reveal Himself in the way He did with Sal, Thomas and Moses and do you think that is how He did with me? First of all, don't expect revelation to come in a way you expect because that is very unlikely. God doesn't bow down to the expectations of His creation and if He does reveal Himself as He did in those cases you better believe that it would be a monumental responsibility upon your shoulders. He might, but if He does it might mean some heavy lifting on your part.

I think you have completely misinterpreted my position. I prayed, in accordance with Bible verses (
Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23) for decades, and nothing forthcoming. So my 'heavy lifting', as you have put it, I feel has been justified in accordance with your believed scripture. Furthermore, I am fully aware that God would reveal in a way He sees fit; as he revealed completely differently to Moses, you, Thomas, Sal, etc... My point was... If God wants nothing more than for me to seek Him out for a relationship, why remain 'hidden' - (from MY perception)? Makes no sense. Seems odd that I should need to require to 'presuppose' that God is already real, in order to 'believe' in Him? My point being, this was not the case for Satan, Sal, the Pharaohs, etc... If God want's to reveal, there is NO question. You have no question. So why do I? We both have NO question about the existence of air, gravity, wind, etc... And yet, I question your believed God. Seems extremely odd. As stated prior, the 'knowledge of existence' does not corrupt 'free choice' or 'free will' in any capacity. So again, as stated in post #190, I can only draw (2) conclusions. He is avoiding me, or does not exist. Neither of which, is 'good'.

We certainly can entertain certain ideas about why or what He might be waiting for if you like. Look at Anthony Flew, he was a strong atheist for most of his life and then he recognized the intelligence necessary in the nature of life and the universe. He didn't as far as I know come to recognize who God was, but was in the process. Was it too late? He had heard all the arguments, but he kept hoping that those arguments would be shown wrong; that Science would find the how of all those arguments. He then according to his story, found that even if Science could know the how, it wouldn't have the answer of why or explain the intelligence in the universe. He said that he went where the evidence led.

If Yahweh does not exist, and if no other Gods exist, there may exist no 'why.' However, what if we were created by some other deity/deities/aliens/ more advanced humans in a lab/other? This would still account for the why maybe. However, it may not account for the 'meaning' you want it to be. And it may just 'be', that we exist...? But because humans have the ability to ask, does not conclude, by default, that there MUST actually be a 'why.' I can ask many other questions. The ability to ask, does not conclude it is real. And as stated prior, humans draw connections, intentional agency, false positives, and 'meanings' to many unknowns - (i.e.) a noise in the dark forest, the complexity of a snow flake, a bird dropping their poo on our car, the countless others....

And like I stated prior, I do empathize with the cause, or 'driving force' to start what we later investigate However, applying fallacious reasoning is not a sound and viable way to match such conclusions, when applying the 'laws of logic'. HOWEVER, if everyone just 'knew' the source, like God seems to WANT us to, then many of such answers would no longer still be debated in philosophy classes

. I don't know your story, I don't know your heart. I don't know what you want from God as to how He should reveal Himself to you. There are many unknowns in your assessment of Yahweh not revealing Himself to you. All I can do is explore those things with you and perhaps you will have that revelation you claim to want. Yes?

No.

Again, I should not need to prepare my 'heart' in a certain way. It does not matter the characteristics of my story. 'Knowledge of existence' does not require any of this... As stated many times now, knowledge of many things does not require a prerequisite, presupposition, or some bias. Whether we 'like' it or not, we possess knowledge of existence to many many many things in which we never investigated, sought after, explored, etc... And likewise, have also discovered the knowledge of existence to things in which we were looking for.

As states prior, God would know what my required evidence would be. If God does not care to furnish such 'evidence', after years of deep and intensive inquiry, then what other conclusion am I to draw? I will tell you... Just like I stated prior... Either he is deliberately hiding from 'me', or does not exist.

And like I stated before, I guess "I'm' not special enough for God to provide such 'evidence.'

Watched.

And...?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course I've read many Bible passages. But again, just as I have stated in post #190. Why do I care what a human author wrote 1,000's of years ago, if I think that human author is dead, and can no longer enforce anything upon the statements of that book? I'm not stating this simply because I'm hedging my bets, adopting the attitude of 'if the cat's away the mice will play', or 'I'm only going to obey if there's is an actual reward.' What I do mean, again, is it's like I stated in post #190. The first question which needs an answer remains... Is there any actual authority behind (who) wrote such text? Or, is it instead just like when your parents trick you as a child, by stating things like, 'you better be good because Santa Claus always knows if you've been naughty or nice.' Furthermore, Romans 1:20 could not be a more classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' expressed by the authors whom wrote as such. Again, as already addressed in #190. Which is, 'how else could the universe have got here, than from my God? And until you have a better answer, my God becomes the default answer.' Which again, is also shifting the 'burden of proof'.

This is contradictory to your opening post: You want to know why Yahweh has not revealed Himself to you as you have prayed according to the Bible; you then claim that the Bible has no authority and was written by mere man and that ultimately you don't care since that author is dead and can no longer enforce anything. When you tell me that God is the one with the problem and then you say this, it brings out a great deal of doubt? ...you have already discounted Yahweh out of the equation and all your 'Yahweh remains hidden' is no longer even a valid statement.

I already stated a few replied back, that 'I actually do empathize with the 'driving force.' Meaning, what 'sparked' gravity, evolution, space/time, etc... However, appealing to Yahweh solves the riddle NO better than practically any other preconception. It may so for you, because you feel Yahweh is real, and are able to easily connect the dots.

Skeptics, non-believers, atheists, etc, have such a question unanswered - and remain so, because we have no apparent 'good' reason to assert or conclude anything specific... Why remain hidden from many?

I'm not afraid to say, "I don't know.' As I have not received my 'knowledge of existence.'

While I know we have more knowledge than you/unbelievers, there is reasonable evidence that supports and comports within the Christian worldview whereas in an unbelievers worldview there is no reasonable answer at all within their worldview.

You must understand the power and the authority of Yahweh, when one refuses to view anything related to the possibility of the God of Creation, He will not force Himself on anyone and most certainly will not act upon His creation's demands when they refuse to seriously look to supportive evidence for His existence.

"I don't know"...the things we all don't know are unlimited in number and is not the point anyway. It isn't that you don't know and are not afraid to say it, it is that you have no real reason to believe what you believe and then you point your finger at believers and claim we are the ones that are without evidence. The evidence supports our position much more cohesively and comprehensively for our claims. The Laws of Logic, they need a necessary mind outside of mankind to ground them, Scientific methodology needs a necessary order and the Laws to govern the universe to work, the planet itself has so many necessary components itself for any life to be possible. The list goes on and on. When you dismiss them out of hand it is a very good reason that you might find Yahweh 'hidden'.

Speaking of the 'laws of logic', appealing to logical fallacies serves no reliable or viable purpose in your quest for truth.

Without the LOL there would be no truth. The truth is the LOL are better explained in the Christian worldview and in fact, only make sense in that worldview.

Again, because I cannot account for the origin of something, anything, does not then conclude an 'all-watching all-loving monotheistic agent in the sky'. This again, is appealing to - 'this is the answer which best explains what I observe.' However, if I do not have any direct examples for the existence of such a claimed agent, then your assertion is not founded, grounded, or substantiated. It instead becomes a blank assertion.

You've missed the point, you've switched your complaint as well. You claim God 'hides' but then in the same breath dismiss anything that might point in His direction. Do you see a problem there?

No need. I beat you to that punch I was response #3 in that thread. And everything you are appealing to is perfectly playing into that response I will save you the effort in finding it, by quoting it below:

Thank you I appreciate it.

The gist of the argument seems to stem from the premise of logic. Meaning, the 'driving force' or initial 'organization' of any and all thoughts, which humans use, can ONLY be orchestrated from a prior organized initial force.

Presups will argue that to deny God means one is denying the very module of logic, which could only be given to you by an organized God. In conclusion, presups attest that it becomes too unlikely that our brains received its logic and complete organization from random chance. The entire embodiment of logic, in which all humans use, could only stem from an organized being, force, entity, etc...'

You are somewhat correct, Logic transcends humankind, it exists in any possible world, at all times in every possible world and is not contingent on humankind at all.

I think you have completely misinterpreted my position. I prayed, in accordance with Bible verses (
Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23) for decades, and nothing forthcoming. So my 'heavy lifting', as you have put it, I feel has been justified in accordance with your believed scripture. Furthermore, I am fully aware that God would reveal in a way He sees fit; as he revealed completely differently to Moses, you, Thomas, Sal, etc... My point was... If God wants nothing more than for me to seek Him out for a relationship, why remain 'hidden' - (from MY perception)? Makes no sense. Seems odd that I should need to require to 'presuppose' that God is already real, in order to 'believe' in Him? My point being, this was not the case for Satan, Sal, the Pharaohs, etc... If God want's to reveal, there is NO question. You have no question. So why do I? We both have NO question about the existence of air, gravity, wind, etc... And yet, I question your believed God. Seems extremely odd. As stated prior, the 'knowledge of existence' does not corrupt 'free choice' or 'free will' in any capacity. So again, as stated in post #190, I can only draw (2) conclusions. He is avoiding me, or does not exist. Neither of which, is 'good'.

Many points to address in this paragraph. You prayed in accordance with the Bible that you don't believe has any authority and which was written by men dead and gone which have no way to enforce it...and you believe you have done your part and God is letting you down? The deal is not Him 'hiding' but your choice to dismiss Him outright. Satan was with Yahweh, so he knows Him personally and face to face. The others were a part of God's plan and had the heavy lifting of living the Christian way for others...which was my point to you. The heavy lifting is when you give your life to God and He works through YOU to do according to His plan.

No, I totally agree that 'knowledge of existence' does not corrupt free choice or free will in any capacity; did you think I was making that claim and if so why? I think rather than God avoiding you it is more you are avoiding Him. What is your greatest motivation for coming here?

If Yahweh does not exist, and if no other Gods exist, there may exist no 'why.' However, what if we were created by some other deity/deities/aliens/ more advanced humans in a lab/other? This would still account for the why maybe.

Maybe that could be something that unbelievers could get behind, is that what you would propose?

However, it may not account for the 'meaning' you want it to be. And it may just 'be', that we exist...? But because humans have the ability to ask, does not conclude, by default, that there MUST actually be a 'why.' I can ask many other questions. The ability to ask, does not conclude it is real. And as stated prior, humans draw connections, intentional agency, false positives, and 'meanings' to many unknowns - (i.e.) a noise in the dark forest, the complexity of a snow flake, a bird dropping their poo on our car, the countless others....

Which brings us back to the LOL which are necessary and which transcend humankind; what is the best reason and a reason that is cohesive and consistent within a worldview to explain them? I feel it is the Christian worldview.

And like I stated prior, I do empathize with the cause, or 'driving force' to start what we later investigate However, applying fallacious reasoning is not a sound and viable way to match such conclusions, when applying the 'laws of logic'. HOWEVER, if everyone just 'knew' the source, like God seems to WANT us to, then many of such answers would no longer still be debated in philosophy classes

How is it fallacious reasoning? God allows choice. You are one that shows there is choice, I am another.

No.

NO?

Again, I should not need to prepare my 'heart' in a certain way. It does not matter the characteristics of my story. 'Knowledge of existence' does not require any of this... As stated many times now, knowledge of many things does not require a prerequisite, presupposition, or some bias. Whether we 'like' it or not, we possess knowledge of existence to many many many things in which we never investigated, sought after, explored, etc... And likewise, have also discovered the knowledge of existence to things in which we were looking for.

As states prior, God would know what my required evidence would be. If God does not care to furnish such 'evidence', after years of deep and intensive inquiry, then what other conclusion am I to draw? I will tell you... Just like I stated prior... Either he is deliberately hiding from 'me', or does not exist.

And like I stated before, I guess "I'm' not special enough for God to provide such 'evidence.'

When one dismisses from the outset, any chance of God 'hiding' is invalid. How can you truly pray according to a Bible, to a God that uses that Bible to reveal Himself and dismiss it outright and expect anything to come about? The problem is not God hiding, it is that you have already dismissed His reality already. You have already made your choice.

And...?

As most analogies, it is lacking.

 

[cvanwey]

This is contradictory to your opening post: You want to know why Yahweh has not revealed Himself to you as you have prayed according to the Bible; you then claim that the Bible has no authority and was written by mere man and that ultimately you don't care since that author is dead and can no longer enforce anything. When you tell me that God is the one with the problem and then you say this, it brings out a great deal of doubt? ...you have already discounted Yahweh out of the equation and all your 'Yahweh remains hidden' is no longer even a valid statement.

You appear confused. Let me clarify.

I am the product of 'indoctrination.' Hence, the reason I pose such inquiry.

Again, as in post #190.... Someone hands you a book of stated rules and regulations to follow, or else be tortured by some asserted and stated 'big boss'. Many tell you this book was written by the 'big boss'. If you do not perform 'this or that', this 'big boss' is going to judge and punish you after death. You merely ask to receive evidence of this 'big bosses' existence, but are instead given anecdotal accounts from others, philosophical arguments, analogies, and appeals to many fallacies.

All you are after is 'knowledge of existence', like you are aware of many things. Not too much to ask, right? And yet, you are given excuses as to why you need to further 'open your heart', 'seek and you will find', 'apply faith', etc... All-the-while, all such people, whom believe in this one particular entity also reject all the very same opposing claimed 'big bosses' you do, for many of the very same reasons you do.

(My point)?

So if someone came up to you, and presented a book of claimed assertions, and you had no proof of the actual asserter's existence, would you CARE what assertions were made from this book? Probably not. You would most likely chuckle, and hand it back to them. But.... What IF you had knowledge of this 'big boss' as the one and only true 'big boss'? What would you do THEN? That's an interesting question....

Ask practically any non-believer... If they had 'knowledge of the existence', they would then have no choice but to begin to reconcile if this claimed 'big boss' was 'worthy' of worship. Otherwise, many do not think this entity even exists. Hence, they dismiss the book as human only invented assertions (some 'good, some 'bad').

While I know we have more knowledge than you/unbelievers, there is reasonable evidence that supports and comports within the Christian worldview whereas in an unbelievers worldview there is no reasonable answer at all within their worldview.

Nonsense

You must understand the power and the authority of Yahweh, when one refuses to view anything related to the possibility of the God of Creation, He will not force Himself on anyone and most certainly will not act upon His creation's demands when they refuse to seriously look to supportive evidence for His existence.

Again, pure nonsense. It's almost as if you have not read my responses. Regardless of my mindset, I have NO CHOICE to acknowledge the existence of many things, whether I like it or not. I feel we are just going in circles at this point. But I also recognize that you 'believe' this entity is real. So of course you might say something like that. However, please understand how absurd such statements sound, when posed right back to you:

'You must understand the power and the authority of Brahma, when one refuses to view anything related to the possibility of the God of Creation, He will not force Himself on anyone and most certainly will not act upon His creation's demands when they refuse to seriously look to supportive evidence for His existence.'

You see how easily it becomes to merely dismiss without any cause, justification, rationalization, or argumentation; as you do not think such an agent even exists????

"I don't know"...the things we all don't know are unlimited in number and is not the point anyway. It isn't that you don't know and are not afraid to say it, it is that you have no real reason to believe what you believe and then you point your finger at believers and claim we are the ones that are without evidence. The evidence supports our position much more cohesively and comprehensively for our claims. The Laws of Logic, they need a necessary mind outside of mankind to ground them, Scientific methodology needs a necessary order and the Laws to govern the universe to work, the planet itself has so many necessary components itself for any life to be possible. The list goes on and on. When you dismiss them out of hand it is a very good reason that you might find Yahweh 'hidden'.

I hate to 'rubber stamp' you, but you leave me no other choice -> the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy and 'begging the question' fallacy have both been demonstrably violated with this response.

There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest human consciousness is independent from our bodies. Furthermore, consciousness simply means the state of being aware, and responding to one's surroundings. To simply smuggle in some type of theism to this equation, without evidence and justifications is fallacious, and in no way appeals to any viable demonstrable method in known reality.

Appealing to 'order', as stated in your response, would be no different than looking at a snow flake. And yet, I doubt God is up there throwing down billions of them. How can a snow flake, in it's marveled order and complexity, merely come from a random and unintentional weather system?.?.?.?.? If we did not discover meteorology decades ago, the weather god "Janus' may still carry more traction This is EXACTLY what you are doing, by positing such a response about logic

You've missed the point, you've switched your complaint as well. You claim God 'hides' but then in the same breath dismiss anything that might point in His direction. Do you see a problem there?

Nope. You've instead missed mine. Let me again clarify.

If I doubt it's existence, then it's just words from a book. I either agree or disagree, using my own assessments from that book. But if it DID come from such said agent, I must now look at such assertions with something more than just suggestions from ancient humans.

The deal is not Him 'hiding' but your choice to dismiss Him outright. Satan was with Yahweh, so he knows Him personally and face to face. The others were a part of God's plan and had the heavy lifting of living the Christian way for others...which was my point to you. The heavy lifting is when you give your life to God and He works through YOU to do according to His plan.

Again, 'knowledge of existence' can exist without any preparation, presupposition, preparedness, etc... As stated prior, my 'knowledge of existence' to countless 'realities' exist with and without my willingness to merely accept them. Denial could exist, yes. However, my point and case does not involve denial. It involves doubt, because I have no evidence.

I think rather than God avoiding you it is more you are avoiding Him.

I'm sorry, but this answer is pure nonsense. In which, I will not dignify with a response.

Maybe that could be something that unbelievers could get behind, is that what you would propose?

I propose that the knowledge of existence to a claimed divine and perfect all mighty entity should be common knowledge by all, and also the very same one. And that such knowledge becomes the sheer beginning of answering the 'why' question. But as it stands, many are confused, believe they have received evidence of a differing god than you, believe in no god, etc...

Which brings us back to the LOL which are necessary and which transcend humankind; what is the best reason and a reason that is cohesive and consistent within a worldview to explain them? I feel it is the Christian worldview.

You have completely avoided my entire prior response.

All animals, insects, etc, not just humans, invoke false positives. So I guess this means God is 'transcendently' imposing His will upon the billions of cockroach as well

When one dismisses from the outset, any chance of God 'hiding' is invalid. How can you truly pray according to a Bible, to a God that uses that Bible to reveal Himself and dismiss it outright and expect anything to come about? The problem is not God hiding, it is that you have already dismissed His reality already. You have already made your choice.

This response is inconsistent. I trust you are familiar with the verse, 'every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess?' It would appear, that if the Bible is true, then God has full ability to let everyone know of His existence, whether we like it or not Now all I need is this knowledge of existence, in which 'Yahweh' Himself claims to possess the ability to provide.

Like I stated, I must not be worthy.

So in essence, you have yet to account for my two conclusions:

1. God is avoiding me
2. God does not exist

From your perspective, because you claim God has made appropriate contact with you, you must account for why God would avoid 30+ years of genuine attempts, before only then acquiring doubt?.?.?.?.?.?.

As most analogies, it is lacking.

Sure, okay

 

[Sanoy]

I hate to 'rubber stamp' you, but you leave me no other choice -> the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy and 'begging the question' fallacy have both been demonstrably violated with this response.

There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest human consciousness is independent from our bodies.

You repeat a main contention of mine that you 'rubber stamp' everything you don't understand or can't respond to with these slogans and fallacies that you speciously toss about. I'm not the only person to attempt to bring that to your attention either. He was making an abductive case, which is a logical case. You can dismiss him, like everyone else with these stamps of yours if you want, but it doesn't make it actually go away. If you want to logically address an abductive case you will need to compete against it.

Meanwhile your very next sentence in the thread is the very beginning of an argument from ignorance.

 

[cvanwey]

You repeat a main contention of mine that you 'rubber stamp' everything you don't understand or can't respond to with these slogans and fallacies that you speciously toss about.

I don't recall asking for (your opinion) in this exchange? Yes, it is an open exchange forum, and I have no 'right' to dictate who does and does not respond to a forum. However, I do find it peculiar that you continue to respond to this thread, in light of the fact of what you stated in post #203. Heck, I even also went out of my way to modify like 2-3 prior posts, just to 'satisfy' your apparent delicate sensibilities. All-the-while, having no problem having you leave your prior ones up there, addressed at me - (as finally recapped from post #192)

In addition, you seem fond of the word 'slogans'. And yet, ironically, seem to use such a word when YOU do not provide an appropriate or justifiable response to the arguments I present

Case and point, when I bring up intentional agency and false positives, as they apply to unknown conclusions.... I even fully admitted that all humans commit such acts all the time, which would obviously include myself. You instead chose to 'rubber stamp' it as a 'slogan', with no justifications for your blind dismissal forthcoming

When I sight a fallacy, I provide an example to demonstrate the reason for my conclusion. (i.e.) In such a case, when appealing to the 'order and complexity' of logic being tied to the 'necessity of induced order,' is as relevant as applying the 'order' of a snow flake to requiring 'order' from the 'snow flake creator.' However, when you state 'slogan', as it pertains to intentional agency and false positives, it has been demonstrated with a blank assertion, and no relevant rebuttal to follow. You simply glossed right over it....

So if you would like to discuss the presented possible dichotomy between intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism, then okay. Otherwise, 'rubber stamping' the word 'slogan', while side-stepping my points, really does nothing for no one; when reading your replies.

He was making an abductive case, which is a logical case.

Logical, when not filled with overt fallacies (which require citation, to justify why they cannot be addressed in a coherent manor). "We don't know for sure, therefore God', is a fallacy. How about instead, 'we do know yet', and leave it at that?????? Concluding that logic proves Yahweh is fallacious. Remember, 3,000 years ago, humans had many gods for unexplained phenomenon - (thunder, volcanos, rain, etc.....). Humans have the natural propensity to conclude 'super-nature', because of the yet-to-be-explained nature. Again, this demonstrates a direct clash between intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism

You can dismiss him, like everyone else with these stamps of yours if you want, but it doesn't make it actually go away.

I have dismissed nothing, as evident by the prevailing demonstration thereafter, which you failed to acknowledge or address. (i.e.) Snow flakes, as they demonstrate order, structure, and complexity, without the necessity of a 'higher ordered' creator.

But I do find it fascinating how you seem to pick and choose very selective tid-bits you feel equipped to address As evidence by the fact you've been following this entire thread very closely, placing 'winner' on multiple replies to (me), until finally deciding to play 'Texas sharp shooter', with yet another dig at (me and my character), verses instead addressing the actual arguments with any substance. But hey, whatever floats one's chicken

If you want to logically address an abductive case you will need to compete against it.

I will, as soon as one is presented. But as it stands, fallacious conclusions do not qualify; nor warrant much effort in such a reply, when in search for truth.

Meanwhile your very next sentence in the thread is the very beginning of an argument from ignorance.

Oh really, do tell? So evidence demonstrates 'supernatural agency' applied to consciousness and/or logic? I don't recall seeing a Nobel prize being awarded lately for such concluded discoveries? Did I miss something?

How about instead just acknowledge that we do no know some things yet. Or is that TOO a fallacy?.?.?.?.?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You appear confused. Let me clarify.

I am the product of 'indoctrination.' Hence, the reason I pose such inquiry.

Why?

Again, as in post #190.... Someone hands you a book of stated rules and regulations to follow, or else be tortured by some asserted and stated 'big boss'. Many tell you this book was written by the 'big boss'. If you do not perform 'this or that', this 'big boss' is going to judge and punish you after death. You merely ask to receive evidence of this 'big bosses' existence, but are instead given anecdotal accounts from others, philosophical arguments, analogies, and appeals to many fallacies.

God didn't write it, He inspired men to write it.

All you are after is 'knowledge of existence', like you are aware of many things. Not too much to ask, right? And yet, you are given excuses as to why you need to further 'open your heart', 'seek and you will find', 'apply faith', etc... All-the-while, all such people, whom believe in this one particular entity also reject all the very same opposing claimed 'big bosses' you do, for many of the very same reasons you do.

Have you looked into other religions, because there are many Christians that do. I am one.

(My point)?

So if someone came up to you, and presented a book of claimed assertions, and you had no proof of the actual asserter's existence, would you CARE what assertions were made from this book? Probably not. You would most likely chuckle, and hand it back to them. But.... What IF you had knowledge of this 'big boss' as the one and only true 'big boss'? What would you do THEN? That's an interesting question....

Ask practically any non-believer... If they had 'knowledge of the existence', they would then have no choice but to begin to reconcile if this claimed 'big boss' was 'worthy' of worship. Otherwise, many do not think this entity even exists. Hence, they dismiss the book as human only invented assertions (some 'good, some 'bad').

Yes, that is true. The fact that there are those humans that don't believe God exists doesn't mean He doesn't. There are many humans that do experience the knowledge of the existence of God, many more than don't but the humans that do or don't are unrelated to the truth. There is a truth. I for one, think that there is much more reason for people to believe than for not.

Nonsense

Be specific, what is nonsense?

Again, pure nonsense. It's almost as if you have not read my responses. Regardless of my mindset, I have NO CHOICE to acknowledge the existence of many things, whether I like it or not. I feel we are just going in circles at this point. But I also recognize that you 'believe' this entity is real. So of course you might say something like that. However, please understand how absurd such statements sound, when posed right back to you:

'You must understand the power and the authority of Brahma, when one refuses to view anything related to the possibility of the God of Creation, He will not force Himself on anyone and most certainly will not act upon His creation's demands when they refuse to seriously look to supportive evidence for His existence.'

You see how easily it becomes to merely dismiss without any cause, justification, rationalization, or argumentation; as you do not think such an agent even exists????

I believe the universe is a good reason to look into God. When you are searching for the truth you must look at all possibilities and that includes other religions. I don't find other religions invalid by default.

I hate to 'rubber stamp' you, but you leave me no other choice -> the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy and 'begging the question' fallacy have both been demonstrably violated with this response.

I am at fault at times with fallacious arguments, but this is not one.

There exists absolutely no evidence to suggest human consciousness is independent from our bodies. Furthermore, consciousness simply means the state of being aware, and responding to one's surroundings. To simply smuggle in some type of theism to this equation, without evidence and justifications is fallacious, and in no way appeals to any viable demonstrable method in known reality.

Well yes, like I said before, the Laws of Logic are true whether humankind is here or not. They would be true in any possible world. We aren't talking about consciousness. I think you misunderstand what the LOL are.

Appealing to 'order', as stated in your response, would be no different than looking at a snow flake. And yet, I doubt God is up there throwing down billions of them. How can a snow flake, in it's marveled order and complexity, merely come from a random and unintentional weather system?.?.?.?.? If we did not discover meteorology decades ago, the weather god "Janus' may still carry more traction This is EXACTLY what you are doing, by positing such a response about logic

No, that is not what I am doing at all. Snowflakes could not exist or be what they are without the Laws of Physics. Without the order in the universe, we couldn't be assured that snowflakes would be the same tomorrow as they are today.

Nope. You've instead missed mine. Let me again clarify.

If I doubt it's existence, then it's just words from a book. I either agree or disagree, using my own assessments from that book. But if it DID come from such said agent, I must now look at such assertions with something more than just suggestions from ancient humans.

You aren't even looking at what is right in front of you in your own worldview, let alone looking at Yahweh and the Bible.

Again, 'knowledge of existence' can exist without any preparation, presupposition, preparedness, etc... As stated prior, my 'knowledge of existence' to countless 'realities' exist with and without my willingness to merely accept them. Denial could exist, yes. However, my point and case does not involve denial. It involves doubt, because I have no evidence.

What would you call evidence?

I'm sorry, but this answer is pure nonsense. In which, I will not dignify with a response.

Suit yourself.

I propose that the knowledge of existence to a claimed divine and perfect all mighty entity should be common knowledge by all, and also the very same one. And that such knowledge becomes the sheer beginning of answering the 'why' question. But as it stands, many are confused, believe they have received evidence of a differing god than you, believe in no god, etc...

Right.

You have completely avoided my entire prior response.

I disagree.

All animals, insects, etc, not just humans, invoke false positives. So I guess this means God is 'transcendently' imposing His will upon the billions of cockroach as well

I don't even know what you mean here.

This response is inconsistent. I trust you are familiar with the verse, 'every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess?' It would appear, that if the Bible is true, then God has full ability to let everyone know of His existence, whether we like it or not Now all I need is this knowledge of existence, in which 'Yahweh' Himself claims to possess the ability to provide.

Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess at the end of days. When no more choice is available.

Like I stated, I must not be worthy.

Doesn't have anything to do with worth.

So in essence, you have yet to account for my two conclusions:

1. God is avoiding me
2. God does not exist

From your perspective, because you claim God has made appropriate contact with you, you must account for why God would avoid 30+ years of genuine attempts, before only then acquiring doubt?.?.?.?.?.?.

I don't have to account for that at all.

Sure, okay

Believe what you will.

 

[cvanwey]

Disclaimer: I acknowledge that you believe Yahweh is real. I, on the other hand, do not. Thus, it's apparent and obvious of some of our disagreements, which will be extrapolated plentifully and often below. Later revealing, the starting point necessarily requires knowledge of existence.

Why?

I'm here to explore all avenues. I was brought up in Christianity for most of my life. I then finally decided to study it, and have found that almost none of what was asserted to me aligns with my known reality. But since I have received decades of indoctrination, it's hard to come to turns with what I have no choice to believe. Which is further informed by the fact that I have yet to receive my needed conformation that such a claimed agent is real. And like I stated prior, I do not know exactly what evidence would yield such a result, as you have... Just like I don't know what exact evidence would get me to believe in a claimed alternate asserted and claimed spiritual entity.

God didn't write it, He inspired men to write it.

I feel you know what I meant. Either He wrote it directly, or imposed His instruction upon others. However, anyone can claim any external force compelled them to write stuff. Quite honestly, it does not matter if 'God' wrote it himself, or instructed another. The assertion/claim still remains the same. Which is... it was presented by a 'supernatural agent'.

As stated several times now, if one does not think such an agent is real, then they are reading the opinions of ancient people, and their assertions about 'truth', and placed to paper.

Have you looked into other religions, because there are many Christians that do. I am one.

Yes. And at the end of the day, if one doubts the claimed agent is real, the rest is just human provided assertions - (probably some true, some false, some strange, some silly, some wrong).

Yes, that is true. The fact that there are those humans that don't believe God exists doesn't mean He doesn't. There are many humans that do experience the knowledge of the existence of God, many more than don't but the humans that do or don't are unrelated to the truth. There is a truth. I for one, think that there is much more reason for people to believe than for not.

Of course you do. I think you have received sufficient and necessary direct contact from your claimed creator, right? I would sure hope you were not merely drawing such conclusions, based upon the arguments you have been making? (i.e.) 'LOL', 'organization', etc... These are just byproducts, or points in which you later draw your conclusions, based upon your necessary 'knowledge of existence' as the catalyst (starting point). But what if you were in my boat? Meaning... I have never had any convincing contact. Would such argumentation lead directly to Yahweh specifically? Probably not, if you are being intellectually honest. Hence, the reason I stated from the very beginning of this thread, 'knowledge of existence' necessitates the starting point. The points you reference reinforce your later connections to the 'why' questions.

Be specific, what is nonsense?

The entire statement demonstrates nonsense... 'While I know we have more knowledge than you/unbelievers, there is reasonable evidence that supports and comports within the Christian worldview whereas in an unbelievers worldview there is no reasonable answer at all within their worldview.'

I have yet to hear anything validating from your arguments. However, I do believe you when you state you have received contact from your believed agent. Unless you haven't, and are instead solely enamored by the given 'justifications' for God, i.e. 'LOL' and 'order'?

I believe the universe is a good reason to look into God. When you are searching for the truth you must look at all possibilities and that includes other religions. I don't find other religions invalid by default.

This was not my point. I have not received 'knowledge of existence' for Yahweh. So your prior statement becomes meaningless. Just like if someone was reading passages from the Qur'an to you. If you do not think Muhammad flew up to heaven on a white horse, the book is a fairy tale to you - pure and simple. Yes, it may possess some words of advise, or impose some 'lateral wisdom'. But the assertion of 'pure truth' is of little relevance to (you). You instead, have no choice, but to evaluate each assertion and statement from that book, to correlate claimed 'truth' within each specific assertion from that book. However, if you 'knew' Muhammad was the true and real prophet, you would most likely look to reconcile all passages in which you did not agree, or which did not make sense. Because again, who are YOU to judge the truth of the 'living true God'? Sound familiar?

I am at fault at times with fallacious arguments, but this is not one.

Afraid so. God is no more the orchestrator and organizer of logic, than the weather is for snowflakes. We have yet to identify any supernatural causation to either. Just because we currently know more about the weather than the brain, does not mean to default the supernatural for the brain until otherwise disproven. This is backwards thinking. By default, we simply do not know the 'driving force', if one exists.

Well yes, like I said before, the Laws of Logic are true whether humankind is here or not. They would be true in any possible world. We aren't talking about consciousness. I think you misunderstand what the LOL are.

Then all you are doing is pushing the assertion back even one more step, with no further justification. 'All original laws were created by Yahweh.' Again, I understand why YOU say this. You think Yahweh is real and this is what He 'tells' you. Hence, you are drawing such a conclusion, for the 'why and how' of it...

But for all skeptics and non-believers, they don't know the origin - if any. And fallacious argumentation will not persuade otherwise

Furthermore, how is Brahma not the root of all these laws - (since I have the same lack in knowledge to both asserted gods in which are claimed to exist by many)?

I really wonder what your assertion of truth would have been a few thousand years ago, before later discovery dispelled the many asserted prior gods for things unknown? (i.e.) 'Thor created the lightening you see. This best explains lightening' (no straw man intended, just demonstrating a point here)... Seems as though very convenient to now state that all 'law' from the Big Bang or prior was created by Yahweh. This assertion is really not falsifiable!

No, that is not what I am doing at all. Snowflakes could not exist or be what they are without the Laws of Physics. Without the order in the universe, we couldn't be assured that snowflakes would be the same tomorrow as they are today.

So if I'm understanding what you are saying here... You are asserting that it is your specific God which set all original laws into this concluded motion? So again, we are right back to where we started. You are 'connecting the dots'. You are 'drawing a connection' to make sense of a mystery. And this makes sense, since you believe Yahweh is real. I claim I don't know, and that Yahweh has never made his presence aware to me, like he has foo you. So again, this dispute will most likely remain a stalemate, for the obvious reason sighted within my beginning 'disclaimer'.

Which, quite frankly, further demonstrates and proves my OP.

You aren't even looking at what is right in front of you in your own worldview, let alone looking at Yahweh and the Bible.

You are again making an assertion, as if I'm just in denial. Tisk tisk How is this any different than a door-to-door Scientologist, Mormon, or Muslim coming to your door, making the very same pronouncements? It isn't! Why? Because you do not believe such alternative claimed agents are real postmortem.

What would you call evidence?

As stated prior, do you know exactly what evidence would convince you that Vishnu exists? Probably not But Vishnu should know.

Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess at the end of days. When no more choice is available.

News flash... You kind of really don't have a choice in what you currently believe Otherwise, as already stated elsewhere, 'believe' you can fly, by flapping your arms, and find a building to test this newly forced belief. You can be in denial, which is kind of the gist I gather you are placing me within?.?.?.?

Doesn't have anything to do with worth.

Again, I think you know what I meant. I prayed and asked for decades with no contact relayed. And yet, thousands claim they do. I guess I'm just in denial, right? Otherwise, really makes no sense.... You really think I would waste my time denying what I thought was real? Seriously? Heck, I want it to be real. I devoted much of my life to the hopes it was real. What motive would I have to straight up lie?

I don't have to account for that at all.

And it's a good thing too

Believe what you will.

Again, I believe because I really have no choice in most matters of extreme importance.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't recall asking for (your opinion) in this exchange? Yes, it is an open exchange forum, and I have no 'right' to dictate who does and does not respond to a forum. However, I do find it peculiar that you continue to respond to this thread, in light of the fact of what you stated in post #203. Heck, I even also went out of my way to modify like 2-3 prior posts, just to 'satisfy' your apparent delicate sensibilities. All-the-while, having no problem having you leave your prior ones up there, addressed at me - (as finally recapped from post #192)

In addition, you seem fond of the word 'slogans'. And yet, ironically, seem to use such a word when YOU do not provide an appropriate or justifiable response to the arguments I present

Case and point, when I bring up intentional agency and false positives, as they apply to unknown conclusions.... I even fully admitted that all humans commit such acts all the time, which would obviously include myself. You instead chose to 'rubber stamp' it as a 'slogan', with no justifications for your blind dismissal forthcoming

When I sight a fallacy, I provide an example to demonstrate the reason for my conclusion. (i.e.) In such a case, when appealing to the 'order and complexity' of logic being tied to the 'necessity of induced order,' is as relevant as applying the 'order' of a snow flake to requiring 'order' from the 'snow flake creator.' However, when you state 'slogan', as it pertains to intentional agency and false positives, it has been demonstrated with a blank assertion, and no relevant rebuttal to follow. You simply glossed right over it....

So if you would like to discuss the presented possible dichotomy between intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism, then okay. Otherwise, 'rubber stamping' the word 'slogan', while side-stepping my points, really does nothing for no one; when reading your replies.



Logical, when not filled with overt fallacies (which require citation, to justify why they cannot be addressed in a coherent manor). "We don't know for sure, therefore God', is a fallacy. How about instead, 'we do know yet', and leave it at that?????? Concluding that logic proves Yahweh is fallacious. Remember, 3,000 years ago, humans had many gods for unexplained phenomenon - (thunder, volcanos, rain, etc.....). Humans have the natural propensity to conclude 'super-nature', because of the yet-to-be-explained nature. Again, this demonstrates a direct clash between intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism



I have dismissed nothing, as evident by the prevailing demonstration thereafter, which you failed to acknowledge or address. (i.e.) Snow flakes, as they demonstrate order, structure, and complexity, without the necessity of a 'higher ordered' creator.

But I do find it fascinating how you seem to pick and choose very selective tid-bits you feel equipped to address As evidence by the fact you've been following this entire thread very closely, placing 'winner' on multiple replies to (me), until finally deciding to play 'Texas sharp shooter', with yet another dig at (me and my character), verses instead addressing the actual arguments with any substance. But hey, whatever floats one's chicken



I will, as soon as one is presented. But as it stands, fallacious conclusions do not qualify; nor warrant much effort in such a reply, when in search for truth.



Oh really, do tell? So evidence demonstrates 'supernatural agency' applied to consciousness and/or logic? I don't recall seeing a Nobel prize being awarded lately for such concluded discoveries? Did I miss something?

How about instead just acknowledge that we do no know some things yet. Or is that TOO a fallacy?.?.?.?.?

You told me to do as I wish in post 204, and I wished to bring that to your attention, yet again.

My other contention is that you run off topic with every post in these grandiose replies and then complain about it later when you're required to respond on those tangents.

You still need to learn what Abductive reasoning is. Yet again your response is to toss out another slogan "therefore God" rather than engage it properly. It's not God of the gaps, I have told you this before. Abductive means "therefore X is the best explanation". You have to compete if you want to challenge it. Stop throwing out slogans instead of engaging, stop using fallacy objections erroneously only to immediately commit them yourself, learn logic... before you put on a performance of having used it.

 

[cvanwey]

You told me to do as I wish in post 204, and I wished to bring that to your attention, yet again.

My other contention is that you run off topic with every post in these grandiose replies and then complain about it later when you're required to respond on those tangents.

You still need to learn what Abductive reasoning is. Yet again your response is to toss out another slogan "therefore God" rather than engage it properly. It's not God of the gaps, I have told you this before. Abductive means "therefore X is the best explanation". You have to compete if you want to challenge it. Stop throwing out slogans instead of engaging, stop using fallacy objections erroneously only to immediately commit them yourself, learn logic... before you put on a performance of having used it.

I'm so glad you are here to continuously teach and monitor me (from thread to thread, post to post) Really, keep it coming. I sure need it. Please keep steering me in the right direction (as your tenacious attributes continue to be well needed, and certainly do not distract from the content of these posts in any way). Please keep me on track, to your specific standards. I'm sure we will all be better off for it.

Or better yet, here's a thought; actually engage in at least some my points. However, you instead appear more concerned with attacking me personally - verses the observations and points addressed either to you or not to you. I am not some wounded animal you are nursing back to health. Nor am I asking for your advice. Your responses act as disruptors, and quite frankly, continue to hijack this thread.

I would further justify my position, but you will just write it off as invalid, or shine it off a 'slogan', or accuse me of being 'grandiose.' So keep critiquing my every response, with stead-fast intent and vigor. Please continue your status quo, itching at the chance to post 'agree' and 'winner' at all responses to my thread/posts. We all appreciate it. It's very helpful. Keep imposing your opinions. It does everyone so much good. But please do not actually engage, with any depth, to anything I have actually expressed, which is heartfelt and genuine. No, don't do that

In the mean while, I'll await a response to the one intended, where a meaningful exchange is actually taking place.

Thanks though

 

[Sanoy]

I'm so glad you are here to continuously teach and monitor me (from thread to thread, post to post) Really, keep it coming. I sure need it. Please keep steering me in the right direction (as your tenacious attributes continue to be well needed, and certainly do not distract from the content of these posts in any way). Please keep me on track, to your specific standards. I'm sure we will all be better off for it.

Or better yet, here's a thought; actually engage in at least some my points. However, you instead appear more concerned with attacking me personally - verses the observations and points addressed either to you or not to you. I am not some wounded animal you are nursing back to health. Nor am I asking for your advice. Your responses act as disruptors, and quite frankly, continue to hijack this thread.

I would further justify my position, but you will just write it off as invalid, or shine it off a 'slogan', or accuse me of being 'grandiose.' So keep critiquing my every response, with stead-fast intent and vigor. Please continue your status quo, itching at the chance to post 'agree' and 'winner' at all responses to my thread/posts. We all appreciate it. It's very helpful. Keep imposing your opinions. It does everyone so much good. But please do not actually engage, with any depth, to anything I have actually expressed, which is heartfelt and genuine. No, don't do that

In the mean while, I'll await a response to the one intended, where a meaningful exchange is actually taking place.

Thanks though

Engage? I did. I made a deductive case which you have completely ignored twice now. I never left the thread, I having been waiting for your response.

Not understanding the logic you intend to employ distracts from the thread. The multiple side tangents you bring up and close down when it turns against you distracts from the thread. The specious slogans you hurl about distracts from the thread. The expansive replies in lieu of being concise and succinct distracts from your thread. If your interested in the purity of your thread don't do those things and actually respond to the hard counters of your OP. Actually listen to people and consider the possibility that the way you go about things is mistaken rather than shrug off correction.

If your gut instinct is to make a line by line expansive reply to every sentence I just said then you haven't listened to anything I just said.