Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You misrepresent what I have said. I was calling out Joshua on his circular logic, of having to trust that something exists before one trusts that it exists.Santa is the God now?! It is the pagan fallacy: the "great and powerful" straw-man.
Not true, it is the definition. You refer, what God is absent, thus he can not be King. But theist used verb "is", this verb means "existence". Therefore, the definition reads: "God am Who exists and Who rules." What is your problem with it now, blind God-definiter? There is no God in the mind of atheist or ignostic, because they are violation of God's definition. The violation of definitions is madness. Do not hear these sick people too much.
You misrepresent what I have said. I was pointing out a definition that is made of religious claims rather than testable, falsifiable statements is of little use to those that do not already believe.Theist: "God is the creator and ruler of the universe"
Ignostic: "Untestable and unfalsifiable religious claims. This is useless as a definition."
Me:
Not true, it is the definition. You refer, what God is absent, thus he can not be King. But theist used verb "is", this verb means "existence". Therefore, the definition reads: "God am Who exists and Who rules." What is your problem with it now, blind God-definiter? There is no God in the mind of atheist or ignostic, because they are violation of God's definition. The violation of definitions is madness. Do not hear these sick people too much.
Blessed be your mind, brother! Move even closer to God, have you watched the Holy Fire on Easter? It is within Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is additional support:it is better to believe that God exists
The God is defined by theists. By using word "God" and having no alternative definition, ignostic agrees to theistic definition. Proof ends. Welcome to theism!I was pointing out a definition that is made of religious...
Is that a fallacious argument from authority?The point about Anthony Flew was that he was an educated philosopher. He was also an honorary associate of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists[49] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew).
What objective evidence?In other words, the atheists' version of a "reasonable" man, and he ended up coming to the conclusion that there is objective evidence
and that the Earth is immovable, and the cosmos revolves around it.that can lead a reasonable man to believe that God exists.
Indeed. Ironically.Exactly as the faithful have been preaching for millennia.
Really? You would consider the possibility that gods are only characters in books?Ah...So circular reasoning then, eh? "God does not exist, therefore Anthony Flew was unreasonable to believe that God exists."
If you're going to assert that God does not exist, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. I'm open
Would you consider absence of evidence as evidence of absence, where we should expect evidence?to following the evidence where it leads...apparently you're not.
That is a misrepresentation, but indeed you have yet to provide a testable, falsifiable definition of "God". Got anything?Blessed be your mind, brother! Move even closer to God, have you watched the Holy Fire on Easter? It is within Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is additional support:
Ignostic says: God is undefinitable. This to say is not possible, unless word "God" is defined.<snip>
God exists, it is a character in a book. Now why should I care about a character in a book?The God is defined by theists. By using word "God" and having no alternative definition, ignostic agrees to theistic definition. Proof ends. Welcome to theism!
Let us see your theistic definition:
God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.
I see: God has created our universe.
If there was no God, then God has not created our universe. This is logical mistake. Thus, the God am. Proof ends.
Brother, thank you. Can you tell me more about your version of "proof making"?
IF GOD really exists, we atheist needs proof of Him, not an argument nor evidence. The existent subject can be proved beyond all doubts. The God is omnipresent, thus it is not hard to accomplish. Our freedom is not the lack of rigid proof, but the choice between madness and mind. The God made us with mind, with heart. One must not left mind behind entering the gates of Heaven. The Christian do that, and thus, our vineyard (all the planet) produces not good fruits, but: homosexuals, false "Christian" religions, atheists, etc. Here is proof of God, what are the wrong parts? See:
Your car had good property: existence. The thief came and now car is non-existent, it is only one (bad) property of the car.
Your car is stolen now. We are existent. God is superior, than us, thus the God is existent with absolute certainty.
So, rather than posit the formation of faith from a Cartesian style, deductively built, Foundational epistemology by which we sequence a set of thoughts successively in logical fashion unto the 'Face of God,' I tend to assume that God Himself takes the initiative at an aesthetic, spiritual level, drawing us to Himself, providing us a state of being from which we begin to form a Coherent understanding of His Creation and of Himself, of which we are each but a small part. It is God's Revelation to our minds that brings about faith; our faith being only partially an extension of our mere cognitive assent toward Him.
Guess we'll have to wait for another trial for the next generation to have any real motivation to be truthful.
How is it different?
My position is not that of naturalism. You have committed the "straw-man" fallacy.
The burden lies with you to support your position. I am only here to observe.
If not science, by what methodology would you suggest we explore reality?
So let us apply this hard scientific method for objective empirical science to your theology. Or, do you have double standards?I prefer the hard scientific method for objective empirical science.
all else to be considered not objective but subjective. another way to look at it is circumstantial evidence, versus direct hard evidence.
circumstantial evidence is what you are typically saying in your question,
it's good enough for most everything we do.
any criminal can be prosecuted on multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence, and this by far is the majority of prosecutions today.
direct hard core evidence, objective, is not easy to find, and most prosecutors look at it as the gold at the end of the rainbow.
same thing with science.
hard science is growing less and less, while soft science is growing and expanding.
but true science is a lost art it would seem.
so those would be my recomendations.
biology is one hard science, chemistry and most math.
psychology, biological evolution among other sciences is more circumstantial, and relies on opinion or guessing more than hard fact.
No, that is not my position. I am not here to champion any particular position. As I said, I am only here to observe.so then you must be a theistic evolutionist or something similiar to that, day age?
one of those.
you believe the supernatural caused evolution,
well then you have other issues.
like why there was even a garden of eden at all.
if we could all evolve, there would be no need for the garden or for patriachs for that matter, we could have infinite family trees ,sort of like a forest.
granted I dont' adhere to that.
and many believe that if there was a gap between verse 1:1, 2 in genesis, that there was room for evolution biologically speaking,
yet the thing is natural selection and biological evolution relies on multiple deaths to gradually evolve, slowly over millions of years.
but the Bible says that there was no sin until the fall,
and the Bible says death is a result of sin, and thus we interpret the above two verses to say that there was not death before the forbidden fruit scenario.
that cancels out any notion that there was evolution between verses 1,2 of chapter 1
Our faith is Eastern Orthodox Christianity:to form a Coherent understanding of His Creation and of Himself
To deist. You know now, what God exists and, thus, you hate the atheism (because that the faith does: you are not tolerant to false teachings). Let us move further. God is God, because He is superior than man. Therefore, God is all-powerful. Latter is not possible without omnipresence. Latter means, what God is inside our Universe also. Deist says, that God is inactive inside the Universe. Inactive life-form is dead one. Therefore, there is no God in deism. Thus, latter is atheism. Dear human, who repents like the Anthony Flew: you hate the atheism now with all your guts (like the Flew hates), so you MUST move to the theistic area.ever heard of Anthony Flew?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?