New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Davian]

Santa is the God now?! It is the pagan fallacy: the "great and powerful" straw-man.

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

it is better to believe that God exists

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. Agnostic says: no knowledge of God yet. He used word "God", so he has knowledge of Him. Agnostic says: God is unprovable. God and afterlife are provable in afterlife. Therefore agnostic says: "no God", this is atheism. Conclusion: the knowledge of God is the undeletable basis of all people. That is why the atheists judge what is right and what is wrong: there are no right no wrong in God-less mind. Such mind does not exist. Thus, all minds are created by God. Like the Sun is meant to shine, the atheists, including satan, can not reject God out of the mind. Quote: "No, they don't claim that they know that God exists. They don't believe that they have that knowledge." Because they have lost the mind. Jesus through me recovers it for you. Be grateful and repent like Anthony Flew!

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I was pointing out a definition that is made of religious...

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!

 

[Davian]

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).

Is that a fallacious argument from authority?

In other words, the atheists' version of a "reasonable" man, and he ended up coming to the conclusion that there is objective evidence

What objective evidence?

that can lead a reasonable man to believe that God exists.

and that the Earth is immovable, and the cosmos revolves around it.

Exactly as the faithful have been preaching for millennia.

Indeed. Ironically.

 

[Davian]

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

Really? You would consider the possibility that gods are only characters in books?

to following the evidence where it leads...apparently you're not.

Would you consider absence of evidence as evidence of absence, where we should expect evidence?

 

[Davian]

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>

That is a misrepresentation, but indeed you have yet to provide a testable, falsifiable definition of "God". Got anything?

I'll wait.

 

[Davian]

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!

God exists, it is a character in a book. Now why should I care about a character in a book?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

Please explain the logic error.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Yes, Dmitri, I'll be glad to share.

However, please know that as a first principle, I don't like to assume 'first principles' clearly and distinctly exist, at least not as some kind of mental entities which free-float in a cognitive vacuum, apart from holistic context(s).

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.

One example of this spiritual dynamic is seen when Jesus brings out the response of truth from the lips of Peter:

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17)
​

It seems to me that God's Word indicates to us in many places that we are more dependent on God's Spirit and Revelation for finding faith than we are on our efforts to muster our human rational capacities alone.

That is my approach, Dmitri. And whether you agree or not, thank you for 'listening.'

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

That is far better than any presup arguments, at least.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Guess we'll have to wait for another trial for the next generation to have any real motivation to be truthful.

well at that point in the game geisler was trying to win the war and not the battle,

lets just say that much,

great guy, as most creationists and IDers are, genuinely intelligent and honest.

but in this case in retrospect, I would have done it different, more on par with what Steven Meyers is doing.

separation from the Biblical text and genesis entirely.

it's nice to have a crowd of religious people follow you in creationism, like ken ham is doing.

but you can't legalize what he is doing.

IDer's some athiests, and others believers in multiple God's or other God's....


IDers have united globally under discoveries mission.

they simply want the science of ID to be recognized.

not different than a homosexual wanting the states to recognize his marriage.

either it's right or it's wrong.

I don't even agree with the latter,

but you see the point.

ID'ers are treated like immoral beings in teh scientific community, ridiculed etc.

it is to the point where ID'ers have excellelled in many areas and feed off the persecution as Christ said would happen to other groups of followers like the Christians.

in a similiar way IDers are persecuted for trying to bring out more science, not less.

not denying evolution, as is common place, but actually teaching the critical analysis of it along side it.

it makes you think,

and question.

which is good for logic development.

 

[createdtoworship]

How is it different?

saying one thing, then changing it when someone questions it.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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

 

[createdtoworship]

If not science, by what methodology would you suggest we explore reality?

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.

 

[bhsmte]

saying one thing, then changing it when someone questions it.

Go ahead and specifically point that out.

 

[Davian]

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.

So let us apply this hard scientific method for objective empirical science to your theology. Or, do you have double standards?

 

[Davian]

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

No, that is not my position. I am not here to champion any particular position. As I said, I am only here to observe.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

to form a Coherent understanding of His Creation and of Himself

Our faith is Eastern Orthodox Christianity:
"Holy Orthodoxy: The Ancient Church of Acts in the 21st Century",

. If you, outsider, have "coherent" faith You must destroy my faith. Because they are different and true faith hates any false teaching. Same are doing the atheists to theists: they are destroying the theism. Now one can understand it: atheists tend to Verity (this tendency comes from God in the basis of human), so in his sickness he destroys One (in his eyes Verity is false, but satanic Lie is Truth -- atheist is sick in mind).

 

[Dmitri Martila]

ever heard of Anthony Flew?

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.