anonymous person
Well-Known Member
I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.
Upvote
0
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.
I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.I'm sensing some inconsistency here:
How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.
No, I'm referencing Sean Carroll, who actually works in this field.Aguirre-Gratton?
Is that what you are referencing?
It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.This atheist doesn't. This is a conclusion, not a premise.
I know many believers start with the conclusion and work backwards, manufacturing whatever facts and reasons they need to keep that belief intact. But don't project that failing onto everyone else.
How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.
How would that even work? Any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded in favour of your "inner witness," which you regard as incontrovertible.
What makes you think that those are the only two options?It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.
As I said, I have my reasons for believing that God is real. It's a premise for me at this point, but I know that you have a different interpretation of the same facts that led me to believe that in the first place. I believe God exists because I believe that God is a better explanation for all the order and structure in the universe and in earth's ecosystem than random chance. You have a differing opinion.
Perhaps I should restructure the premise slightly: the premise that most believers work from is that God creating order and structure from chaos makes more sense than the alternative - random chance creating order out of Chaos.
You haven't interacted with many atheists, have you? It's obvious given that (1) you misunderstood the definition of atheism, and (2) you are claiming that atheists are committed to this particular view.Atheists work from the premise that random chance creating order out of chaos makes more sense than God creating order out of chaos.
You "staunchly deny," to borrow your words, the witness of those who claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.For example, you staunchly deny the witness of the thousands who saw Jesus after His resurrection, and those who watched His ascension to heaven, which would certainly be strong evidence. Your denial has no merit except for your predetermined idea (premise) that God is, in fact, not real and the Bible is just a story written to try to convince people that He is. Your view (that God does not exist) determines your analysis of the evidence.
It is disingenuous for you to claim that you are open to questioning your religious beliefs when, in reality, you clearly aren't. You even admitted as much. If and when evidence against your belief is presented, you will simply dismiss it in favour of your personal religious intuitions, which you perceive to be incontrovertible, infallible even. So there is nothing that I or anyone else could say that would be enough to convince you that you could be wrong. You don't even allow for the possibility that you could be wrong.That is your problem not mine. You are the one trying to convince me that I could be wrong.
Your questions don't make sense. Your posts don't make sense. I have no interest in pursuing them any further.When you say "your "inner witness"" as if we're fabricating some unfounded truth based on our imaginations, this is not the case.
Its not that we regard our inner witness as incontrovertible its that we regard truth as incontrovertible. Our inner witness simply confirms what is true.
Also, I don't appreciate you and KCfromNC ignoring my questions about truth being based on finite space and finite time. Please explain how this could give truth any meaning.
Because I have yet to encounter a third that's truly a third (pantheism doesn't count... it's just a weak attempt at a copout from the issue). Sure, people talk about aliens, etc., but that's not a real answer because there's still the question of where they came from...What makes you think that those are the only two options?
Actually, I've talked to a lot of atheists. When pressed, they all fall back on either random chance or pantheism, which isn't atheism at all. [/Quote]You haven't interacted with many atheists, have you? It's obvious given that (1) you misunderstood the definition of atheism, and (2) you are claiming that atheists are committed to this particular view.
Absolutely. Because Joseph Smith's writings and message disagree with God's revealed word and all of His former prophets (as well as Jesus). God tells us that anybody who teaches anything contrary to what is revealed to us in scripture is a false prophet. So, having chosen to believe in God, I accept that to be the truth.You "staunchly deny," to borrow your words, the witness of those who claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
You're evidently new to this sort of discussion.Because I have yet to encounter a third that's truly a third (pantheism doesn't count... it's just a weak attempt at a copout from the issue). Sure, people talk about aliens, etc., but that's not a real answer because there's still the question of where they came from...
Actually, I've talked to a lot of atheists. When pressed, they all fall back on either random chance or pantheism, which isn't atheism at all.
If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.Absolutely. Because Joseph Smith's writings and message disagree with God's revealed word and all of His former prophets (as well as Jesus). God tells us that anybody who teaches anything contrary to what is revealed to us in scripture is a false prophet. So, having chosen to believe in God, I accept that to be the truth.
I've discussed this with hundreds of people... granted I haven't had as much time to get into the online debate in the past 5-6 years as previously, but that hardly makes it new. You haven't presented a 3rd option. If you can show me a 3rd option (once again, not pantheism), then I'll concede that there's a third option.You're evidently new to this sort of discussion.
I've found the people most skeptical about God are those who don't want to believe in Him. I explored atheism/pantheism/agnosticism in high school and college, but what it comes down to for me is that it makes more sense to believe that God created all of this than that it all came to be as a result of either eternally existing matter once compressed into the tiny space no larger than a period on a piece of paper and random chance or quantum fluctuations in a vacuum producing post-gamma radiation (matter/antimatter particles) that eventually became all the matter in the universe and random chance.If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.
If only you exercised the same level of skepticism toward your own religion as you do toward others.
And yet you're still making basic mistakes about what atheists believe.I've discussed this with hundreds of people...
Who said that natural processes must all be random?granted I haven't had as much time to get into the online debate in the past 5-6 years as previously, but that hardly makes it new. You haven't presented a 3rd option. If you can show me a 3rd option (once again, not pantheism), then I'll concede that there's a third option.
In what way does it make "more sense"? What does it "make sense" of?I've found the people most skeptical about God are those who don't want to believe in Him. I explored atheism/pantheism/agnosticism in high school and college, but what it comes down to for me is that it makes more sense to believe that God created all of this than that it all came to be as a result of either eternally existing matter once compressed into the tiny space no larger than a period on a piece of paper and random chance or quantum fluctuations in a vacuum producing post-gamma radiation (matter/antimatter particles) that eventually became all the matter in the universe and random chance.
Your questions don't make sense. Your posts don't make sense. I have no interest in pursuing them any further.
This is also known as closing your mind. So you've found an idea that is palatable to you and you've decided that here the inquiry must stop. There's no particular reason it must come to a halt at that point but you no longer care; you assume you already know it all - the Truth with a capital T. The possibility that you could be wrong is vanquished as a demon called "doubt."One cannot be a skeptical about everything..
“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton
There is a point in life where you have to stop investigating and start trusting God because everyday that you spend investigating and searching is a day you lose and will not get back.
This is also known as closing your mind. So you've found an idea that is palatable to you and you've decided that here the inquiry must stop. There's no particular reason it must come to a halt at that point but you no longer care; you assume you already know it all - the Truth with a capital T. The possibility that you could be wrong is vanquished as a demon called "doubt."
Given that you have yet to articulate a coherent position, I'm not sure what you are even claiming to be right about. At the moment, I'm doubting that you are in this to have a serious discussion.On the contrary, doubt is actually very important in finding truth. Right now I hope your doubting that you are actually correct. I also hope your doubting that we are actually wrong.
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?