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.
Which varies from god-believer to god-believer based on their interpretation of the Bible. Do you have anything more.. objective?Anything contrary to God's design and purpose for us.
I do not know what you mean by "evil". Is disbelief "evil"?I think the perenniel flaw would be evil. It has been rightly recognized by philosophers for centuries that evil would be a flaw in a world created by an all-Good God, in the sense that it would be contrary to God's nature as the Supreme Good.
At what point to you have to throw out virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge?And see this is the beauty of it.
You see, God, if He existed, would know exactly what it would take for you to come to the place in your life where you give assent to the proposition, "God exists".
In addition to that, He would also know exactly what it would take for you to come to the place in your life where you would not be content with merely knowing that He existed, but would want to know Him, i.e. to have a filial knowledge of Him. One that speaks of an intimate relationship. One where you desire to be like Him in Holiness, purity, and righteousness and love.
God would know your heart. He would know your thoughts. He would know the hurts, the ups, the downs, the disappointments, the pain, the joy, the love, the desires, the passions, the ambitions, the hopes, and the dreams you have.
He would love you. He would love all of us. And He would make a way for us to be reconciled to Himself. He would make sure that before you die, you would have been given enough light to make unbelief inexcusable, but not too much to make belief in His existence something you are grudgingly forced to give assent to.
Welcome to this form, and this discussion. Good to have you here.It's a fabricated argument to begin with.
Thank you.Welcome to this form, and this discussion. Good to have you here.
What have you argued then, if not that? That does indeed appear to be what you are arguing.I have not argued that. You are attacking a strawman.
If you have good reasons to trust something, you no longer require faith.G.K. Chesteron once remarked:
"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."
IOW, you trust the veridicality of your senses. You trust the deliverances of introspection.
Here G.K. Chesterton is arguing that the concept of faith is not restricted to that caricature of believing something in the absence of good reasons to believe. Nor is it that caricature of blindly accepting something for which one has no good reasons to accept, for he knows, as well as you and I do, that we trust our senses because we have good reasons to. These reasons just happen to be reasons that, by virtue of their nature, do not lie within the purview of the empirical.
Faith is not some sort of epistemology. It is simply trusting in that which we have good reason to trust.
Colter, and you, are mistaken. Most atheists here (probably all) don't hold atheism to be some sort of doctrinal obligation.Colter has in mind this:
"atheism- the doctrine that there is no deity" - emphasis mine
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
In other words, you're going to evade, again.I respectfully decline the thoughtful invitatioin to discuss these points. Thanks though.
If you have good reasons to trust something, you no longer require faith.
Yes, it does have several connotations. We are discussing faith in the religious sense specifically.You think that because you have a very narrow view of what faith is and thus you view the two as mutually exclusive. The word "faith" has several connotations.
Yes I know. For you and most atheists here, atheism is a word used more or less to describe your psychological state. You use it in the sense that one would say, "babies lack belief in gods", or "my cat Tom is an atheist, he lacks belief in god".Colter, and you, are mistaken. Most atheists here (probably all) don't hold atheism to be some sort of doctrinal obligation.
Yes, it does have several connotations. We are discussing faith in the religious sense specifically.
You would argue otherwise only to the extent that the arguments are supportive. When the arguments fail to support your position or explicitly turn against it, you will still maintain your theological commitments just as strongly.There are different ways religious people use the term though. Some fideists would indeed argue that arguments, evidence and reason are inimical to faith. Some like myself would argue otherwise.
You would argue otherwise only to the extent that the arguments are supportive. When the arguments fail to support your position or explicitly turn against it, you will still maintain your theological commitments just as strongly.
This relates to a question I asked earlier, which you repeatedly declined to answer. See highlighted:Right.
Why?
Because my filial knowledge of God is not grounded in philosophical arguments.
You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.
Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).
As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?
And I have stated eariler. It is possible I am wrong.This relates to a question I asked earlier, which you repeatedly declined to answer. See highlighted:
Yes, which was inconsistent with what you later said. See the links in the quoted text.And I have stated eariler. It is possible I am wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to assemble all of this. I shall go back and review all of this as soon as I have time to do so. Thanks.Yes, which was inconsistent with what you later said. See the links in the quoted text.
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?