Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
@anonymous person was asked a similarly relevant question by @DogmaHunter earlier in this thread (1). He has evaded it thus far.
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.
@anonymous person was asked a similarly relevant question by @DogmaHunter earlier in this thread (1). He has evaded it thus far.So what methods do you use outside of empirical observation and logic to determine truths about reality?
The problem that Christians have is they are unable to define a spirit in tangible terms especially to people who refuse to accept spirits exist.
If you be intellectually honest you will be aware that the only god that cannot be proved to exist is the living God of Israel.
The response to this (if you get one) will be interesting.
Perhaps he has spent some time in the Ethics & Morality forum of this site.I find it interesting that you mentioned God being concerned about people's sex lives out of all the things Christians typically claim God is concerned about.
I don't, depending on how you wish to play the equivocation game. Do you doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around?That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.
I don't know why people take issue with this.
Do you?
Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.
I don't know why people take issue with this.
If they could define them for anyone, it would be a start. Alas...
Not at all. I can make up a dozen unprovable god concepts, all before lunch. Being untestable and immune to investigation isn't a feature, it is a bug.
Well, if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?
That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?
It's always all-or-nothing with them.Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.
What would you have us base our methods of inquiry on?That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.
I don't know why people take issue with this.
Do you?
I find it interesting that you mentioned God being concerned about people's sex lives out of all the things Christians typically claim God is concerned about.
That aside, the issue remains. No method of inquiry dependent upon the veridicality of the physical senses is indubitable.
I don't know why people take issue with this.
What you have failed to realise is that I only have to produce one god, say a statue of Budda and a person to worship it and the whole Atheist discipline goes up in smoke.
Atheism is delusional.
As I proceed here I really do not know what your problem is; I don't know what "exists" means to you; does 1+1=2 exist, does one egg plus one egg = two eggs, can you put 2 eggs in a bag and test if they exist; a test might be to put red cellophane paper over the eggs and sprinkle salt on the paper and if the salt turns black before the eggs hatch what is proven: before the eggs hatch they exit but after the hatch they don't.
Any tangible description of God is wrong save one and that is Jesus Christ
and Jesus' proof was He raised himself from the dead; prophesy and it's fulfilment is proof of God's existence.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, Darwin flopped in and out Einstein believed in a God not of the Bible so intelligence does not divide Atheism from Theism.
It's always all-or-nothing with them.
Interesting in what way?
Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate? I think 3 separate posters have asked and you've failed to answer any of them.
Because people who make that claim never seem to be willing to tell us what their preferred alternative is. It is as if they think that saying people are imperfect is some sort of deeply held secret only they have figured out - and that sort of myopia makes me wonder how much they've actually thought about the issue.
I do not have a problem with your posts being incoherent.Your problem is your problem and I will help if you will allow.
Calling it coherent without actually making it coherent is as useful as calling it a cocker spaniel.God is spirit; this is a coherent definition;
Religionists are always ready to tell you what there god is not.God is not tangible;
...if he existed...Jesus Christ was
...at some undefinable time in the future...and will be tangible
...words were attributed to Jesus...and as Jesus said
So God is a human? Or what?if you have seen the son you have seen the father.
Your problem is that you have yet to define what *you* mean by "spirit". I am well aware of the etymology of the word, in that long before our current understanding of human physiology, breathing was something you did when you were alive; an unborn child was not alive until it took its first breath and got its 'spirit'. However, this is the 21st century, and you will need to be much more explicit when you use such words with others that do not hold your presuppositions.Your problem may be you do not believe spirits exist. Dictionary definition or most common usage of words is that if a person has intelligence and is breathing he is a spirit or has a spirit; if he is not breathing and intelligent he is dead; the Bible only require breathing to be present or absent; a person with out breath is a dead soul.
Indeed, as a.p. affirmed back in #435.It's always all-or-nothing with them.
I do not have a problem with your posts being incoherent.
Calling it coherent without actually making it coherent is as useful as calling it a cocker spaniel.
Religionists are always ready to tell you what there god is not.
...if he existed...
...at some undefinable time in the future...
...words were attributed to Jesus...
So God is a human? Or what?
Your problem is that you have yet to define what *you* mean by "spirit". I am well aware of the etymology of the word, in that long before our current understanding of human physiology, breathing was something you did when you were alive; an unborn child was not alive until it took its first breath and got its 'spirit'. However, this is the 21st century, and you will need to be much more explicit when you use such words with others that do not hold your presuppositions.
To reiterate: if you cannot define what you are talking about, how can I even consider the question of its existence?
That begs the question: how does one have an irrational perception of something that is not coherently defined?
Because we have seen this game too often: Once their wild fantasies turn out to be untenable, the former all-objectivists become epistemological nihilists out of a sudden.
I think what Archaeopteryx was alluding to was, do you think there exists any middle ground? As in, if this god stuff is just all in your head, what is your alternative?I'm not an epistemological nihilist. I'm an adherent of reformed epistemology.
Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. I do not know how you in particular use the word. Are you describing something real, or imaginary? You'll need to do more than simply assert your opinion.Do you need me to teach you to say Goo Goo or Da Da, if you want to know what spirit you can look in a dictionary.
God beliefs do. They are all over the place in these forums.Current understanding isn't an authority for any thing it is just a passing phase, God does not change.
The burden of defining your terms in a coherent manner lies with you.Before we can communicate we have to have common ground and we have none;
Can you explain how he might be alive after all this time?there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than any other man, even if people dispute who he was.
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?