Resurrection Evidence

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hey hey I will speculate that the resurrection of Jesus is important to you.

You do not believe it happened but you are on a Christian forum and I've seen you debate Christians.

My atheist friends do not waste their time going to Christian forums. Its possible that you are an ex Christian.

I'll stop the speculation. Why do you come to a Christian site like CF?

The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in Gods. I was a christian for long time. I am here because I like to learn new things, like debate and I want to know what is true ad what is false.

Ok, you can attack my position. Why not.

1. I read the words of our Lord and heard my Sheppard - scripture is my evidence.

I gave myself to Christ and put my trust in Him. I then received the Holy Spirit.

When I gave myself to Christ; I accepted that He was born for us, He lived for us, He died for us and was resurrected for us. So the resurrection of Jesus was integral for me to come to God.

2. I got the proof, I have a personal relationship with God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit confirms this.

Someone once said personal revelation is just hearsay to everyone else. I know you believe this is true but I don't see how you can demonstrate the truthfulness of your claims to others.

Now give me something good, what do you think and what have you got?

What do you mean what have I got?

 

[the iconoclast]

Someone once said personal revelation is just hearsay to everyone else.

Some may say that but hearsay and a personal experience are not the same thing. If they were then we would use hearsay everytime you had an experience that was personal.

I know you believe this is true but I don't see how you can demonstrate the truthfulness of your claims to others.

Give it another shot.

1. I read the words of our Lord and heard my Sheppard - scripture is my evidence.

I gave myself to Christ and put my trust in Him. I then received the Holy Spirit.

When I gave myself to Christ; I accepted that He was born for us, He lived for us, He died for us and was resurrected for us. So the resurrection of Jesus was integral for me to come to God.

2. I got the proof, I have a personal relationship with God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit confirms this.

What do you think about this? Tell me?

What do you mean what have I got?

What have you got ie what argument and explanations have you got to counter what I say?

How about this. What do you trust when it comes to truth?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I've proven 1+1+1+1=4 from the axioms. Not only do you not understand this, you seemingly don't understand what your own point is.

Hey hey I'm back. I'm busy with work so please excuse any delays.

Unfortunately my dear boy, you cannot prove something using nothing.

You need at least a few building blocks to start with. Mathematicians assume that axioms are true without being able to prove them.

If there are too few axioms, you can only prove very little and mathematics would not be very interesting.

You have tried to argue using empty sets as a comparison to something which has value.

1 empty crab pot x 4 = does give you 4 empty cray pots.

A seed is not an empty set and not a good comparison. What you think?

You are expressing doubt in the trilemma, and you've referenced 1+1+1+1=4 as an example for your case.

We can choose a different example to prove or disprove this so called trilemma. You do not like my example re seed equation.

What would you use an example to prove your case and what would you say to me to prove it? (.eg the so called trilemma)

It is then on you to prove 1+1+1+1=4 without deferring to axioms, without circular reasoning, and without infinite regress.

Well since I'm supposed to use this trilemma on the things that I perceive and guess what I have a tin of bird seed.

I grab 1 individual seed. I grab 1 more of the same variety. I grab another of the same variety and guess what I grab one more.

I can see that there are 4 seeds in my hand. 4 is the word we label this known quantity as. I just proved it to myself. How would i use the trilemma to disprove this truth of this?

Ps
I'm a slow learner and I want to learn. So far you have given me a link to wiki re trilemma and left me to figure it out without any help to better explain, and set me on the right path.

You've not only failed to do so, but you don't even seem to understand that this is what you're supposed to be doing.

I havent failed anything my dear.

I dont understand you havent done anything to explain and justify. You have a need to mock and belittle me. YOU fail me dear boy.

I need you to help me and to start explaining things - and I mean this trilemma and not axioms or empty sets or greek boats.

Let's get back to the start and I want you to explain things and not send me links.

What is the trilemma and how does it disprove truth?

You then invite me to attack your position. I'd like to do so while being on topic in the thread. Here's my attack:

Go for it. I've got nothing to hide and plenty to say.

There is not one person in history who satisfies the "Why die for a lie?" argument.

I am not familiar with this "why die for a lie" argument. What point are you trying to make or what is the meaning of this?

Ps I do not argue in speculation.

This statement is how a logical fallacy is set up. Do you know every person who lived?

That is, there is not one person in history who:

Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?

Why should I trust this statement?

1) says he/she witnessed the resurrection (or someone else says he/she saw it)

Is the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do you declare them to be and why should I trust you?

2) was captured by authorities and was given the opportunity to recant the faith in order to avoid torture/execution

Are you 100% certain that this could never happened?

So there has never been any man who has been captured by authorities and given the opportunity to recant his faith in order to avoid torture?

What has this statement got to do with my faith in our Lord and Christ,Jesus?

3) refused the pardon and suffered physically

Not one man ever? Why should I trust in your speculation?

Are you suggesting, that you know for a fact; that there has never been a person who witnessed the resurrection, got arrested and decided to suffer for his faith?

There is absolutely no known person in history who meets these criteria.

I want you to prove this assumption to me, how could you possibly know and prove this person never existed and why should I trust you?

To firmly set the goalposts, I'd say that if you could find me one such person then I'd be intrigued, but I'd really need two or three to be convinced of the resurrection.

Why am I still attacking your position?

You do realise that you are make more speculative claims for me to respond to, dont you?

What evidence do you require of me to prove this 'such' person you refer to?

Now dont back down and run away, like the way you have accused me of. You are in this until you win this and heads up. I'm no where near winning this, neither are you.

 

[the iconoclast]

It might be entertaining for you

Hey mate I'm busy with work and these 2 dear boys.

I'll get to you shortly. Dont worry I'm.not going anyway and you attend here religiously.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Some may say that but hearsay and a personal experience are not the same thing. If they were then we would use hearsay everytime you had an experience that was personal.

I agree. I did not say personal experience is hearsay to the person receiving the revelation. I said personal experience is hearsay to everyone else.

Give it another shot.

1. I read the words of our Lord and heard my Sheppard - scripture is my evidence.

How did you hear your Sheppard?

I gave myself to Christ and put my trust in Him. I then received the Holy Spirit.

When I gave myself to Christ; I accepted that He was born for us, He lived for us, He died for us and was resurrected for us. So the resurrection of Jesus was integral for me to come to God.

Ok, can you show me with good evidence that the holy spirit exists?

2. I got the proof, I have a personal relationship with God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit confirms this.

What do you think about this? Tell me?

That is fine for you, but there is no good reason to believe you that it is true. I am not saying you are lying, I am saying that I have no way to verify what you have said is true.

What if I said I had a personal relationship with Allah becasue he revealed himself to me? Why is a Damascus road experience not good enough for everyone?

What have you got ie what argument and explanations have you got to counter what I say?

I don't need any. You are making the claim, I am not making any claim. If the only evidence you have is personal revelation that is not good enough evidence for me to believe you.

How about this. What do you trust when it comes to truth?

I trust reason and logic to reveal truth. Now, these are presupposition of mine based on their effectiveness to get to truth. It is not 100% accurate but I can show that they are the best way to find truth. Science has got things wrong but it was always science that corrected the error. That is its strength. There has never been a case where science was wrong and religion corrected the error. It has always been the other way around.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey I'm back. I'm busy with work so please excuse any delays.

Unfortunately my dear boy, you cannot prove something using nothing.

Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing. That's the entire point of the trilemma. But because you don't accept the trilemma, you apparently believe there is a fourth option, despite clearly being unable to articulate what it is.

You need at least a few building blocks to start with. Mathematicians assume that axioms are true without being able to prove them.

Right... you've literally just conceded the entire argument.

If there are too few axioms, you can only prove very little and mathematics would not be very interesting.

You have tried to argue using empty sets as a comparison to something which has value.

1 empty crab pot x 4 = does give you 4 empty cray pots.

A seed is not an empty set and not a good comparison. What you think?

It doesn't matter that the empty set is empty because after the base case it is used as an element, not as a set, in the inductive steps.

We can choose a different example to prove or disprove this so called trilemma. You do not like my example re seed equation.

What would you use an example to prove your case and what would you say to me to prove it? (.eg the so called trilemma)

Literally all you have to do is come up with a fourth thing and you will disprove the trilemma.

Well since I'm supposed to use this trilemma

No... you're supposed to use a fourth option. Not the trilemma.

on the things that I perceive and guess what I have a tin of bird seed.

I grab 1 individual seed. I grab 1 more of the same variety. I grab another of the same variety and guess what I grab one more.

I can see that there are 4 seeds in my hand. 4 is the word we label this known quantity as. I just proved it to myself. How would i use the trilemma to disprove this truth of this?

I have already answered this question in excruciating detail.

Ps
I'm a slow learner and I want to learn. So far you have given me a link to wiki re trilemma and left me to figure it out without any help to better explain, and set me on the right path.

I also laid out the entire mathematical theory buoying my point.

I havent failed anything my dear.

You've failed to even understand what it is that you're arguing.

I dont understand you havent done anything to explain and justify.

I explained it to you with the primitive symbols and notions. The nuts and bolts, as you might say. You mocked the mathematics, if I recall correctly. And I find that to be about the most foolish thing imaginable.

You have a need to mock and belittle me. YOU fail me dear boy.

Unfortunately, your own words mock you. Don't blame me.

I need you to help me and to start explaining things - and I mean this trilemma and not axioms or empty sets or greek boats.

Simply come up with a fourth option. When you find that you can't, you'll understand the trilemma.

Let's get back to the start and I want you to explain things and not send me links.

What is the trilemma and how does it disprove truth?

I'm not going to explain the trilemma again. But I will answer your second question. The trilemma does not disprove truth. It merely shows that true statements ultimately cannot be verified.

Go for it. I've got nothing to hide and plenty to say.



I am not familiar with this "why die for a lie" argument. What point are you trying to make or what is the meaning of this?

The "Why die for a lie?" argument is in the apologist's toolkit. Go ahead and ask one of the apologists here.

Ps I do not argue in speculation.

OK.

This statement is how a logical fallacy is set up. Do you know every person who lived?

OK. Instead of "history" I should have said "recorded history" or "known history." Please substitute that in and re-read it. Hopefully that is to your satisfaction.

Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?

I don't know which horn of the trilemma historians wrestle with.

Why should I trust this statement?

Again, "recorded history" or "known history."

Is the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do you declare them to be and why should I trust you?

Irrelevant.

You've already failed to uphold the principle of charity, which is to basically engage the strongest and most sensible interpretation of your interlocutor's argument, when you mocked my misuse of "history" (as opposed to "known history"). But now instead of plainly reading the text uncharitably, you're reading into the text. I never said anything here about the trustworthiness of the gospels as sources.

Read it again.

Are you 100% certain that this could never happened?

Of course it could have happened. But it's not recorded in history. Please read the words. Please do not read words that aren't there.

So there has never been any man who has been captured by authorities and given the opportunity to recant his faith in order to avoid torture?

Sure there was. Polycarp, for example. But he was not said to be a witness of the resurrection. He was not even born until decades later.

Are you following the conversation?

What has this statement got to do with my faith in our Lord and Christ,Jesus?

You're in the apologetics forum. Do you know what apologetics is?

Not one man ever? Why should I trust in your speculation?

Go ahead and find someone. You can use any source you want. I don't care if it's secular, Christian, or even heretical works banned from Christianity. Literally any source you can find from within a century or two of Christ's crucifixion.

Are you suggesting, that you know for a fact; that there has never been a person who witnessed the resurrection, got arrested and decided to suffer for his faith?

No. I'm saying that such a thing was never recorded.

I want you to prove this assumption to me, how could you possibly know and prove this person never existed and why should I trust you?

There is no historical record, and that should be enough to settle the issue. I can't open up the oceans of time and show you.

Why am I still attacking your position?

Since when have you been attacking my position? This whole time you've been attacking your own position.

You do realise that you are make more speculative claims for me to respond to, dont you?

You merely need to show me two things and you will have destroyed every argument I've made to you on this thread.

What evidence do you require of me to prove this 'such' person you refer to?

Did you see the 1), 2), and 3) above?

Now dont back down and run away, like the way you have accused me of.

Accused? I still have the private message log. Shall I show you?

You are in this until you win this and heads up. I'm no where near winning this, neither are you.

Well, you're half right. That's progress!

 

[the iconoclast]

Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing.

Hey hey and cheers for the agreement.

Yet you tried to use 4 lots of nothing to prove it adds up to 4?

Iam confused now.

Why did you use 4 lots of nothing to prove something when you cannot prove something with nothing?

Ps Iam familiar with random sets. They are symbolically boxes with nothing in them but 4 lots of nothing is still nothing.

This axiomatic argument you have tried to pull is not concrete when you agree that nothing can prove something.

4 lots of nothing cannot prove something or is this contradiction lost on you?

What you think my new friend?

That's the entire point of the trilemma.

That there are only 3 options and yet those 3 options are still undesirable?!?!

It sounds like you are trying to reconcile contradictions.

Anyways after all your explanation of the trilemma I have decided that there is no need for it and if it creates a man of knowledge; it creates one who has complete uncertainty of truth and a disconnect from certainty.

But because you don't accept the trilemma, you apparently believe there is a fourth option, despite clearly being unable to articulate what it is.

Ok let's try another example, this will be my second example - the seed debate is still unresolved and will continue.

I have a personal experience with God. I tell you to read my testimony I gave to wampuscat.

I tell you you also can have a personal relationship with God.

How should I use the trilemma to disprove this truth?

Right... you've literally just conceded the entire argument.

Don't get too excited my dear boy. Hehehe

It doesn't matter that the empty set is empty because after the base case it is used as an element, not as a set, in the inductive steps.

We are talking about 4 seeds in my hand. 4 lots of nothing is still 4 lots of nothing. Putting a value to nothing here goes against what you just agreed too.

The virus said "Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing"

Literally all you have to do is come up with a fourth thing and you will disprove the trilemma.

I don't even agree with the 3 options you have given me but check this next part out.

No... you're supposed to use a fourth option. Not the trilemma.

I have 4 seeds in my hand.

The trilemma gives me;
1. An axiomatic argument - self evident.
2. A circular argument - circle in proving
3. Each proof requires a further proof - ad infinitum.

Check this out.

My argument is I have 4 seeds in my hand.

1. The proof of this proposition is not supported only by that proposition.

I have 4 seeds . It is called a seed because humans label what they find on earth for communication and ease.

I have a quantity I label as four. It is called four because humans communicate and it would be easy if those who do, had absolute value in meaning. That means there is no confusion.

So option 1 is useless here.

2. The proof of this propostion does not require a further proof. I put absolute value to a word and now it has a meaning.

3. The proof of this propositon does not rest on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.

A. Words have meaning which are not an asserted fact or belief confidently and forcefully stated.

They have absolute value.

B. A seed is a thing which you cannot deny exists. It is.

These 3 options are useless to me but if there is a 4th option it is certainty.

The 4th option to this trilllemma - that I don't accept or agree with - is certainty.

What say you?

I have already answered this question in excruciating detail.

Yeah but there is no harm in trying to get more clarity and to see how you react.

I also laid out the entire mathematical theory buoying my point.

Your argument seems to be "Even though you cannot prove something using nothing, 4 lots of nothing is comparable to 4 seeds?

The virus said "Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing"

What do you think about this contradiction?

You've failed to even understand what it is that you're arguing.

No my dear, don't do this to yourself.

I asked you what nothingness meant to you.

You gave me a link to this trilemma.

I gave you a a simple maths question - 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds - and asked you to disprove the truth of this statement.

You gave me 4 lots of nothing and say that you cannot prove something using nothing."

Are you that admit to cling to such a contradiction?

I explained it to you with the primitive symbols and notions. The nuts and bolts, as you might say. You mocked the mathematics, if I recall correctly.

Im curious. Please show me how I mocked you?

And I find that to be about the most foolish thing imaginable.

Well provide me with this comment I made, that you believe was mocking.

Unfortunately, your own words mock you. Don't blame me.

I disagree.

Simply come up with a fourth option. When you find that you can't, you'll understand the trilemma.

I disagree with the trilemma and have given you a fourth option. I'll see how you reply to it.

I'm not going to explain the trilemma again.

Fair enough. I believe I got enough info on it.

I disagree with it.

But I will answer your second question. The trilemma does not disprove truth. It merely shows that true statements ultimately cannot be verified.

Dude you really can't see what I'm up to, I'm glad you underestimate me.

Check this out.

You suggest you have a private msg of me 'running' away on you. You made a true statement (.e.g. "Accused? I still have the private message log. Shall I show you?")

That is not a false statement or else you would not have made it. That is a true statement.

You suggest that you have evidence to back up the truth. That's a fourth option. You have given a 4th option of certainty and proof.

This argument is not self evident - asserted. It is proved - defended.

Have you considered that your determination to make me look bad has backfired on you friend?

You want to prove your trilemma.

Show me how the trilemma disproves your true statement of proof?

Lets say you have this proof and it qualifies against me. Remember that wiki link re trilemma you sent me.

It says I can argue that proof? Do you agree that even given such proof and considering the trilemma, you still have no valid argument or certainty of what I did?

The "Why die for a lie?" argument is in the apologist's toolkit. Go ahead and ask one of the apologists here.

Fair enough, I'll pass right now. Iam not surprised that you already know.

Nihilst virus said on May 22, 2016 "I was born into a Christian home and indoctrinated into the faith my whole childhood. At 18 I backslid, then I got stronger in my faith and dedicated myself to reading the whole Bible. This utterly obliterated my faith."

I've been doing my research on you. I can't find what type of nihilist you are but if you won't tell me, I will eventually get there.

OK.

Fair enough.

OK. Instead of "history" I should have said "recorded history" or "known history." Please substitute that in and re-read it. Hopefully that is to your satisfaction.

Ok I'll reword my question to suit this.

My original question.
"This statement is how a logical fallacy is set up. Do you know every person who lived?"

My reworded question.
"This statement is STILL how a logical fallacy is setup. Have you read all recorded history?"

I don't know which horn of the trilemma historians wrestle with.

Im asking you. What horn would you wrestle with?

Here is the original question

"Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?"

Don't be shy?

Again, "recorded history" or "known history."

Ok I'll reword my statement to suit.

The original question.
"Why should I trust this statement?"

My records question

"Why should I trust this statement re known history or recorded?"

Are you familiar with all known history?

Irrelevant.

You've already failed to uphold the principle of charity, which is to basically engage the strongest and most sensible interpretation of your interlocutor's argument, when you mocked my misuse of "history" (as opposed to "known history"). But now instead of plainly reading the text uncharitably, you're reading into the text. I never said anything here about the trustworthiness of the gospels as sources.

Well you didn't answer my question.

I asked you

"If the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do YOU declare them to be and why should I trust you?"

I want to know how YOU feel and what YOU think and what argument YOU have.

Do you believe The Gospels are trustworthy or not?

Of course it could have happened.

Why do you believe it could have happened? Why are you uncertain that it didn't?

But it's not recorded in history.

Is the Bible not a recorded history? What qualifies as trustworthy when it comes to history?

Please read the words.

What words?

Please do not read words that aren't there.

What are you talking about friend?

Sure there was. Polycarp, for example. But he was not said to be a witness of the resurrection. He was not even born until decades later.

Are you following the conversation?

If you have to ask then I can only assume you have completely underestimated me and cannot predict what my strategy is.

I like it.

You're in the apologetics forum. Do you know what apologetics is?

I know what's up.

You still ignored my question so here it is again.

What has this statement got to do with my faith in our Lord and Christ,Jesus?

Go ahead and find someone. You can use any source you want. I don't care if it's secular, Christian, or even heretical works banned from Christianity. Literally any source you can find from within a century or two of Christ's crucifixion.

You still ignored my question. I will ask it again.

"Not one man ever? Why should I trust in your speculation?"

No. I'm saying that such a thing was never recorded.

How do you know, have you read all recorded history or why should I trust what you say?

There is no historical record, and that should be enough to settle the issue.

Because you say so, that means it is final.

It hasn't and I await your replies.

I can't open up the oceans of time and show you.

So does that mean those statements you made are what? Assumption, speculation, your hearts desire and what you want to be true?

Since when have you been attacking my position?

Grom.the moment I asked you what nothingness means to you. Don't do this to yourself, I already pity you.

This whole time you've been attacking your own position.

You really are desperate. Hehehe

If you say so.

You merely need to show me two things and you will have destroyed every argument I've made to you on this thread.

What 2 things - that you know of - that destroys the arguments that you know of?

That sounds weird. You already have the answers that make your arguments invalid. That sounds quite redundant for you to argue them, doesn't it?

Sounds dishonest that you would try to debate something you already know has failed?

Did you see the 1), 2), and 3) above?

You want me to scale over all know history - of the relative periods? I'm not going to do that so I cannot do what you ask of.

I got one better for you. Are you willing to come to God through His way; to get the proof or what have you done to get the proof that Jesus is Salvation.

Accused? I still have the private message log. Shall I show you?

Go for it. I would love to see what you got.

It may help me out re trilemma and proof.

Well, you're half right. That's progress!

Well you never said what half and from what I can gather about your replies so far, it's not you.

Let's have fun. I'm reading and doing research on you now.

Ps
Love your remark about the rapist scientist. My speculation is that you may be in your early 20s.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I agree. I did not say personal experience is hearsay to the person receiving the revelation. I said personal experience is hearsay to everyone else.

Hey hey Friend

No.

Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

"according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the person had no direct experience.

An example of hearsay with regards to my testimony would be you telling someone else about my testimony.

In that example I'm 1st person, you would be second person and the other would be third person.

What's up right now is I had an experience - 1st person - and I tell you - 2nd person.

I'm the person who had practical contact with and observation of facts or events (.e.g. experience with God). It was an event or occurrence which left an impression on me.

I haven't told you yet so here it is.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

Tgis could not happen without the resurrection of our Lord.

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

How did you hear your Sheppard?

Figure of speech. It's not an audible voice.

When I say I hear my Sheppard. This relates to scripture - you being an ex Christian should be aware of the meaning.

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

When I read the words of Jesus I know He is Salvation. I am His. He is mine.

What say you?

Ok, can you show me with good evidence that the holy spirit exists?

Ill try my best. Firstly what type of evidence do you require?

That is fine for you, but there is no good reason to believe you that it is true. I am not saying you are lying,

What good reason do you have to disbelieve me?

Why do you believe im not lying?

I am saying that I have no way to verify what you have said is true.

You can dear boy.

You can come to God His way. If you feel you did enough, then what did you do to get a personal relationship with God? I would like you to give me detail.

Why did you decide to reject your and my Lord?

What if I said I had a personal relationship with Allah becasue he revealed himself to me?

Well, that did not happen to you. Speculation is not needed here.

Do you - being an atheist - wish to preach Islam to me?

I don't accept Allah or His Prophet, I got the truth through Jesus Christ. I have no need for Islam.

What do I think about personal experiences of other religion?

Not familiar with any. Should I be aware of something?

(You didnt ask but it relates here) What do I think about Zeus?

He may exist, don't know. I had an experience through Jesus and I will adhear to "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"

What you think?

Why is a Damascus road experience not good enough for everyone?

What Damascus road experiences do you want to discuss?

I would assume you reject them, you are atheist. Why are you allowed to reject them?

How are you certain that there is no supernatural?

I don't need any. You are making the claim, I am not making any claim.

I am telling you about a personal experience and I asked you to attack it.

Are you suggesting that you need no argument or explanations to counter my personal experience?

Well, you just countered me with a Damascus road argument and you reduced my experience to hearsay.

This is the ammo you have so far. These are your arguments so far. What else have you got and what more can you give me?

If the only evidence you have is personal revelation that is not good enough evidence for me to believe you.

Why is that not good enough for you? What more do you require? What do you need to come to God His way?

I trust reason and logic to reveal truth.
Now, these are presupposition of mine based on their effectiveness to get to truth. It is not 100% accurate but I can show that they are the best way to find truth.

Let's test it out. Use reason and logic against my testimony?

What about logic and reason? I use it everyday at work. I measure, test, observe - scientific method - 5 days a week.

How does reason and logic reveal the truth to you?

Science has got things wrong but it was always science that corrected the error. That is its strength.

I love your faith in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts.

Sciencism.

Your trust is in authority of Men who wear lab coats and have a PhD at the back of their name.

Endurance is strength. An enduring faith against opposition is stronger.

What is an example of a thing science got wrong and then corrected it?

Ps
I thought you didn't make claims?

There has never been a case where science was wrong and religion corrected the error. It has always been the other way around.

Here I am a Christian who had to correct you on the use of hearsay.

When you debate me I expect certainty in words, please don't muck around with semantics.

I have access to a dictionary my new friend. Let's reason together.

Cheers

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hey hey Friend

No.

Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

"according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the person had no direct experience.

An example of hearsay with regards to my testimony would be you telling someone else about my testimony.

In that example I'm 1st person, you would be second person and the other would be third person.

What's up right now is I had an experience - 1st person - and I tell you - 2nd person.

I'm the person who had practical contact with and observation of facts or events (.e.g. experience with God). It was an event or occurrence which left an impression on me.

I agree, I made a mistake. I meant to say revelation is hearsay to others, not personal experience. But thanks for the tutorial.

I haven't told you yet so here it is.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

How do you know you were given the Holy Spirit.

Tgis could not happen without the resurrection of our Lord.

How have you determined this?

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

I believe you had the experience. What makes you believe it was supernatural?

Figure of speech. It's not an audible voice.

When I say I hear my Sheppard. This relates to scripture - you being an ex Christian should be aware of the meaning.

Yes, but I wanted to know hat you experienced or believed not what I believed. Some Christians say they hear audible voices.

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

When I read the words of Jesus I know He is Salvation. I am His. He is mine.

What say you?

How do you know your feeling or "knowing" is supernatural and from the christian God?

Ill try my best. Firstly what type of evidence do you require?

Evidence that convinces me. I cannot tell you what that evidence will be? If I tell you what type would convince me I could disregard evidence that would convince me.

What good reason do you have to disbelieve me?

I don't need any. I don't have sufficient reason to believe you. I don't need reasons to not believe you. You are claiming something, I get to evaluate that claim based on my epistemology and standards of evidence.

Why do you believe im not lying?

I don't know you are not but I generally believe people until I have a reason to believe they are untrustworthy.

You can dear boy.

Well I am not a boy.

You can come to God His way. If you feel you did enough, then what did you do to get a personal relationship with God? I would like you to give me detail.

Why did you decide to reject your and my Lord?

I am not inclined to do this. For this reason. Whenever I tell someone what I did or what I believed they just pick one thing and say aha!, that is the reason you stopped believing. Christians have a need to find a reason I no longer believe so they can sleep at night.

I will say that I have not rejected God. I studied the bible and epistemology and became unconvinced becasue my reasons for believing were insufficient. I do not say god doe snot exist, only that I am not convinced by the evidence that he does.

Well, that did not happen to you. Speculation is not needed here.

Do you - being an atheist - wish to preach Islam to me?

I don't accept Allah or His Prophet, I got the truth through Jesus Christ. I have no need for Islam.

Can you see though there is no difference to me when you claim an experience with the christian god and another's experience claim with a Muslim god?

What do I think about personal experiences of other religion?

If they can convince me they are real I will believe them as well.

Not familiar with any. Should I be aware of something?

(You didnt ask but it relates here) What do I think about Zeus?

He may exist, don't know. I had an experience through Jesus and I will adhear to "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"

What you think?

I think the same about the Christian god, he may exist, I don't know.

What Damascus road experiences do you want to discuss?

I would assume you reject them, you are atheist. Why are you allowed to reject them?

How are you certain that there is no supernatural?

I never said there is no supernatural or that gods don't exist.

I am telling you about a personal experience and I asked you to attack it.

Are you suggesting that you need no argument or explanations to counter my personal experience?

Well, you just countered me with a Damascus road argument and you reduced my experience to hearsay.

This is the ammo you have so far. These are your arguments so far. What else have you got and what more can you give me?

For what? I have no arguments against your experiences. I am just giving reasons why they are not convincing to me to believe them.

Why is that not good enough for you? What more do you require? What do you need to come to God His way?

I don't know but should not God know? If so, then either he doesn't exist or does not want me to believe, either way it is not my error. I have insufficient evidence to believe, God can provide that, he has not.

Let's test it out. Use reason and logic against my testimony?

What about logic and reason? I use it everyday at work. I measure, test, observe - scientific method - 5 days a week.

How does reason and logic reveal the truth to you?

What are you asking me? My epistemological understanding? Your testimony should not be believed becasue you have not demonstrated through evidence to my satisfaction that it is true.

I love your faith in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts.

Sciencism.

NO!, It is not scientism and it is not faith (I believe women as well). Science has demonstrated it is the best pathway to truth we have. Religion has demonstrated time and time again it is not. What do we know today that religion has solely provided to us?

Your trust is in authority of Men who wear lab coats and have a PhD at the back of their name.

I believe the women as well. It is not the same trust as you have in your god. Science corrects itself, it demonstrates this everyday, religion cannot.

Here I am a Christian who had to correct you on the use of hearsay.

When you debate me I expect certainty in words, please don't muck around with semantics.

I have access to a dictionary my new friend. Let's reason together.

Cheers

Yes, you scolded me sufficiently. I explained I used the wrong word. Sorry I make mistakes.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey and cheers for the agreement.

Yet you tried to use 4 lots of nothing to prove it adds up to 4?

No, I didn't.

Iam confused now.

Why did you use 4 lots of nothing to prove something when you cannot prove something with nothing?

I said that the symbol Ø is a primitive symbol, which means it has no definition. This takes us back to the trilemma. It is colloquially thought of as an empty set.

Even if it actually was an empty set, a set containing nothing is not itself nothing.

Ps Iam familiar with random sets.

I'm not. What are random sets?

They are symbolically boxes with nothing in them but 4 lots of nothing is still nothing.

Oh, you mean empty sets. Not random sets.

OK, if you think of it as a box containing nothing, how is it that you think the box itself is nothing?

This axiomatic argument you have tried to pull is not concrete when you agree that nothing can prove something.

4 lots of nothing cannot prove something or is this contradiction lost on you?

What you think my new friend?

1.) I cannot use nothing to prove something.
2.) A box containing nothing is itself something, so it is not nothing.
3.) I used something which is not nothing to prove something.

Where is the contradiction?

That there are only 3 options and yet those 3 options are still undesirable?!?!

Correct. You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?

It sounds like you are trying to reconcile contradictions.

Nope. What contradiction?

Anyways after all your explanation of the trilemma I have decided that there is no need for it and if it creates a man of knowledge; it creates one who has complete uncertainty of truth and a disconnect from certainty.

OK, so you're rejecting a self-evident principle because you don't like the conclusion of it? That is the appeal to consequences logical fallacy.

Ok let's try another example, this will be my second example - the seed debate is still unresolved and will continue.

I have a personal experience with God. I tell you to read my testimony I gave to wampuscat.

Don't care.

I tell you you also can have a personal relationship with God.

If I wanted a personal relationship with a child killer, then I'd visit prisoners.

How should I use the trilemma to disprove this truth?

I already told you that the trilemma does not disprove truths.

Don't get too excited my dear boy. Hehehe



We are talking about 4 seeds in my hand. 4 lots of nothing is still 4 lots of nothing. Putting a value to nothing here goes against what you just agreed too.

The virus said "Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing"

Explain to me how a box containing nothing is itself nothing.

I don't even agree with the 3 options you have given me but check this next part out.



I have 4 seeds in my hand.

The trilemma gives me;
1. An axiomatic argument - self evident.
2. A circular argument - circle in proving
3. Each proof requires a further proof - ad infinitum.

Check this out.

My argument is I have 4 seeds in my hand.

1. The proof of this proposition is not supported only by that proposition.

I have 4 seeds . It is called a seed because humans label what they find on earth for communication and ease.

I have a quantity I label as four. It is called four because humans communicate and it would be easy if those who do, had absolute value in meaning. That means there is no confusion.

So option 1 is useless here.

We don't do proofs about physical reality. Those are called demonstrations and they're unavoidably subject to a degree of uncertainty.

Anyway, how would it not be self evident that you are holding the seeds?

2. The proof of this propostion does not require a further proof. I put absolute value to a word and now it has a meaning.

How do you put absolute value to a word, and what does that even mean?

3. The proof of this propositon does not rest on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.

A. Words have meaning which are not an asserted fact or belief confidently and forcefully stated.

What?

They have absolute value.

So... are they vectors or something?

B. A seed is a thing which you cannot deny exists. It is.

These 3 options are useless to me but if there is a 4th option it is certainty.

The 4th option to this trilllemma - that I don't accept or agree with - is certainty.

What say you?

I say you just pulled that out of thin air.

Yeah but there is no harm in trying to get more clarity and to see how you react.



Your argument seems to be "Even though you cannot prove something using nothing, 4 lots of nothing is comparable to 4 seeds?

The virus said "Yes, exactly. You cannot prove something using nothing"

What do you think about this contradiction?

Again, a box of nothing is itself not nothing. I don't understand how you sat there writing this entire post and that fact never occurred to you.

No my dear, don't do this to yourself.

I asked you what nothingness meant to you.

You gave me a link to this trilemma.

I gave you a a simple maths question - 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds - and asked you to disprove the truth of this statement.

That's a stupid request. Why would I attempt to disprove 1+1+1+1=4? Furthermore, the trilemma cannot be used to prove things false.

You gave me 4 lots of nothing and say that you cannot prove something using nothing."

Are you that admit to cling to such a contradiction?

It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation. Please at least be courteous enough proofread your posts before posting them so I don't have to keep seeing gibberish like this.

Im curious. Please show me how I mocked you?

I said you mocked mathematics. I didn't say you mocked me.

Well provide me with this comment I made, that you believe was mocking.

Look over what you said in post #617. It sure wasn't a response to the mathematics. Tell me what you call it.

I disagree.



I disagree with the trilemma and have given you a fourth option. I'll see how you reply to it.

I'm certain you're wrong.

Fair enough. I believe I got enough info on it.

I disagree with it.



Dude you really can't see what I'm up to, I'm glad you underestimate me.

Check this out.

You suggest you have a private msg of me 'running' away on you. You made a true statement (.e.g. "Accused? I still have the private message log. Shall I show you?")

That is not a false statement or else you would not have made it. That is a true statement.

You suggest that you have evidence to back up the truth. That's a fourth option. You have given a 4th option of certainty and proof.

This argument is not self evident - asserted. It is proved - defended.

It wouldn't be proof. It would simply be evidence. Some would say it's compelling, while others might suggest it is Photoshopped. Proofs exist only in abstraction, not in reality.

Have you considered that your determination to make me look bad has backfired on you friend?

This whole cat and mouse game is you trying to make me look bad by picking on nihilism instead of dealing with things that are actually important.

You want to prove your trilemma.

There exists no counter-example to the trilemma. It has not been proved, nor can it, due to the very nature of the claims it makes.

Show me how the trilemma disproves your true statement of proof?

Once again, the trilemma does not disprove truth.

Lets say you have this proof and it qualifies against me. Remember that wiki link re trilemma you sent me.

It says I can argue that proof? Do you agree that even given such proof and considering the trilemma, you still have no valid argument or certainty of what I did?

I have no idea what on earth it is you're asking me.

Fair enough, I'll pass right now. Iam not surprised that you already know.

Nihilst virus said on May 22, 2016 "I was born into a Christian home and indoctrinated into the faith my whole childhood. At 18 I backslid, then I got stronger in my faith and dedicated myself to reading the whole Bible. This utterly obliterated my faith."

I've been doing my research on you. I can't find what type of nihilist you are but if you won't tell me, I will eventually get there.

I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth.

I've seen nothing but silly attempts, such as something like this:

Either absolute truth exists or it doesn't.

Suppose it does. Then the case is proven.

Suppose it doesn't. If this is absolutely true, then absolute truth does exist.

Therefore, absolute truth exists.

This stupid argument rests upon the law of excluded middle, which not only fails to be true in any possible world, but it fails to be true in our own world. Quantum mechanics is a counter-example. Furthermore, the law of excluded middle is just another assertion and has firmly grasped the second horn of the trilemma.

Fair enough.



Ok I'll reword my question to suit this.

My original question.
"This statement is how a logical fallacy is set up. Do you know every person who lived?"

My reworded question.
"This statement is STILL how a logical fallacy is setup. Have you read all recorded history?"

The combined efforts of apologists through the ages have certainly managed to read everything that survived the first couple centuries after Christ. Go and ask them and see the best they've got to offer.

Im asking you. What horn would you wrestle with?

Here is the original question

"Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?"

Don't be shy?

I need to look no further than this very conversation to know what confident ignorance looks like. I'm not going to bluster and blather on about the meticulous methods of historians as though I actually know.

Ok I'll reword my statement to suit.

The original question.
"Why should I trust this statement?"

My records question

"Why should I trust this statement re known history or recorded?"

Are you familiar with all known history?

Of course I'm not familiar with all known history. This is why I'm asking you to find me an example.

Well you didn't answer my question.

I asked you

"If the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do YOU declare them to be and why should I trust you?"

Irrelevant.

I want to know how YOU feel and what YOU think and what argument YOU have.

Do you believe The Gospels are trustworthy or not?

What makes you think I'll dignify your tangents with a response? You asked me for my attack. I've given it to you. Defend that, not this red herring you've invented.

Why do you believe it could have happened? Why are you uncertain that it didn't?

Because I wasn't there. Duh!

Is the Bible not a recorded history? What qualifies as trustworthy when it comes to history?

The Bible is a record of history. I already told you that you can use ANY source whatsoever so long as it is within two centuries of the crucifixion.

What words?

The words I say.

What are you talking about friend?

I'm talking about you fabricating things and accusing me of saying things I hadn't said.

If you have to ask then I can only assume you have completely underestimated me and cannot predict what my strategy is.

I like it.



I know what's up.

You still ignored my question so here it is again.

What has this statement got to do with my faith in our Lord and Christ,Jesus?

Ask apologists. They're the ones who came up with the "Why die for a lie?" argument.

You still ignored my question. I will ask it again.

"Not one man ever? Why should I trust in your speculation?"

It's not speculation. It's a challenge. Find a few counter-examples. At least one but a few would be preferred.

How do you know, have you read all recorded history or why should I trust what you say?

You asked for an attack. I gave it. You're supposed to defend it, but instead you're just standing there flatfooted without a clue what is even happening.

Because you say so, that means it is final.

It hasn't and I await your replies.



So does that mean those statements you made are what? Assumption, speculation, your hearts desire and what you want to be true?

The statements are a challenge. Exactly what you asked for. Are you always like this? Do you go into a restaurant, order a burger, and then express confusion when one is served to you?

Grom.the moment I asked you what nothingness means to you. Don't do this to yourself, I already pity you.

Thanks, I will cherish your pity.

You really are desperate. Hehehe

If you say so.



What 2 things - that you know of - that destroys the arguments that you know of?

The two main things we've been talking about this whole time.

That sounds weird. You already have the answers that make your arguments invalid. That sounds quite redundant for you to argue them, doesn't it?

Sounds dishonest that you would try to debate something you already know has failed?

Huh? I'm not saying I know my points have failed. I'm merely inviting you to disprove them.

You want me to scale over all know history - of the relative periods? I'm not going to do that so I cannot do what you ask of.

Not all of history. Christian history during the first two centuries. You shouldn't even have to scour history. Talk to apologists.

I got one better for you. Are you willing to come to God through His way; to get the proof or what have you done to get the proof that Jesus is Salvation.

That is a better one, indeed. You're right. Quite the knee slapper.

Go for it. I would love to see what you got.

It may help me out re trilemma and proof.

You said,





Sorry enough theatrics from me.
Short answer it was a double prophecy.

Isaiah 8 gives you the prophecy fullfilled in isaiahs day - prophetess being the maiden/virgin.

Promise of the messiah in jesus.

Im sorry i know i instigated this conversation but im going to move on. It may be a waste of my time as you seem to have dug yourself in a hole and dont want to be corrected.

God bless you and keep you safe. If you ever wanna get serious or need a friend pm me. If not, just know that there is God.





That is where you tucked tail and ran. Remember?

Well you never said what half and from what I can gather about your replies so far, it's not you.

Let's have fun. I'm reading and doing research on you now.

Ps
Love your remark about the rapist scientist. My speculation is that you may be in your early 20s.

Cheers

Lol, another e-stalker.

 

[the iconoclast]

I agree, I made a mistake. I meant to say revelation is hearsay to others, not personal experience. But thanks for the tutorial.

Hey hey you diamond

Check this out. You originally said this to me.

"Someone once said personal revelation is just hearsay to everyone else."

Then when you were pressed you say this.

"I agree. I did not say personal experience is hearsay to the person receiving the revelation. I said personal experience is hearsay to everyone else."

When shown how to use the word hearsay you say this.

"I meant to say revelation is hearsay to others, not personal experience. But thanks for the tutorial."

Here's more tutorial

Revelation means a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.

Hearsay means information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

For a revelation to be hearsay;
A. I'm the person who has a revelation - 1st person
B. I tell you - 2nd person
C. You tell someone else of my revelation or experience - 3rd person.

C. Is hearsay.

I'm speaking to you (.eg 1st person speakimg to 2nd person), so my revelation or experience is not hearsay to you - 2nd person. It would be hearsay to the 3rd person.

You are an ex Christian. I have given you my testimony and told you thatbyou can have a personal relationship with God.

What say you?

How do you know you were given the Holy Spirit.

Well let's try this and we will see what else you require or how you react.

I was in church. I was having hands laid on me by women who spoke in tongues. I went into a vision where I cried out to Jesus to save me from falling into a volcano.

At the end of the vision there was fire and flame (symbolism for the Holy Spirit, you should know this).

After I came to I was completely changed. The experience was so vivid that it effected me. After this experience I felt new and changed. Something was different and my view was changed.

The Holy Spirit is an aspect or agent of God, by means of which people become his messenger or servant, receive gifts, communication, are guided and are convicted.

I became His servant.

The fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

I have felt such joy in prayer through the Holy Spirit, it felt like I could do backflips. I've seen the power of the Spirit and I am not the only one.

I have been shown things that I could not possibly have known. The Holy Spirit has shown me things and given me intuitions that guide me.

Granted I still get things wrong here and there, I'm still human like all of us. Limitations, faults and sin.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I know I have received the Spirit because it convicts my heart and I never had this sensation previous. It guides me like what is promised in Scripture.

It aligns with what was promised to me.

What do you think?

How have you determined this?

Because Jesus promised the Comforter to us after His resurrection.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

The Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus. If Jesus did not die for my sin's and was not resurrected then I should not be able to receive the Spirit.

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.

"Who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God."

The Holy Spirit is intregal to the resurrection.

What you think?

I believe you had the experience. What makes you believe it was supernatural?

So you believe i do not lie and you do not reject that I had this experience.

This experience did happen to me. If it could happen to me what does that mean to you?

Why do I believe it was supernatural? What happened/happens is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Is there a scientific understanding of what happened to me?

What would you call that happened to me and how do you justify your explanation of the events?

Once you give your explanation, why should I trust that your explanation?

Yes, but I wanted to know hat you experienced or believed not what I believed. Some Christians say they hear audible voices.

Well now you have my explanation. Did you ever hear the words of your Sheppard when you were Christian?

Ps
What denom were you and how serious did you take Jesus Christ as salvation?

How do you know your feeling or "knowing" is supernatural and from the christian God?

1. Because I sought after Jesus - not Zeus.

2. I tested the Spirits to see if they were from God.

3. This experience is not how you reach nirvana. Nirvana is more about nothingness.

4. It's not Islam as I cried to Jesus and saw the trinity.

5. No dharma = not hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism and this experience has Christian symbolism in it. My dear girl, the vision did not have any other religious sysmolism.

There was fire, I was souring in the sky, I cried to Jesus, I saw the Trinity, I was having hands laid on me, the 2 women were speaking in tongues, i was committed to Jesus and knew in my heart What I had met. Do you need anymore?

This was definitely attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I was deeply effected, to the point were I'm telling you. To the point were ppl openly mock me and I still tell.

It effected me so greatly that im willing to die for Jesus and live my life through Him.

What say you?

Evidence that convinces me. I cannot tell you what that evidence will be?

Thanks for the honesty however you just admitted to bias.

You know what you would accept but you don't know what you would accept.

If you do not know what evidence you would accept, then that you weighted one side against the other.

Do you even know what evidence to expect? Would you know the proof if it landed under your nose?

In order to perform an experiment you must know what outcome you are looking for.

You must follow the recipe (.e.g. to filter water, you don't use sand,)

Have a think. What evidence would you accept and what would you expect?

If I tell you what type would convince me I could disregard evidence that would convince me.

Why would you do that?

I don't need any.
I don't have sufficient reason to believe you.

So it all comes down to trust. What do you require to trust me that I speak the truth?

I don't need reasons to not believe you. You are claiming something, I get to evaluate that claim based on my epistemology and standards of evidence.

What standard of evidence do you evaluate my claim by?

When we consider epistemology (.e.g. the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)

What about your epistemology that evaluates my claim? How do you use it in regards to my testimony?

I don't know you are not but I generally believe people until I have a reason to believe they are untrustworthy.

So judging by this reply you have no good reason to doubt what I said.

It happened to me and I have nothing to gain from telling you. In this world it's actually a disadvantage to me, but here I am telling you something which is fantastic yet it happened and it happens.

What say you?

Well I am not a boy.

So, my dear girl.

I am not inclined to do this. For this reason. Whenever I tell someone what I did or what I believed they just pick one thing and say aha!, that is the reason you stopped believing.

What reason? Could you please explain what reason and what thing 'they' pick? What reason did you have to stop believing?

What happened?

Christians have a need to find a reason I no longer believe so they can sleep at night.

That's not true, that is a generalised statement (.e.g. a variant on a true scotsman) and contemptuous - ridicule.

I believed in Jesus because I was convinced by Him. I followed the Christian faith formula and got the Spirit.

This has got nothing to do with sleep - remember what Jesus said about worrying. I do not need to worry, Iam saved and I do not care what other think (ask my atheist friends, they will not debate me)

I will say that I have not rejected God.

Good.

You should change your info because right now you call yourself atheist. I have not meet an atheist who says he accepts God.

What are you then?

I studied the bible and epistemology and became unconvinced becasue my reasons for believing were insufficient.

What were these reasons that made you unconvinced?

What reasons were insufficient in comparison?

What thing do you find out that shattered your faith? Tell me, I told you my experience re faith. Tell me your experience re doubt?

I do not say god doe snot exist, only that I am not convinced by the evidence that he does.

What evidence is unconvincing, what about the evidence or the situation makes you doubt He does?

Can you see though there is no difference to me when you claim an experience with the christian god and another's experience claim with a Muslim god?

I don't.

You are making a category error. Islam is not Christianity. They are both faiths but a chair is not hat stand is not a table. They are both furniture. Different.

For starters I told you about a real time experience that happened to me. You asked me to speculate on a theoretical experience that did not happen to you.

Why is my claim no different? What does my claim have in similarity to a Muslim experience?

What is a religious experience that a Muslim (You are aware of) had to compare to what happened to me?

What experiences do Muslims have and why are they are stumbling block for you to come to Jesus or an issue for my Faith in Jesus?

Ps
I gave you a reason why I do not seek out other Gods (.e.g. I got the truth through Jesus and God commands that i have no other Gods).

Why do you not seek out Zeus and why don't you do what is necessary to prove his existence?

 

[the iconoclast]

If they can convince me they are real I will believe them as well.

Well that is an issue, you cannot have it both ways.

Islam is not Christianity and both claim something different.

Islam rejects the Deity of Christ and it's main goal is for you to submit and accept the Prophet, and his word.

Spirituality in Islam contradicts the spiritually of Christianity. The goal of Islam in incompatible and heresy to Christianity. The Trinity is blasphemy to Islam and the concept of 'God' in both religions are totally different. (Ask me)

There is only one truth and all religions do not agree. All religions contradict each other except for some common ground re morality.

You need to make a firm decision on Who is Jesus Christ and is He Who He says He is?

Ps you ignored a question.

What Damascus road experiences - of other religions - are you aware of?

I think the same about the Christian god, he may exist, I don't know.

Do you want to know or do you want to live in uncertainty?

I never said there is no supernatural or that gods don't exist.

So (you being an atheist) do you believe or agree that the supernatural exists?

Do you as - an atheist - believe there are other Gods? What reason do you have not to care?

I gave you one.

Ps - if you are not an atheist then you should change your information to suit your beliefs.

For what?
I have no arguments against your experiences. I am just giving reasons why they are not convincing to me to believe them.

You are yet to give me any reasons. How about we start off with at least one?

What Is one reason do you have?

I don't know but should not God know?

God should know why that is not good enough for you. God should know What more do you require?

Well I don't know. You haven't justified anything to me yet.

So, Why is that not good enough for you? What more do you require? What do you need to come to God His way?

Please do not ignore this question. If you have an issue and are unsure how to reply then ask me?

If so, then either he doesn't exist or does not want me to believe, either way it is not my error.

Explain to me why if it is so then he doesn't exist or does not want you to believe?

Why is it God's fault that you do not believe in God?

I have insufficient evidence to believe, God can provide that, he has not.

What does He need to provide?

Have a think and be systematic - like a scientist.

What evidence has he not provided you, what evidence do you need to believe?

What are you asking me?

To use reason and logic against my testimony?

You say reason and logic guide you. Then it should guide you right now.

How does reason and logic reveal the truth to you?

I need better detail and I need you to justify and explain your position.

My epistemological understanding?

Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

So how does this understanding reveal truth?

What specifically about your epistemological understanding relates here?

Your testimony should not be believed becasue you have not demonstrated through evidence to my satisfaction that it is true.

What would evidence is needed to satisfy and how would you like me to demonstrate it?

NO!, It is not scientism and it is not faith
(I believe women as well).

Faith=complete trust

If you do not trust science then what is your relationship to it?

You say you trust in logic and reason. What is it about logic and reason that makes it trustworthy.

Do you trust in my logic and reasoning, someone's else logic and reasoning, your own logic and reasoning or is logic and reasoning a power to in it self?

(I believe women as well).

I had to highlight this part of that reply.

I said "I love your faith in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts."

You say it's not faith but then you say you believe women as well. So you just admitted to trust which is faith.

So you have faith - trust- in the conclusions and thoughts of men - and women - who reason with facts.

Sciencism.

Science has demonstrated it is the best pathway to truth we have.

Science means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific method Is what sciences utilize.

Scientific method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Human beings make conclusions.

Human beings test.

Human beings interpret facts.

Your trust is in human beings who were lab coats and have our at the back of their name.

This is fine when we have results. I do not disagree with a tried and tested result.

I trust a scientist to prove that he cN filter my water. I trust an experiment which proves something constantly.

Let's try this out.

You trust the scientific method and you want to prove a result.

I want you to be systematic just like science is. I want you to use the scientific method on Christian faith.

I believe if you did so then you would be unbiased because you are proving this to yourself or do you need to be told what to think?

I'm throwing a challenge to you. You want to be certain, you want to know what evidence you would accept. Then put your money were your mouth is and so some spiritual research?

Religion has demonstrated time and time again it is not. What do we know today that religion has solely provided to us?

That you need to be reconciled with God because you are born into sin. That's what this religion - actually it's a faith - has provided us.

Jesus died for you sins and so you can have an afterlife and not be somewhere where you wish you won't.

That's what Christians - a faith - has provided.

Off the tio of my head, The Bible spoke of orions belt expanding before science proved it in the 80's.

I can try and find some but science is the study of the physical and natural universe. Religion is the study of the Spiritsul, the supernatural and morality.

Ps I don't have any belief in evolution but I bet you trust in it.

What do you think about your afterlife? What happens if you get things wrong?

I believe the women as well.

Believe means to accept (something) as true.

If that's not Sciencism and faith then what is it?

Do you distrust things you accept as true?

It is not the same trust as you have in your god.

You just admitted that there is trust. Trust=faith=Sciencism.

I got a result.

I followed a formula - Christian faith formula.

Others have also been successful.

How is a trust in science different to trust in God?

Science corrects itself, it demonstrates this everyday, religion cannot.

That admits that science get things wrong. If it corrects it self it cannot always be right.

You mean to say "new information and data is discovered and HUMANS correct the errors". Not science is self correcting. You make it sound like science is conscious and a force.

See you have a faith = Sciencism.

Yes, you scolded me sufficiently. I explained I used the wrong word. Sorry I make mistakes.

Yet you still try and use hearsay in the incorrect way. Just one more time.

Hearsay is when; the 2nd person tells the 3rd person about what the 1st person says.

I'm first person

You are 2nd person.

Any ways can't wait for your reply.

 

[the iconoclast]

No, I didn't.

I said that the symbol Ø is a primitive symbol, which means it has no definition. This takes us back to the trilemma. It is colloquially thought of as an empty set.


Even if it actually was an empty set, a set containing nothing is not itself nothing.

Hey hey

"The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists."

Jonathan Lowe argues that while the empty set:

"...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, … we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object."

it is also the case that:

"All that we are ever informed about the empty set is that it (1) is a set, (2) has no members, and (3) is unique amongst sets in having no members. However, there are very many things that 'have no members', in the set-theoretical sense—namely, all non-sets. It is perfectly clear why these things have no members, for they are not sets. What is unclear is how there can be, uniquely amongst sets, a set which has no members. We cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation."

The slashed zero is asserted - no questions asked.

Not defended - proved.

It Is argued that the slashed zero is not the same as nothing, however a container drawn on paper is only theoretical.

A set of no members is still a set with no members (.e.g. nothing). A set is always something.

Google define a set

MATHEMATICS•LOGIC
a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or (more usually) satisfying specified conditions.

"the set of all positive integers"

Now the balls in your court.

With respect to all the points i brought up, convince me that an empty set can be a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit? (.e.g. The definition of a set).

Oh, you mean empty sets. Not random sets.


OK, if you think of it as a box containing nothing, how is it that you think the box itself is nothing?

Please forgive me for my error re random. You are correct I meant empty.

I though the container () was theoretical and on paper.

Do empty sets exist in reality? Please provide a physical example?

1.) I cannot use nothing to prove something.

2.) A box containing nothing is itself something, so it is not nothing.

3.) I used something which is not nothing to prove something.


Where is the contradiction?

Let's not use the word box as it twists the argument. Let's use container.

1. So it is agreed, you cannot use nothing to prove something.

2. The container does not have any distinct entities individually specified.

3. You used something theoretical as a comparison to a real world example.

Container - an object for holding something.

But an empty set is not an object and only exists in theory. It has brackets used to enclose words or figures so as to separate them from the context.

It doesn't exist = nothing. You cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation.

You tried to use nothing to prove something.

What do you think?

Correct. You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?

I go to work. I eat lunch. I hang out with friends. I use electricity. I benefit from centuries of human advancement.

What reality do you think I live in.

Why are these 3 options are undesirable?

Nope. What contradiction?

The contradiction of using nothing to prove something.

OK, so you're rejecting a self-evident principle because you don't like the conclusion of it? That is the appeal to consequences logical fallacy.

No it isn't my dear.

A argumentum ad consequentiam is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

The axiomatic argument fails, empty sets are asserted - forced confidently.
Not defended - proved.

I'm not rejected just the conclusion. I reject what ever you have to offer because you have based proving something using nothing. Brackets with no distinct entities do not conform with the criteria for sets.

What you think?

Don't care.

No my dear. That is not how this works, you agreed to this discussion and want to convince me of this trilemma.

I want to use this trilemma in my everyday - What you recommended.

I have a personal experience with God. I tell you to read my testimony I gave to wampuscat.

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

I want you to use this thought experiment to demonstrate the impossibility of proving my testimony as true?

Can you do it or is the trilemma useless here as well?

If I wanted a personal relationship with a child killer, then I'd visit prisoners.

My dear that was an unfair but I forgive you.

You really weren't prepare for me though , I can tell.

May 22 2016

You said "but what surprised me was the amount of vitriol and hate Christians have spewed at me.

I've participated in this, sometimes instigating and sometimes rightfully responding to unprovoked attacks, and I simply do not see the love of Christ anywhere on these forums.

I have no desire to be a jerk, but even if I did I should not receive rude comments back from a Christian. Am I wrong in thinking that Christians are held to a higher standard than I am?

In my time here I've seen hatred, mockery, and willful ignorance. What I haven't seen is love or intelligent discourse.

Are atheists treated that way because we're not wanted here?"

After reading your words it seems you are a hypocrite, why did you feel the need to mock me and give me rude comments?

You complain about Christians mocking you yet you haven't been so civil with me;

The time you repeated the word seed like a child.

This post impling that God is a child killer and no better than a prisoner in jail.

Or the first time you posted back to me "I can't dive into one with you until you wade out of the kiddie pool and paddle over to the deep end."

What say you?

I already told you that the trilemma does not disprove truths.

Your link says this

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

How does the trilemma demonstrate the impossibility of proving that my testimony is true?

Explain to me how a box containing nothing is itself nothing.

I gave a good explanation previously in this post. I will see how you react.

We don't do proofs about physical reality.

Those are called demonstrations and they're unavoidably subject to a degree of uncertainty.

How so? How is 4 seeds in my hand subject to a degree of certainty?

How is for seeds in your hand subject to a degree of certainty?

Anyway, how would it not be self evident that you are holding the seeds?

Now I'm confused. You just said demonstrations are subject to a degree of certainty. I demonstrated and proved not asserted that I have 4 seeds to my self.

How can it be self evident if its subject to a degree of certainty. What certainty is needed?

4 seeds in my hand is not self evident because I can defend it - prove.

An axiomatic argument is asserted.

I know you think I'm not too bright but you need to be aware that you are not in the deep end. You never were.

How do you put absolute value to a word, and what does that even mean?

Context My dear.

You know, the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

I'm from the kiddie pool my dear.

What?

Words have meaning which are not an asserted fact or belief confidently (. E.g. self evident).

They can be proved by a dictionary.

Remember your whole rant about words being defined by words.

So... are they vectors or something?

Well vectors in maths and physics are a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.

2.
an organism, typically a biting insect or tick, that transmits a disease or parasite from one animal or plant to another.

3.
direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

Let's be on the same page. Words have absolute meaning ie definite. You know not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact:

What you think?

I say you just pulled that out of thin air.

Did I impress you.

Or is that all you have to say?

Here is my response again.

These 3 options are useless to me but if there is a 4th option it is certainty.

The 4th option to this trilllemma - that I don't accept or agree with - is certainty.

What say you?
(because this 4th option was very important for you to have.)

Again, a box of nothing is itself not nothing. I don't understand how you sat there writing this entire post and that fact never occurred to you.

Does the box () exist in reality?

Meaning of set "a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or (more usually) satisfying specified conditions."

That's a stupid request. Why would I attempt to disprove 1+1+1+1=4? Furthermore, the trilemma cannot be used to prove things false.

Because in epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

We have 1+1+1+1=4.

The trilemma is used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving this truth.

The trilemma implies that 1+1+1+1=4 is impossible to prove. You used an axiomatic argument and tried to prove something using four empty sets which have no distinct entities.

I defended 1+1+1+1=4. You asserted empty sets to show the impossibility of proving this truth.

Your example of empty sets was not effective and a bad comparison.

What you think?

It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation.

Hehehe

My dear this is another desperate attempt from you. I'm following the conversation.

1. I asked you to tell me what nothingness means to you.

2. You gave me a link to the trilemma.

3. I asked you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds.

4. You have me an axiomatic argument re empty sets which I disagree with.

We're we are at.

A. After some back and forth we both agreed that you cannot use nothing to prove something.

A set is always something and you tried to use an empty set as an axiomatic argumeny however, you are trying to conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation

B. You wanted me to provide a 4th option to the trilemma. I gave you one re certainty.

C. You get distracted a lot and have a need to belittle me.

My dear friend don't make yourself look desperate.

Please at least be courteous enough proofread your posts before posting them so I don't have to keep seeing gibberish like this.

Please excuse me. For now on I'll proof read my posts.

I will also start looking for any grammatical errors and spelling mistakes from you. Be on your best behaviour.

I said you mocked mathematics. I didn't say you mocked me.

Where did I do that?

Look over what you said in post #617. It sure wasn't a response to the mathematics. Tell me what you call it.

My dear you are the one accusing me.

You made the accusation and now you tell me I need to prove my innocence. That's not how it works.

Its your homework if you wanna pursue that point. Have fun.

I'm certain you're wrong.

I gave you a forth option of certainty. Something that can be defended.

How are you certain I'm wrong?

Please explain how this forth option is wrong or do you wish not to correct me and prefer to mock me.

 

[the iconoclast]

It wouldn't be proof. It would simply be evidence.

Since you were so polite to call one of my posts gibberish, I think i can return a favour by pointing out an error you have made.

Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof = Evidence my dear.

To prove - demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

To prove something you need evidence and an explanation that defends the proof/evidence.

What say you?

Some would say it's compelling, while others might suggest it is Photoshopped.

So some might say the evidence/Proof is compelling, some might believe it is not.

Well let's see.

Here is my testimony - please read.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

This could not happen without the resurrection of our Lord.

Now how should I use the trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of this truth?

Why would my testimony not compel you?

What would you do if this happened to you?

Ps failure to answer here will be suspect and show that you are in the kiddie pool?

Proofs exist only in abstraction, not in reality.

Wait a minute you said this to me "Correct. You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"

Abstractions - something which exists only as an idea.

Proof - Evidence.

Can you not see the contradiction here.

You just implied that reality is an idea but prevoously you tried unsuccessfully to chastise me for believing that I reject reality.

You really are confused.

Ok if proof exists only as an idea and not in reality then how do you know your girlfriend loves you? (I read your history )

This whole cat and mouse game is you trying to make me look bad by picking on nihilism instead of dealing with things that are actually important.

What is more important to discuss than your belief in nihilism?

What should we talk about, tell me? I'm not going anywhere, neither are you.

It is significant that you are here. You were brought up in a denom of Christianity you suspect was a cult. You backsided and at 18 or 19 you decided to come home to Christ.

You read the Bible and got turned off.

I suspect you read the Bible and used misrepresentation to come to a negative conclusion about God. You decided if this negative conclusion is indeed correct then who could want this God. Then you threw away God because of misinformation.

There exists no counter-example to the trilemma. It has not been proved, nor can it, due to the very nature of the claims it makes.

So if it cannot be proved due to its redundant nature then why should I use it in my everyday?

Why do you believe something which cannot be proved?

Once again, the trilemma does not disprove truth.

It is a thought experiment. It cannot be proved due to the very nature of claims it makes. It can't prove or disprove anything.

There is no point in using. It is nothing to me, nothing trying to prove something.

Why is this useless experiment that cannot be proved and does not disprove truth significant to you? Significant enough that when I asked what nothingness meant to you, the trilemma was what you gave me.

Do you believe in things which cannot be proved?

Are you looking for the real thing?

Ps that wiki link you provided me says "In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."

The impossibility of proving truth. Let's break those words down.

Check this out.

We are not able to demonstrate the truth or that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Do you agree with that statement?
Before you answer don't forget what you said to me "You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"

I have no idea what on earth it is you're asking me.

Ok I will reword and ask again.

That wiki leaks page you sent me re trilemma says I can argue against the proof - if I am given any.

You know what you sent me a copy of that message where you believe I ran away from you. Let's use the trilemma to to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth.

Even when the proof is supplied.

I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth.

There you go. That wasn't so hard.

Thanks I was never aware of that denom in nihilism.

If there is no grounding for truth then how is your statement grounded in truth?

"I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth."

Technically this statement has no truth or meaning. What you call your self and what you believe has no grounding in truth. The trilemma has no grounding in truth.

What happens when the rebels,rebel against the rebellion?

I've seen nothing but silly attempts, such as something like this:


Either absolute truth exists or it doesn't.

Let's check out one absolute truth. Will you die and What will happen to you?

(When you replied. How can you be certain of that reply because it has no grounding in truth.)

Why have you a girlfriend. That relationship must also have no grounding in truth.

Let's use the trilemma on your relationship with gf?

She loves you. Is that an axiomatic argument, a circular argument or an ad infinitum argument. When you have the reply just remember that it has no grounding in truth.

Suppose it does. Then the case is proven.

Why suppose let's see how you answer my previous reply.

Suppose it doesn't. If this is absolutely true, then absolute truth does exist.

This is too speculative for my tastes.

Therefore, absolute truth exists.

I have no reply to this.

This stupid argument rests upon the law of excluded middle, which not only fails to be true in any possible world, but it fails to be true in our own world. Quantum mechanics is a counter-example. Furthermore, the law of excluded middle is just another assertion and has firmly grasped the second horn of the trilemma.

All of this is too speculative and a distraction. If you want to or don't want to believe what ever point you are trying to make then, fair enough.

But if you feel there is point that needs to be addressed then please present an argument or proposition to me.

The combined efforts of apologists through the ages have certainly managed to read everything that survived the first couple centuries after Christ. Go and ask them and see the best they've got to offer.

So there you have it, you commited a logical fallacy. You have not read all recorded history and made a claim you could not support.

If you are honest you will restract your comment re through out recorded history because you do not have the ability to make such a statement.

I need to look no further than this very conversation to know what confident ignorance looks like. I'm not going to bluster and blather on about the meticulous methods of historians as though I actually know.

You still ignore the question, What horn would you wrestle with?

Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?

The original substance was what horn of the trilemma do you wrestle with re history.

Dude, you accuse me "It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation."

I've got access to all your replies, I would assume you do as well. Don't make yourself look bad. It makes it easier for me, I want a challenge. I though we were in the deep end?

Of course I'm not familiar with all known history. This is why I'm asking you to find me an example.

What!?!?

Dude i asked you "Why should I trust this statement re known history or recorded."

You know... when you said throughout all known and recorded history such a person does not exist.

You made a claim. One that is a logical fallacy. You have not read all known or recorded history.

It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation.

Wait... That statement sounds familiar?

Irrelevant.

No it is not. Failure to answer seems really suspect.

I will repeat it.

"If the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do YOU declare them to be and why should I trust you?"

You wanted to be in the deep end and not the kiddie pool.

You are not ready for me.

What makes you think I'll dignify your tangents with a response?

Because neither of us can run away. That was the agreement.

Failure to answer seems suspect.

Do you believe The Gospels are trustworthy or not?

You asked me for my attack. I've given it to you. Defend that, not this red herring you've invented.

What attack? What red herring did I invent?

The Bible is a record of history. I already told you that you can use ANY source whatsoever so long as it is within two centuries of the crucifixion.

I agree that the Bible is a recorded history.

I'm talking about you fabricating things and accusing me of saying things I hadn't said.

Such as? Where did I do such a thing?

Ask apologists. They're the ones who came up with the "Why die for a lie?" argument.

I'm not familiar with this argument and I'm not compelled at the moment to check it out. Unless you feel there is a point to make debating something you don't agree with and something I'm not familiar with or agree with.

It's not speculation. It's a challenge. Find a few counter-examples. At least one but a few would be preferred.

No my friend. You made the claim, the burden is on you but you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."

Your claim is a fallacy.

You asked for an attack. I gave it. You're supposed to defend it, but instead you're just standing there flatfooted without a clue what is even happening.

What attack am I flatfooted without a clue about?

The statements are a challenge. Exactly what you asked for. Are you always like this? Do you go into a restaurant, order a burger, and then express confusion when one is served to you?

What part of my position have you attacked?

Because you have made a claim which is a logical fallacy. You claim that such a person who you described does not exist in known or recorded history.

I pulled you up on it and you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."

Your claim is redundant due to a logical fallacy.

Thanks, I will cherish your pity.

You are welcome friend.

The two main things we've been talking about this whole time.

I would like you to clarify what these 2 main things are? Go back and check out our discussion. I have.

Huh? I'm not saying I know my points have failed. I'm merely inviting you to disprove them.

Well let's see how you react to this post. Invitation was accepted and points have been disproved.

What say you

Not all of history. Christian history during the first two centuries. You shouldn't even have to scour history. Talk to apologists.

I'm all good. I know God exists and I put my trust in Him,and His Word. I'm convinced and Spirit filled.

That is a better one, indeed. You're right. Quite the knee slapper.

Well.

Are you willing to come to God through His way; to get the proof or what have you done to get the proof that Jesus is Salvation?

 

[the iconoclast]

You said,






Sorry enough theatrics from me.

Short answer it was a double prophecy.


Isaiah 8 gives you the prophecy fullfilled in isaiahs day - prophetess being the maiden/virgin.


Promise of the messiah in jesus.


Im sorry i know i instigated this conversation but im going to move on. It may be a waste of my time as you seem to have dug yourself in a hole and dont want to be corrected.


God bless you and keep you safe. If you ever wanna get serious or need a friend pm me. If not, just know that there is God.






That is where you tucked tail and ran. Remember?

"Proofs exist only in abstraction, not in reality."

You have supplied what you believe is proof that I ran away from you, but you also say proof exists only in abstraction not in reality.

How do you know that this real and not abstract?

If proof only exists in abstraction and not reality why did you trybto defend your claim with proof that exists in reality?


Ps
My concept of running away is for you to make a point that proves me wrong and I don't answer or reply.

I said "Im sorry i know i instigated this conversation but im going to move on. It may be a waste of my time as you seem to have dug yourself in a hole and dont want to be corrected."

Looks like I could tell even back then you have dug yourself in a hole. Now I want a conversation.

Lol, another e-stalker.

Hehehe...

"In my time here I've seen hatred, mockery, and willful ignorance. What I haven't seen is love or intelligent discourse."
Nihilst virus May 22, 2016

Cheers

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hey hey you diamond

Check this out. You originally said this to me.

"Someone once said personal revelation is just hearsay to everyone else."

Then when you were pressed you say this.

"I agree. I did not say personal experience is hearsay to the person receiving the revelation. I said personal experience is hearsay to everyone else."

When shown how to use the word hearsay you say this.

"I meant to say revelation is hearsay to others, not personal experience. But thanks for the tutorial."

Here's more tutorial

Revelation means a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.

Hearsay means information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

For a revelation to be hearsay;
A. I'm the person who has a revelation - 1st person
B. I tell you - 2nd person
C. You tell someone else of my revelation or experience - 3rd person.

C. Is hearsay.

I'm speaking to you (.eg 1st person speakimg to 2nd person), so my revelation or experience is not hearsay to you - 2nd person. It would be hearsay to the 3rd person.

You are an ex Christian. I have given you my testimony and told you thatbyou can have a personal relationship with God.

What say you?

No, you are telling me what someone else said. That is hearsay as you defined it. You are telling me information that I cannot substantiate.

Well let's try this and we will see what else you require or how you react.

I was in church. I was having hands laid on me by women who spoke in tongues. I went into a vision where I cried out to Jesus to save me from falling into a volcano.

At the end of the vision there was fire and flame (symbolism for the Holy Spirit, you should know this).

After I came to I was completely changed. The experience was so vivid that it effected me. After this experience I felt new and changed. Something was different and my view was changed.

The Holy Spirit is an aspect or agent of God, by means of which people become his messenger or servant, receive gifts, communication, are guided and are convicted.

I became His servant.

The fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

I have felt such joy in prayer through the Holy Spirit, it felt like I could do backflips. I've seen the power of the Spirit and I am not the only one.

I have been shown things that I could not possibly have known. The Holy Spirit has shown me things and given me intuitions that guide me.

Granted I still get things wrong here and there, I'm still human like all of us. Limitations, faults and sin.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I know I have received the Spirit because it convicts my heart and I never had this sensation previous. It guides me like what is promised in Scripture.

It aligns with what was promised to me.

What do you think?

Two questions:
1. Why should I believe you? (I believe you believe this)
2. What evidence do you have that supports these experiences are caused by a god?



[quoet]Because Jesus promised the Comforter to us after His resurrection.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

The Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus. If Jesus did not die for my sin's and was not resurrected then I should not be able to receive the Spirit.

Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.

"Who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God."

The Holy Spirit is intregal to the resurrection.

What you think?[/quote]I have no good reason(s) as of today to believe this is true.


[quoet]So you believe i do not lie and you do not reject that I had this experience.

This experience did happen to me. If it could happen to me what does that mean to you?[/quote]That it could happen to me. I have had what I thought to be supernatural experiences at the time.

Why do I believe it was supernatural? What happened/happens is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Saying I cannot think of another explanation therefore god must have done it is fallacious. Just say I don't know. Attributing it to a supernatural force is different than supporting that claim with evidence.

Is there a scientific understanding of what happened to me?

I don't know.

What would you call that happened to me and how do you justify your explanation of the events?

I don't know why this experience happened to you.

Once you give your explanation, why should I trust that your explanation?

I have no explanation and don't need one. You are making the claim it was supernatural. If you provide sufficient evidence for me to believe I will believe it was supernatural.

Well now you have my explanation. Did you ever hear the words of your Sheppard when you were Christian?

I thought I did a few times. I though reading the bible was direct communication with God as well.

[quoet]Ps
What denom were you and how serious did you take Jesus Christ as salvation?[/quoet]I was a christian.

1. Because I sought after Jesus - not Zeus.

2. I tested the Spirits to see if they were from God.

3. This experience is not how you reach nirvana. Nirvana is more about nothingness.

4. It's not Islam as I cried to Jesus and saw the trinity.

5. No dharma = not hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism and this experience has Christian symbolism in it. My dear girl, the vision did not have any other religious sysmolism.

There was fire, I was souring in the sky, I cried to Jesus, I saw the Trinity, I was having hands laid on me, the 2 women were speaking in tongues, i was committed to Jesus and knew in my heart What I had met. Do you need anymore?

This was definitely attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I was deeply effected, to the point were I'm telling you. To the point were ppl openly mock me and I still tell.

It effected me so greatly that im willing to die for Jesus and live my life through Him.

What say you?

I believe you believe God exists. All you are saying here is that you had an experience and that you attribute it to the christian god. The question remains why should I believe you?

Thanks for the honesty however you just admitted to bias.

You know what you would accept but you don't know what you would accept.

If you do not know what evidence you would accept, then that you weighted one side against the other.

Do you even know what evidence to expect? Would you know the proof if it landed under your nose?

In order to perform an experiment you must know what outcome you are looking for.

You must follow the recipe (.e.g. to filter water, you don't use sand,)

Have a think. What evidence would you accept and what would you expect?

I took a thermodynamics course in college. What if going into the course I laid out the evidence I would need to believe that the first law of thermodynamics was true without knowing anything about thermodynamics. They gave me the evidence for it but it did not fit my preconceived evidence. Would I be warranted in not believing the first law was true? The problem is I cannot know all the evidence that is out there so if I say I will only believe this evidence I could miss the real evidence I would need to believe. The better way is to look at the evidence presented and make an evaluation from that.

[quoet]So it all comes down to trust. What do you require to trust me that I speak the truth?[/quote]Sufficient evidence. I don't mistrust your experiences. Having experiences we cannot explain happen to many people although I am taking that on faith, I have no way to know if you are telling the truth or not. But the more extraordinary claim that God is behind your experiences requires supporting evidence for me.

God should know what would convince me he exists. If God wants me to know he exists all I can conclude is that he does not exist or He does not want me to know he exists yet.

What standard of evidence do you evaluate my claim by?

When we consider epistemology (.e.g. the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)

What about your epistemology that evaluates my claim? How do you use it in regards to my testimony?

Show with supporting evidence that your claim that a god exists aligns with reality and I will believe a god exists. Personal testimony has been shown to be unreliable. Is there some way to test that these experiences are from a God?

So judging by this reply you have no good reason to doubt what I said.

It happened to me and I have nothing to gain from telling you. In this world it's actually a disadvantage to me, but here I am telling you something which is fantastic yet it happened and it happens.

What say you?

There is a difference between believing something is true and that something actually being true. I believe you believe these experiences were from God. I have no way to know if they are form God.

So, my dear girl.

I am not a girl either.

What reason? Could you please explain what reason and what thing 'they' pick? What reason did you have to stop believing?

What happened?

That is a long story across 18 months. The short version is that I decided to study the bible in depth so I could defend it better against non believers. Through that experience I learned a better epistemology and that my reasons for believing were insufficient for belief. In short my standards of evidence were raised to a level I could be confident of what is true. I became unconvinced that a God exists.

You should change your info because right now you call yourself atheist. I have not meet an atheist who says he accepts God.

What are you then?

I made the statement that I have not rejected God. To do that I would need to believe He exists. I am unconvinced he exists. That is a definition of an atheist.

What were these reasons that made you unconvinced?

What reasons were insufficient in comparison?

What thing do you find out that shattered your faith? Tell me, I told you my experience re faith. Tell me your experience re doubt?

I believed because:
1. I had experiences that I attributed to God. However, this can be said of any other religious experience. How could I know they were from a God and if so which one. Also, people do have delusions so how could I rule that out?

2. I believed because of other peoples experiences and testimony. We have been over why this is insufficient.

3. Some apologist argument convinced my God exists such as moral arguments, first cause arguments etc. After really looking at these arguments they all have flawed premises.

4. Reading the bible I felt that it was true.

I don't.

You are making a category error. Islam is not Christianity. They are both faiths but a chair is not hat stand is not a table. They are both furniture. Different.

For starters I told you about a real time experience that happened to me. You asked me to speculate on a theoretical experience that did not happen to you.

Why is my claim no different? What does my claim have in similarity to a Muslim experience?

What is a religious experience that a Muslim (You are aware of) had to compare to what happened to me?

What experiences do Muslims have and why are they are stumbling block for you to come to Jesus or an issue for my Faith in Jesus?

Ps
I gave you a reason why I do not seek out other Gods (.e.g. I got the truth through Jesus and God commands that i have no other Gods).

Ok

Why do you not seek out Zeus and why don't you do what is necessary to prove his existence?[/QUOTE]

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well that is an issue, you cannot have it both ways.

Islam is not Christianity and both claim something different.

Islam rejects the Deity of Christ and it's main goal is for you to submit and accept the Prophet, and his word.

Spirituality in Islam contradicts the spiritually of Christianity. The goal of Islam in incompatible and heresy to Christianity. The Trinity is blasphemy to Islam and the concept of 'God' in both religions are totally different. (Ask me)

There is only one truth and all religions do not agree. All religions contradict each other except for some common ground re morality.

You need to make a firm decision on Who is Jesus Christ and is He Who He says He is?

I am not asking to have it both ways. I am just saying that if anyone can convince me that their god exists I will have to believe them.

Ps you ignored a question.

What Damascus road experiences - of other religions - are you aware of?

Search YouTube, there are many people of other religions that claim God talked to them directly.

Do you want to know or do you want to live in uncertainty?

I want to know what is true and what is false.

So (you being an atheist) do you believe or agree that the supernatural exists?

I don't know. I have no reason to believe as of now that the supernatural does exist. It could.

Do you as - an atheist - believe there are other Gods? What reason do you have not to care?

I don't know if there are any gods. I care about what is true and what is false.

Ps - if you are not an atheist then you should change your information to suit your beliefs.

I am an atheist. Here is a definition of an atheist I agree with:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I lack belief in the existence of gods.

You are yet to give me any reasons. How about we start off with at least one?

What Is one reason do you have?

You have not shown that your experiences were an interaction with a god. How do I know that what you experienced was caused from an interaction with a god and not a delusion which people do have. How can I know the difference?

God should know why that is not good enough for you. God should know What more do you require?

Well I don't know. You haven't justified anything to me yet.

So, Why is that not good enough for you? What more do you require? What do you need to come to God His way?

Please do not ignore this question. If you have an issue and are unsure how to reply then ask me?

You don't like my answer. I don't know what evidence I require, no one does. I simply need to be shown that He exits which He should be able to do easily. Some things that may be convincing:

1. He reveals himself to me in some way that I would know He is real. Has lunch with me or something.
2. If all the people claiming a personal experience with God were similar.
3. Take me up to heaven like he did for Paul. Maybe that would do it.

I don't know what God could do to convince me. But the bottom line is that HE does.

Explain to me why if it is so then he doesn't exist or does not want you to believe?

Why is it God's fault that you do not believe in God?

If God exists as described in the bible He should be able to reveal himself to me in a way that I would be convinced. He did it for others in the bible. There is no difference from my perspective between a God that does not exist and one that refuses to reveal himself.

What does He need to provide?

Have a think and be systematic - like a scientist.

What evidence has he not provided you, what evidence do you need to believe?

I have covered this. How could I possibly know all the evidence that could be out there that would convince me. All I do know is that the evince so far that I have seen does not convince me.

To use reason and logic against my testimony?

You say reason and logic guide you. Then it should guide you right now.

How does reason and logic reveal the truth to you?

I need better detail and I need you to justify and explain your position.

It provides a foundation on how to tell what is true and false. This has been demonstrated to be the most reliable path to truth that I know of.

For starters the three laws of logic have been shown to be reliable and the Christian God violates these laws in the trinity for example.

Law of Identity: For all a, a=a.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Nothing can be and not be at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle: Everything must either be or not be.

Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

So how does this understanding reveal truth?

What specifically about your epistemological understanding relates here?

What are you asking specifically?

What would evidence is needed to satisfy and how would you like me to demonstrate it?

I have no idea as I have said before. Give me the evidence you have for your claim and I will evaluate it. That is how it works.

Faith=complete trust

If you do not trust science then what is your relationship to it?

I trust science in that it is has shown to be a reliable method to find out what reality actually is. It is not infallible.

You say you trust in logic and reason. What is it about logic and reason that makes it trustworthy.

It has been demonstrated to be the most reliable method to reveal truth. They are presuppositions. Show me a better method to determine truth?

Do you trust in my logic and reasoning, someone's else logic and reasoning, your own logic and reasoning or is logic and reasoning a power to in it self?

That has been discussed by people forever. I rely on my understanding of logic and reasoning and its demonstrable results. I am open to change my ind if better methods are revealed to me.

I had to highlight this part of that reply.

I said "I love your faith in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts."

You say it's not faith but then you say you believe women as well. So you just admitted to trust which is faith.

So you have faith - trust- in the conclusions and thoughts of men - and women - who reason with facts.

Sciencism.

Nope. The bible describes faith as "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" Heb 11:1. I do not have confidence in what I hope for or assurance of what I cannot see. This definition allows you to believe anything. I hope I can fly so I am confident that I can or I am assured big foot exists because I cannot see it. Nonesense.

The men and women that do science can back up their conclusions with good evidence. Other scientists can look at their evidence and evaluate it. None of that happens with faith in religion. They are not the same.

Science means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific method Is what sciences utilize.

Scientific method - a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Human beings make conclusions.

Human beings test.

Human beings interpret facts.

Your trust is in human beings who were lab coats and have our at the back of their name.

This is fine when we have results. I do not disagree with a tried and tested result.

I trust a scientist to prove that he cN filter my water. I trust an experiment which proves something constantly.

Let's try this out.

You trust the scientific method and you want to prove a result.

I want you to be systematic just like science is. I want you to use the scientific method on Christian faith.

I believe if you did so then you would be unbiased because you are proving this to yourself or do you need to be told what to think?

I'm throwing a challenge to you. You want to be certain, you want to know what evidence you would accept. Then put your money were your mouth is and so some spiritual research?

I did for 18 years. You know leaving faith is not a pleasant experience for many. It is not something I wanted to happen. During this time I cried out to God many times in prayer through tears to show me that He existed. Nothing happened. I lived as best I could as a christian and tried to stay a believer. In the end, God did not show up in a way that would keep me a believer.

That you need to be reconciled with God because you are born into sin. That's what this religion - actually it's a faith - has provided us.

Jesus died for you sins and so you can have an afterlife and not be somewhere where you wish you won't.

That's what Christians - a faith - has provided.

This is a claim not evidence.

Off the tio of my head, The Bible spoke of orions belt expanding before science proved it in the 80's.

I can try and find some but science is the study of the physical and natural universe. Religion is the study of the Spiritsul, the supernatural and morality.

Where in the bible does it talk about Orions belt?

Ps I don't have any belief in evolution but I bet you trust in it.

Nope, I have studied the evidence and am convinced it is true.

What do you think about your afterlife?

No reason to believe there is one.

What happens if you get things wrong?

What happens if you believe in the wrong afterlife?

Believe means to accept (something) as true.

If that's not Sciencism and faith then what is it?

Do you distrust things you accept as true?

All of my beliefs are tentative with varying levels of certainty. I am willing to be shown to be wrong if provided with good reasons to change my mind. The level of certainty depends on the evidence provided.

You just admitted that there is trust. Trust=faith=Sciencism.

I got a result.

I followed a formula - Christian faith formula.

Others have also been successful.

How is a trust in science different to trust in God?

This is just word games. I trust science because it has demonstrated results. Faith does not.

That admits that science get things wrong. If it corrects it self it cannot always be right.

You mean to say "new information and data is discovered and HUMANS correct the errors". Not science is self correcting. You make it sound like science is conscious and a force.

See you have a faith = Sciencism.

Just stop with the scientism. Of course science gets things wrong. But it is through more science that it corrects its errors. Science never claims absolute certainty. When I say science I mean scientists and their conclusions. Name one thing we know to be true today that faith informed science and not the other way around.

Yet you still try and use hearsay in the incorrect way. Just one more time.

Hearsay is when; the 2nd person tells the 3rd person about what the 1st person says.

I'm first person

You are 2nd person.

Any ways can't wait for your reply.

Whatever. The fact remains that you are telling me what another person (god) said to you. How can I verify that?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey

"The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists."

Jonathan Lowe argues that while the empty set:

"...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, … we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object."

it is also the case that:

"All that we are ever informed about the empty set is that it (1) is a set, (2) has no members, and (3) is unique amongst sets in having no members. However, there are very many things that 'have no members', in the set-theoretical sense—namely, all non-sets. It is perfectly clear why these things have no members, for they are not sets. What is unclear is how there can be, uniquely amongst sets, a set which has no members. We cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation."

The slashed zero is asserted - no questions asked.

Not defended - proved.

It Is argued that the slashed zero is not the same as nothing, however a container drawn on paper is only theoretical.

A set of no members is still a set with no members (.e.g. nothing). A set is always something.

Google define a set

MATHEMATICS•LOGIC
a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or (more usually) satisfying specified conditions.

"the set of all positive integers"

Now the balls in your court.

The ball's in my court? Everything you said is consistent with the points I've made.

With respect to all the points i brought up, convince me that an empty set can be a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit? (.e.g. The definition of a set).

The empty set is a primitive symbol.

Please forgive me for my error re random. You are correct I meant empty.

I though the container () was theoretical and on paper.

Do empty sets exist in reality? Please provide a physical example?

Sets are abstract.

Let's not use the word box as it twists the argument. Let's use container.

1. So it is agreed, you cannot use nothing to prove something.

2. The container does not have any distinct entities individually specified.

3. You used something theoretical as a comparison to a real world example.

Container - an object for holding something.

But an empty set is not an object and only exists in theory. It has brackets used to enclose words or figures so as to separate them from the context.

It doesn't exist = nothing. You cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation.

You tried to use nothing to prove something.

What do you think?

It depends on what you mean by "exist." From how you're using the word, it seems you are inadvertently arguing that language does not exist.

I go to work. I eat lunch. I hang out with friends. I use electricity. I benefit from centuries of human advancement.

What reality do you think I live in.

Why are these 3 options are undesirable?

You listed five things. I don't understand the question.

The contradiction of using nothing to prove something.

That wouldn't even be a contradiction. It would be a non sequitur.

No it isn't my dear.

A argumentum ad consequentiam is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

The axiomatic argument fails, empty sets are asserted - forced confidently.
Not defended - proved.

I'm not rejected just the conclusion. I reject what ever you have to offer because you have based proving something using nothing. Brackets with no distinct entities do not conform with the criteria for sets.

What you think?

What do I think? I'll tell you. Listen carefully, please.

We don't need seven billion mathematicians. I understand that. I'm not going to criticize you for not knowing this stuff. But for you to sit there and argue with me about mathematics is just absurd. It is ridiculous and deserving of ridicule. Do you think you are an expert at everything? Or is it that you think experts know nothing?

No my dear. That is not how this works, you agreed to this discussion and want to convince me of this trilemma.

There is only so much I can do. If I wanted to explain mathematics to a rock, I'd be wasting my time. At some point there is a burden on you to comprehend what is being stated.

I want to use this trilemma in my everyday - What you recommended.

It has no utility.

I have a personal experience with God. I tell you to read my testimony I gave to wampuscat.

Don't care. Thanks.

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

I want you to use this thought experiment to demonstrate the impossibility of proving my testimony as true?

Can you do it or is the trilemma useless here as well?

I don't even need the trilemma to show that you can't demonstrate your testimony as true. It's already widely accepted that religious experiences are not considered reliable testimony.

My dear that was an unfair but I forgive you.

You really weren't prepare for me though , I can tell.

May 22 2016

You said "but what surprised me was the amount of vitriol and hate Christians have spewed at me.

I've participated in this, sometimes instigating and sometimes rightfully responding to unprovoked attacks, and I simply do not see the love of Christ anywhere on these forums.

I have no desire to be a jerk, but even if I did I should not receive rude comments back from a Christian. Am I wrong in thinking that Christians are held to a higher standard than I am?

In my time here I've seen hatred, mockery, and willful ignorance. What I haven't seen is love or intelligent discourse.

Are atheists treated that way because we're not wanted here?"

After reading your words it seems you are a hypocrite, why did you feel the need to mock me and give me rude comments?

Again, I insist that your own words mock you. If you could merely tone down your confident ignorance, it would be easier to take you seriously.

But let's say I am mocking you. Still, my claim is that Christians are supposed to be held to a higher standard than atheists. Do you agree with that? If so, mockery would not make me a hypocrite any more than a child's asymmetrical expectations of the parents to provide makes the child a hypocrite.

You complain about Christians mocking you yet you haven't been so civil with me;

The time you repeated the word seed like a child.

This post impling that God is a child killer and no better than a prisoner in jail.

Are you saying that God has never killed children? Or are you saying that one could kill several hundred children and yet not be a child killer? What exactly is your contention here?

Or the first time you posted back to me "I can't dive into one with you until you wade out of the kiddie pool and paddle over to the deep end."

What say you?

I say I'm still waiting in the deep end.

Your link says this

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

How does the trilemma demonstrate the impossibility of proving that my testimony is true?

Like I said, I don't even need the trilemma.

I gave a good explanation previously in this post. I will see how you react.



How so? How is 4 seeds in my hand subject to a degree of certainty?

How is for seeds in your hand subject to a degree of certainty?




Now I'm confused. You just said demonstrations are subject to a degree of certainty. I demonstrated and proved not asserted that I have 4 seeds to my self.

How can it be self evident if its subject to a degree of certainty. What certainty is needed?

4 seeds in my hand is not self evident because I can defend it - prove.

An axiomatic argument is asserted.

I know you think I'm not too bright but you need to be aware that you are not in the deep end. You never were.



Context My dear.

You know, the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

I'm from the kiddie pool my dear.



Words have meaning which are not an asserted fact or belief confidently (. E.g. self evident).

They can be proved by a dictionary.

Remember your whole rant about words being defined by words.

We've been over this. Catch up please.

Well vectors in maths and physics are a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.

2.
an organism, typically a biting insect or tick, that transmits a disease or parasite from one animal or plant to another.

3.
direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

Let's be on the same page. Words have absolute meaning ie definite. You know not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact:

What you think?

I think that's ridiculous. Words do not have absolute meaning. People disagree on their meaning. Dictionaries are proprietary and are not authoritative. Even if dictionaries were an authority, they disagree with one another on occasion. Also, dictionaries change definitions over time. To be absolute is to be immutable.

Did I impress you.

Lol. No.

Or is that all you have to say?

Here is my response again.

These 3 options are useless to me but if there is a 4th option it is certainty.

The 4th option to this trilllemma - that I don't accept or agree with - is certainty.

What say you?
(because this 4th option was very important for you to have.)

It's a silly argument. For example, let's say I'm certain that x>5 but you're certain that x<5. How does certainty resolve the issue?

Does the box () exist in reality?

This is a hypothetical box so obviously it doesn't exist in reality. That's how hypothetical conversations work. But then again, what does "exist" mean?

Meaning of set "a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or (more usually) satisfying specified conditions."



Because in epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

We have 1+1+1+1=4.

The trilemma is used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving this truth.

The trilemma implies that 1+1+1+1=4 is impossible to prove. You used an axiomatic argument and tried to prove something using four empty sets which have no distinct entities.

I defended 1+1+1+1=4. You asserted empty sets to show the impossibility of proving this truth.

Your example of empty sets was not effective and a bad comparison.

What you think?

I think I'll go pick a fight with a person who possesses acute knowledge on an obscure topic and I will be so wrong and clueless that I don't even understand when I'm shown in great detail how it is that I'm wrong. And then I will understand you on a deeper level.

Hehehe

My dear this is another desperate attempt from you. I'm following the conversation.

1. I asked you to tell me what nothingness means to you.

2. You gave me a link to the trilemma.

3. I asked you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds.

4. You have me an axiomatic argument re empty sets which I disagree with.

We're we are at.

A. After some back and forth we both agreed that you cannot use nothing to prove something.

A set is always something and you tried to use an empty set as an axiomatic argumeny however, you are trying to conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation

B. You wanted me to provide a 4th option to the trilemma. I gave you one re certainty.

C. You get distracted a lot and have a need to belittle me.

My dear friend don't make yourself look desperate.



Please excuse me. For now on I'll proof read my posts.

I will also start looking for any grammatical errors and spelling mistakes from you. Be on your best behaviour.



Where did I do that?

I already told you the post where you did it. Please stop asking. I'm not going to continue to answer the same question from you.

My dear you are the one accusing me.

You made the accusation and now you tell me I need to prove my innocence. That's not how it works.

Its your homework if you wanna pursue that point. Have fun.

Lol. I did the homework. I found it.

I gave you a forth option of certainty. Something that can be defended.

How are you certain I'm wrong?

Please explain how this forth option is wrong or do you wish not to correct me and prefer to mock me.

Again, if I'm certain I'm right, and you're certain I'm wrong, you provide no way of resolving the issue.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Since you were so polite to call one of my posts gibberish, I think i can return a favour by pointing out an error you have made.

Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof = Evidence my dear.

Wrong.

To prove - demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

To prove something you need evidence and an explanation that defends the proof/evidence.

What say you?

Dictionaries regularly ignore input from specialists with acute knowledge in their respective fields. Dictionaries are not an authority. The population that uses language is the authority. Certain academic words are used almost exclusively by specialists in the field and so I will take their input on the meaning of their words over the dictionary's input. The dictionary simply cannot be an expert on every possible discipline known to man. It is not feasible. The dictionary, at best, can be an authority on the meaning of generic words.

So some might say the evidence/Proof is compelling, some might believe it is not.

Well let's see.

Here is my testimony - please read.

No.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

This could not happen without the resurrection of our Lord.

Now how should I use the trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of this truth?

Why would my testimony not compel you?

What would you do if this happened to you?

Ps failure to answer here will be suspect and show that you are in the kiddie pool?




Wait a minute you said this to me "Correct. You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"

Abstractions - something which exists only as an idea.

Proof - Evidence.

Can you not see the contradiction here.

You just implied that reality is an idea but prevoously you tried unsuccessfully to chastise me for believing that I reject reality.

You really are confused.

No, I think you're confused. Nowhere did I imply that reality is an idea. Re-read it.

Ok if proof exists only as an idea and not in reality then how do you know your girlfriend loves you? (I read your history )

Love from a girlfriend is not a logical or mathematical idea. "Proof" is not the appropriate word.

What is more important to discuss than your belief in nihilism?

Literally anything.

What should we talk about, tell me? I'm not going anywhere, neither are you.

I already issued an attack on your religion as you requested.

It is significant that you are here. You were brought up in a denom of Christianity you suspect was a cult. You backsided and at 18 or 19 you decided to come home to Christ.

You read the Bible and got turned off.

I suspect you read the Bible and used misrepresentation to come to a negative conclusion about God. You decided if this negative conclusion is indeed correct then who could want this God. Then you threw away God because of misinformation.

What misrepresentation and misinformation?

So if it cannot be proved due to its redundant nature then why should I use it in my everyday?

When did I say you should use it? When did I even say you could use it? It has no utility.

Why do you believe something which cannot be proved?

Lol. Good one. You should ask your Christian friends that one.

Anyway, I've failed to find a counter-example to the trilemma.

It is a thought experiment. It cannot be proved due to the very nature of claims it makes. It can't prove or disprove anything.

There is no point in using. It is nothing to me, nothing trying to prove something.

Ok great.

Why is this useless experiment that cannot be proved and does not disprove truth significant to you? Significant enough that when I asked what nothingness meant to you, the trilemma was what you gave me.

Do you believe in things which cannot be proved?

Are you looking for the real thing?

Ps that wiki link you provided me says "In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."

The impossibility of proving truth. Let's break those words down.

Check this out.

We are not able to demonstrate the truth or that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Do you agree with that statement?
Before you answer don't forget what you said to me "You make it sound like you literally reject reality except in cases where reality is palatable. Is that how you operate?"

Your appeal to consequences fallacy has nothing to do with the nature of truth.

Ok I will reword and ask again.

That wiki leaks page you sent me re trilemma says I can argue against the proof - if I am given any.

You know what you sent me a copy of that message where you believe I ran away from you. Let's use the trilemma to to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth.

Even when the proof is supplied.



There you go. That wasn't so hard.

Thanks I was never aware of that denom in nihilism.

If there is no grounding for truth then how is your statement grounded in truth?

I already issued a preemptive response to this below. Please refer to it. Thanks.

"I would call myself a logical nihilist, which is to say that I don't see how there can be any sort of absolute grounding of truth."

Technically this statement has no truth or meaning. What you call your self and what you believe has no grounding in truth. The trilemma has no grounding in truth.

What happens when the rebels,rebel against the rebellion?



Let's check out one absolute truth. Will you die and What will happen to you?

(When you replied. How can you be certain of that reply because it has no grounding in truth.)

Why have you a girlfriend. That relationship must also have no grounding in truth.

Let's use the trilemma on your relationship with gf?

She loves you. Is that an axiomatic argument, a circular argument or an ad infinitum argument. When you have the reply just remember that it has no grounding in truth.



Why suppose let's see how you answer my previous reply.



This is too speculative for my tastes.



I have no reply to this.



All of this is too speculative and a distraction. If you want to or don't want to believe what ever point you are trying to make then, fair enough.

This is a direct response to what you asked above. Please see if you can find the connection. There is a burden on you to do some of the understanding.

But if you feel there is point that needs to be addressed then please present an argument or proposition to me.



So there you have it, you commited a logical fallacy. You have not read all recorded history and made a claim you could not support.

That isn't a logical fallacy.

If you are honest you will restract your comment re through out recorded history because you do not have the ability to make such a statement.

The problem here is your failure to comprehend the conversation.

You still ignore the question, What horn would you wrestle with?

I answered this question directly. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Do you expect me to be omniscient, or is it that you expect me to just fabricate answers to questions?

Is that a circular argument, a self evident argument, an argument of ad infinitum or is this your own opinion?

Confident ignorance may be a way of life for you, but I steer clear of it.

The original substance was what horn of the trilemma do you wrestle with re history.

Dude, you accuse me "It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation."

I've got access to all your replies, I would assume you do as well. Don't make yourself look bad. It makes it easier for me, I want a challenge. I though we were in the deep end?

I gave the answer. End of discussion. That is, until you have something to contribute. Based on the track record, I'm not counting on it.

What!?!?

Dude i asked you "Why should I trust this statement re known history or recorded."

You know... when you said throughout all known and recorded history such a person does not exist.

You made a claim. One that is a logical fallacy. You have not read all known or recorded history.

It's bad enough that you can't follow the conversation.

Wait... That statement sounds familiar?

Yes, again, it's you who isn't following.

You asked me to make an attack. I did.

Find me a counter-example to prove my attack is wrong.

No it is not. Failure to answer seems really suspect.

I will repeat it.

"If the Gospels were not eye witnessed or based on eye witnesses, what do YOU declare them to be and why should I trust you?"

You wanted to be in the deep end and not the kiddie pool.

You are not ready for me.

The reliability of the gospels is irrelevant because I've already told you I'm allowing ANY source from within two centuries of the crucifixion. Tell me you understand.

Because neither of us can run away. That was the agreement.

Failure to answer seems suspect.

Do you believe The Gospels are trustworthy or not?

Explain how that is relevant.

What attack?

The one you asked me to make.

What red herring did I invent?

Nearly everything you say is a red herring.

I agree that the Bible is a recorded history.



Such as? Where did I do such a thing?

I already pointed it out to you and you responded.

I'm not familiar with this argument and I'm not compelled at the moment to check it out. Unless you feel there is a point to make debating something you don't agree with and something I'm not familiar with or agree with.

Do you concede the argument then?

No my friend. You made the claim, the burden is on you but you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."

Your claim is a fallacy.

And what fallacy would that be?

What attack am I flatfooted without a clue about?

Yep, that's pretty much the response I'd expect from someone caught flatfooted and without a clue about what is happening.

What part of my position have you attacked?

Because you have made a claim which is a logical fallacy. You claim that such a person who you described does not exist in known or recorded history.

I pulled you up on it and you admit "Of course I'm not familiar with all known history."

Your claim is redundant due to a logical fallacy.

Again, what fallacy are you referring to?

You are welcome friend.



I would like you to clarify what these 2 main things are? Go back and check out our discussion. I have.



Well let's see how you react to this post. Invitation was accepted and points have been disproved.

What say you

No, nothing's been disproved. You've yet to actually contribute to this conversation.

I'm all good. I know God exists and I put my trust in Him,and His Word. I'm convinced and Spirit filled.



Well.

Are you willing to come to God through His way; to get the proof or what have you done to get the proof that Jesus is Salvation?

"Proofs exist only in abstraction, not in reality."

You have supplied what you believe is proof that I ran away from you, but you also say proof exists only in abstraction not in reality.

I gave you evidence. I never said it was a proof.

How do you know that this real and not abstract?

I have a high degree of certainty based upon my recollection of the events.

If proof only exists in abstraction and not reality why did you trybto defend your claim with proof that exists in reality?

I never did.

Ps
My concept of running away is for you to make a point that proves me wrong and I don't answer or reply.

I said "Im sorry i know i instigated this conversation but im going to move on. It may be a waste of my time as you seem to have dug yourself in a hole and dont want to be corrected."

Looks like I could tell even back then you have dug yourself in a hole. Now I want a conversation.



Hehehe...

"In my time here I've seen hatred, mockery, and willful ignorance. What I haven't seen is love or intelligent discourse."
Nihilst virus May 22, 2016

Cheers

Looks like my quote from May 22, 2016 remains accurate.