That is untrue if God exists. Presupposing conclusions doesn't cut it.
Don't expect me to waste time on the untrue statements published about Christianity either.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is untrue if God exists. Presupposing conclusions doesn't cut it.CTD:
I think that there is a fundamental problem with the question or challenge that you pose.
The nature of proof is that it gives us irrefutable evidence that something is a specific way. There are many things that you can speculate upon, but will never be able to get proof of either way.
Proving that God exists is just as impossible as proving that God doesn't exist.
It did?A million people, a million different answers of what their "God" is. That is why this is fail thread.
That is untrue if God exists. Presupposing conclusions doesn't cut it.
Don't expect me to waste time on the untrue statements published about Christianity either.
Been there done that. It wasn't difficult eitherWe are not talking about Christianity man. I think you need to actually read what I'm saying and try to understand it.
No, they are not. Logic is not involved until it is employed.God may exist. God may not exist. These are not conclusions, these are statements of fact obtained through logical deduction.
Nope. 'May' is not an exclusionary term. Nothing is ruled out until it's actually ruled out - in real logic.These two things are mutually exclusive.
That would be false religions, such as you promote.The church has changed the scripture to suit their interest and to control and manipulate the masses.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't.They told us they knew God, they told us God spoke to them, they LIED.
Been there done that. It wasn't difficult either
No, they are not. Logic is not involved until it is employed.
Nope. 'May' is not an exclusionary term. Nothing is ruled out until it's actually ruled out - in real logic.
That would be false religions, such as you promote.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't.
Biblical conspiracy theorists- no evidence, just make up whatever they please & call it fact. Not how history is honestly investigated.
There are aspects of reality that we cannot know.
Do tell...When one makes a statement of fact, they have the burden of proof.
When one makes a statement of fact, they have the burden of proof.
There are aspects of reality that we cannot know.
Maybe one day we will attain the ability to understand God and determine his existence or lack thereof, but we are currently UNABLE.
Philosophy requires you to use your brain and think, not be a sheep who follows what they have been told and taught from birth.
Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to last as a Christian.
You're too weak of mind. Someone who cannot make their own conclusions
and cannot even consider statements that are contrary to the understanding
... and that they were stupid for thinking it was.
In principle, nothing true can be unknowable - nothing.
There is nothing unknowable and true. If nothing else I can know anything God reveals.What principle? Dude, you don't even know what you're talking about. There are many things that are unknowable.
Do tell...What you are thinking right now is unknowable to anyone but yourself.
Certainly: you wish to employ the "power of suggestion" on readers for purposes of convincing them to doubt things they know to be true. I don't see what's difficult about understanding that.Do you understand?
I encourage you to actually think about statements that you're making before you type them out.
I don't consider it the least bit foolish to know things without your permission. Your schtick is boring as all get-out:Either way, I'm done with your ignorant foolishness.
In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?
We are not talking about Christianity man. I think you need to actually read what I'm saying and try to understand it. I'm not trying to confuse or trick you, I'm trying to help you expand your understanding of logic and truth, which should be the only reason to browse a Philosophy forum.
We as a people, regardless of what concept of God we have, can only ever have a belief. Why? Because there is no evidence of God, he demands our faith.
If God did exist, and did want to give us proof of his existence, he surely would have been able to do it comprehensively and to an extent that no intelligent person could deny Him. So what can we conclude? God does not exist, or we would all have proof and be Christians. Or, perhaps God wants to judge us on FAITH. Perhaps God doesn't want belief in him to be something everyone does, as it would reduce it's value. All religions, every last one of them are entirely founded on faith alone. What we choose to use to support our faith is up to us. Some people choose philosophy and logic and reason. Others rely on authority figures and people they think are of value to guide them, or rely on their emotions or experiences.
There are many men of God who are sincere, many who don't care for earthly possessions and only want to serve a God they wholeheartedly live and adore. However, if anyone ever professes something to you as fact, say God spoke to them or that they have absolute knowledge of Him, be cautious. They are almost always lying maliciously with then intent of manipulating you.
Your approach to philosophy is a disgrace. You came here with no understand of anything (maybe a few things, but nothing of value) and with the attitude that you know everything. Philosophy requires you to use your brain and think, not be a sheep who follows what they have been told and taught from birth. Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to last as a Christian. You're too weak of mind. Someone who cannot make their own conclusions and cannot even consider statements that are contrary to the understanding that they have developed is bound to become disillusioned, disheartened and disgusted when they find out it's not concrete and that they were stupid for thinking it was.
In principle, nothing true can be unknowable - nothing.
I "don't like" (as if it's a sin) falsehoods.Ah, I guess this is why you didn't like my hallucination idea.In principle, nothing true can be unknowable - nothing.
Points!A claim to knowledge that a person called Casper lives on the planet Xon which is 1.25 billion light years from earth. This is assuming this claim in made in 21st century earth.In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?
Well theres one example anyway
"My undefined word will always be my undefined word".
Nothing and no one has been precluded from being this "God" you speak of, because you have not given parameters in which they could be precluded from it. I could be God. Maybe you are. My coat, perhaps. My sock? Quite possibly.
Yes and your point being...?
Maybe you should get started on laying that definition out then.
Would any one of that million be able to define 'God' in a way that would not be met with your 'straw-god' complaint?...
My point now is that I'm not wasting time with derailment attempts. If you can't manage, that's not going to become my problem no matter how much you try.
I could easily walk through a city and ask a million people this question, and not encounter a single one who'd need to redefine a single term.
To *redefine* implies that there is a definition.If those who deny God need to redefine the term, that only makes their denial weaker - not stronger, more absurd and cowardly - not less so.
I'm just noticing this: 'make' - not 'come to' or 'arrive at'. 'Make'.Sounds to me like CTD's conclusions are his own. What makes you think his are not, while yours are?You're too weak of mind. Someone who cannot make their own conclusions
In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?
You greatly overestimate the elitist demographic. Legitimate marriage won the popular vote in CALIFORNIA. Even in the stronghold of anti-American sentiment, the most intensely brainwashed location one can name on the continent, the home of Hollywood and San Francisco - even there scoffers lost the popular election.Would any one of that million be able to define 'God' in a way that would not be met with your 'straw-god' complaint?My point now is that I'm not wasting time with derailment attempts. If you can't manage, that's not going to become my problem no matter how much you try.
I could easily walk through a city and ask a million people this question, and not encounter a single one who'd need to redefine a single term.
Do you quote words without reading them or something?To *redefine* implies that there is a definition.
As I said here, all I have seen here are straw-gods, as you call them. They exist - as works of fiction, characters in books, created by men.
Can you demonstrate that your diety is any different?
me said:My point now is that I'm not wasting time with derailment attempts. If you can't manage, that's not going to become my problem no matter how much you try.
To make the claim that God does not exist, one would have to claim omniscience, and would become what he does not believe by definition.
In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?