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.
You've lost me - what structural variables are missing in the example we considered?
No, I was asking FireDragon76 if that was what he/she was saying.You said in your above post that if people believe it long enough it becomes truth...
OK; forgive me that I can only respond to what you actually said, rather than the elaboration you actually meant....What a meant was, if one is believing the true facts(the match was actually from last year) then they will know that what they believe is actually true.
Frumious. You don't believeNo, I was asking FireDragon76 if that was what he/she was saying.
In that case it's also not the information's 'fault'; it's the same information in each case, and it misinforms you in both cases. But if you feel that how your expectations are primed makes a difference, I don't mind.It wasn't the informations fault that I became misinformed, it was my fault for misinterpreting the information. Now if someone deliberately or accidentally showed me last years match with this years date on it, then the information given could be considered false information.
you are here to argue that tangible evidence is needed. That a persons word and testimony is not good enough. But it is. And in the end it is this that will be for or against The a Truth of God
Didn't you understand that He said a wicked generation asks for a sign but none shall be given it except the sign of JonahIt may be enough for you, but you have to understand that some people would like to see more than "because he said so" in order to find extraordinary claims worthy of belief.
I don't believe in a god or gods, if that's what you mean. You can tell that from my 'Faith:' tag.Frumious. You don't believe
It is clear that you don't
If you're referring to the question I asked FireDragon76, it was a request for clarification about what FireDragon76 seemed to imply. I can imagine another believer asking it because it isn't a good argument in favour of belief in Christianity, and some believers think that's important. YMMV.You asked the question and that question will only be asked by those who don't believe.
Then you are arguing for the sake of arguingI don't believe in a god or gods, if that's what you mean. You can tell that from my 'Faith:' tag.
If you're referring to the question I asked FireDragon76, it was a request for clarification about what FireDragon76 seemed to imply. I can imagine another believer asking it because it isn't a good argument in favour of belief in Christianity, and some believers think that's important. YMMV.
Didn't you understand that He said a wicked generation asks for a sign but none shall be given it except the sign of Jonah
I'm inclined to agree with Hume on this, that no testimony is alone sufficient to put us in an epistemic position to believe that natural law can be usurped. This is not to say that natural law cannot be usurped, simply that unsupported testimony is not epistemically sufficient to engender belief that it can. Further, invoking the inexplicable raises more questions than it answers, and those questions are unanswerable; it's not testable, fruitful, simple, or conservative. In these respects it fails all the criteria of a good hypothesis.you are here to argue that tangible evidence is needed. That a persons word and testimony is not good enough. But it is.
Well, this is the philosophy forum... <winking smiley>Then you are arguing for the sake of arguing
I want you to believe because God gave the very best Gift and a man can't come before the throne of His Grace professing "another way"It doesn't sound like a God that wants to be known. It rather sounds like a cult leader who wants people to believe and follow blindly, and hence advance excuses are made up as to why there are no viable evidence other than in stories from the past.
And that's what you don't seem to get posing that in a philosophy section. Saying "because I said so" is not a reasonable justification. And that's what you are saying essentially. I want you to believe because I said so. And I said so, because the other guy said so that God said so.
OK... but that's about vitrification of glassy melts, and the example you gave was of a frozen piece of glass coming out of the fridge. Not quite the same (I have the uncomfortable feeling I've missed a chunk of this discussion somewhere).
OK; forgive me that I can only respond to what you actually said, rather than the elaboration you actually meant.
In that case it's also not the information's 'fault'; it's the same information in each case, and it misinforms you in both cases.
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?