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 would be your "take" on the matter, and some of us feel that there's enough evidence for us to conclude that it's revelation. There is no way to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
The point is simply that because a human wrote something down does not establish that it's nothing other than his own thinking.
That would be your "take" on the matter
, and some of us feel that there's enough evidence for us to conclude that it's revelation. There is no way to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
And the courthouse may not have been built to code. And the judge might have been getting over the flu.
None of that relates to the analogy itself.
The point is simply that because a human wrote something down does not establish that it's nothing other than his own thinking.
??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible. I already pointed that out. You aren't. You are adhering to your own convictions, that's all.I'ld submit that it's your take as well, when it comes to the scriptures of just about all religions - except the one you happen to buy into.
Sure. And that has been done many, many times. You, though, present no evidence. You just say you aren't convinced, right?There actually is....... Presenting the evidence!
??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible. I already pointed that out. You don't. You are adhering to your own convinctions, that's all. This doesn't prove or disprove either party's POV.
Sure. And that has been done many, many times.
You, though, present no evidence. You just say you aren't convinced, right?
Sorry, but that's not so. You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine. Only a person who is completely disinterested in religion could say, with credibility, that he has nothing to prove.We don't have to prove our position. You do.
Sorry, but that's not so.
You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine.
It is so. You are making the claim that the Bible was inspired by God. That is the claim. It is up to you to prove it. It isn't up to us to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. That's how the burden of proof works.
You have made equally specific claims . . .
We Christians at least do offer a lot of evidence,
Well, we see here that you've fortified yourself with the argument that you know what the truth is, but of course we just have to take your word for it being correct.
Yes, you have. You are not in the least taking the "who knows?" or "who can say?" position on this matter.
Again there is no reason then for you to argue with the witnesses who testify otherwiseIt's the word of men.
??? Yes, I'm convinced of the Bible.
I already pointed that out. You aren't. You are adhering to your own convictions, that's all.
This doesn't prove or disprove either party's POV.
Sure. And that has been done many, many times.
You, though, present no evidence
You just say you aren't convinced, right?
Sorry, but that's not so. You have staked out a firm position and it's an either-or question that you've taken a stand on. Therefore, there is as much burden of proof falling on your side as on mine. Only a person who is completely disinterested in religion could say, with credibility, that he has nothing to prove.
I find them unconvincing.How about the quran? bagavad ghita? Or any other scripture that isn't the bible?
Don't create your own circular argument now. You identify yourself as an atheist.What convictions?
No - that is not "intelligent" or "honest" - just the opposite:Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"
Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."
Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"
Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."
Anyone have a response to this?
Bob's position seems more intellectually honest: admission of ignorance to the cause of his observation. He honestly doesn't know how it is happening and he readily admits as such.
I don´t remember, either. Chances are you wanted to convince me of Biblegod. IOW no biggie.Quatrona
I've already forgotten our disagreement. Care to remind me what it was?
Why should I think God's causing an event must reside in the unknown?
I find it odd that you'd bring up the God of the Gaps argument. That's irrelevant. I never suggested that we should jump to conclusions in the way you described.
Again, God of the gaps... irrelevant. A claim about miracles isn't meant to be an explanation about how the natural world works. They're assertions about specific events, such as Jesus' Resurrection.
If it's true that scripture contains knowledge about God, heaven, and hell, and how one ought to live, I think we could say it's pretty useful.
As for delusions, I don't have good reasons to think belief in God is a delusion. Imaginary dragons are not the same as God. You'd have to say, "imaginary God", but that'd require you to affirm that it's the case that no God exists certainly.
Another thing, what proof do you have that says metaphysical solipsism is false? You can't show yourself that other minds actually have experience of what it is like to be conscious. You'd have to have a belief not based on evidence.
Knowledge about the universe is pretty much useless
I guess that means I am delusional for denying metaphysical solipsism.
Additionally, can you please show me that it's true that one needs to prove to other individuals that X is the case, in order for it to be considered non-delusional...
Can you please prove the statement, "The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise."
Until you do, I don't think I should accept that.
You haven't proven to me that you're a real person, and not an AI. So, please send me evidence that you're not an AI, or I'd be delusional to believe that you're a human. Otherwise, I'd be believing... without evidence.
As for dragons, I've never seen a dragon... therefore I suspend judgement on the matter. I don't assume one way or another.
What I said was, I believe in God... I just haven't proven to you, personally, that he exists.
I didn't say he can't be proven to exist.
What if you're both blind, or your eyesight simply isn't reliable?
Oh, and how would you know that your eyesight is reliable?
I don't think you would know, so you should go with your own thinking... assume your eyesight is not reliable.
In addition to that, can you prove that your cognitive faculties are reliable, and always accurate?
If a woman claims she was raped, and she doesn't go to the police until 3 years later, should police accept your view and say, "pics or it didn't happen"... because you assume things if there's no evidence for the claim.
I think you ought to instead, suspend judgement, and try to find out more. You shouldn't simply say, "the rape never happened since we can't prove it".
I think your bear example is irrelevant. I believe it's more probable than not, that God exists.
I find the arguments for God's existence convincing.
If the person gave good arguments for why he believes there's a bear... you ought to take action.
I don't see why you'd try to assess the danger, afterall, you're rule would be to assume there is no danger.
If there is no evidence for the bear, assume it is not there. By your rule, you would just proceed without assessing danger, since no danger was proven to you.
Go in the cave, after trying to determine whether or not there's a bear? Oh... so first you suspend judgement, and then try to find out the truth, and then act on it... smarter than assuming there's no bear.
Danger is all around us. There are good reasons to assume danger is present. However, that doesn't mean we don't stop living... we just take the standard precautions. Ex. locking one's doors at night. Carrying a weapon. Using anti-virus software. Wearing glasses when driving. Buying insurance.
As for the bear, there's bear tracks leading into the cave. Why are you excluding reasons and evidence from the scenario exactly? Is it because you think there are no good reasons to believe in God?
Oh, but what if the bear was a grenade instead... We're both soldiers, and I yell "GRENADE!"
I see a grenade, but you don't... you're too busy shooting at the terrorists. You then ask for evidence, but the gunfire is too loud for either of us to converse properly. I'm sorry to say, the grenade fell two feet behind you, and it wasn't in your sight at the moment. Wouldn't you think it's appropriate to trust someone's words at some point?
Are you asking for my understanding of God? I don't think of God as an emotion.
God is a rational being, the creator of the universe. He has revealed himself physically through Jesus of Nazareth.
If Bob were actually intelligent, he would put two and two together and surmise that his previous knowledge of the laws of physics was in error.
If Bob were actually honest, he would admit that he was wrong, and consider the obvious...starting with Alice's assessment, as being equally qualified, but more likely true, given the failure of his own intellectual findings.
No - that is not "intelligent" or "honest" - just the opposite:
If Bob were actually intelligent, he would put two and two together and surmise that his previous knowledge of the laws of physics was in error.
If Bob were actually honest, he would admit that he was wrong, and consider the obvious...starting with Alice's assessment, as being equally qualified, but more likely true, given the failure of his own intellectual findings.
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?