The circular argument of God and miracles

[miknik5]

How about you first establish that this even is a "miracle" in the first place, instead of just asserting it?

Because you know, things aren't always as they seem:

I think that's what your supposed to do.

 

[miknik5]

Pretending to have an answer, is worse then acknowledging ignorance.

Acknowledging ignorance is also a good thing. It paves the way for additional research and progress. It's how we learn things: "I don't know how this functions...lets get to work and find out"

As opposed to: "God-dun-it...who needs evidence when you have faith..."

Very good! I just am not sure when it comes to the secrets of God that you have identified correctly those who are ignorant

 

[miknik5]

You either don't comprehend the scenario, or you are deliberatly ignoring the point made...

Bob is acknowledging his ignorance in the matter. He doesn't understand what is going on and is honest about it by saying that he doesn't know.

Alice then merely makes something up. The total non-explanation that "god-dun-it", while this god can't even be shown to exist, let alone that it has anything whatsoever to do with the apparant walking on water part.

In other words, Alice, is asserting a causal relationship, which can not be shown to exist, and attributes it to an entity which also cannot be shown to exist.

If that isn't an assertion without evidence, I don't know what is.

Alice then makes something up?

Hmmm....

The assertion without evidence is coming from you. Not Alice

 

[miknik5]

How exactly does "faith" establish things as being "possible"?

It means you first believe there is a God and you go to seek to know Him for yourself


Which is what you are supposed to do

Without faith it is impossible to please GOD for one would have to believe that HE IS and a rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM

 

[miknik5]

Allah is said to be omnipotent and all-merciful, which attributes are also logically at odds; and any omnipotent, omni-benevolent or all-merciful god concept faces the problem of evil. As already said, you can't explain with the inexplicable (or incoherent).

Do not put bitter for sweet, evil for good, darkness for light

And do not attribute these things to God

Another thing to remember is that many profess to have god(s) but deny THE SON

He who does not have THE SON does not have the FATHER who sent HIM

And there is only One who came to manifest the name and because HE came forth from God HE alone has all authority to show/reveal/manifest the FATHER

For no one knows THE FATHER but THE SON and those to whom THE SON chooses to reveal HIM

If one comes professing "another name" "another manifestation" of gpd, he does not belong to God nor does he know HIM

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then test it for yourself which is what a man is capable and able to do and should do

1. test your own hypothesis, don't tell me to do YOUR homework

2. even if I would go through the trouble of doing YOUR work for you, I wouldn't be able to, because....-drumroll-.... It is not a testable idea. Which is the whole point, off course.

It's just yet another unfalsifiable braintwist. Such models are completely useless and meaningless - not to mention, infinite in number.

Pondering and coming up with unfalsifiable ideas, is about as big a time waste as it gets.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i didn't already tell you that when God makes Himself known you know.

How do you differentiate your own imagination, from the voice of an undectable entity that only you can hear?

Do you agree that a lot of people have hallucinations (both auditive as well as visual)? That some people simply are mistaken about the nature of certain things that happen to them?

How do you know that you aren't one of them?

It's the very reason why those whom God has revealed Himself to can't stop from speaking

Funny how, whenever a person claims to have had a divine being talk to them, it always ended up being a character for the religion they already know about.

Muslims hear/see Allah, Christians hear/see Christ and Hindu's hear/see Vishnu, etc.

Seeing how all these religions are mutually exclusive, at best only one of you can be correct.

Considering that you all make similar claims, that all of you except one (at most) are wrong/mistaken by definition and that there is no way to differentiate the claims all of you make.... it most likely outcome, by far, is that you are all wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think that's what your supposed to do.

No, that would be the job of the person who claims it is a miracle. Burden of proof and all, you know...

My side here is "we don't understand, let's investigate to try and find out...", which is represented by Bob in this scenario.

 

[miknik5]

1. test your own hypothesis, don't tell me to do YOUR homework

2. even if I would go through the trouble of doing YOUR work for you, I wouldn't be able to, because....-drumroll-.... It is not a testable idea. Which is the whole point, off course.

It's just yet another unfalsifiable braintwist. Such models are completely useless and meaningless - not to mention, infinite in number.

Pondering and coming up with unfalsifiable ideas, is about as big a time waste as it gets.

Sorry. You are wrong on all counts

Except for bullet 1
I don't have to test anything
I know what I know what I know
Because of the Truth that GOD is the one who reveals HIS TRUTH

And when HE does there really isn't anything more needed to do

 

[DogmaHunter]

Very good! I just am not sure when it comes to the secrets of God that you have identified correctly those who are ignorant

Ignorance is cured by learning more. Not by "believing" more.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Alice then makes something up?
Hmmm.... The assertion without evidence is coming from you. Not Alice

When you propose an unverifiable, unfalsifiable "explanation" for a phenomena of unknown causes, without any supportive evidence for this causal chain - not even for the existance of the thing that is said to be the cause in the first place - then I don't see how you can call that anything but "making stuff up".

That's what "making stuff up", is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It means you first believe there is a God and you go to seek to know Him for yourself

Yes, you said that already. I asked you how such a "methodology" established things as being "possible".

Suppose I believe that I can jump from the Empire State building without a parachute and live to tell the story. Is it now "possible" for me to do exactly that, just because I believe it? Or are my beliefs about it rather irrelevant, when it comes to the possibility of surviving a jump from the Empire State building?

Without faith it is impossible to please GOD for one would have to believe that HE IS and a rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM

You seem to be confusing yourself. We aren't talking about the "possibility" of "pleasing god" here.

Maybe you should try and catch up, before continuing the conversation.

 

[miknik5]

Ignorance is cured by learning more. Not by "believing" more.

Then go "learn"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry. You are wrong on all counts

Owkay then.

Please, explain to us all how the "hypothesis" of Alice can be independently tested.

Since you say that I'm wrong, you are saying the Alice's model IS testable. So go ahead and explain HOW it is testable. And be precise.

Except for bullet 1
I don't have to test anything
I know what I know what I know
Because of the Truth that GOD is the one who reveals HIS TRUTH
And when HE does there really isn't anything more needed to do

Would you except this "argument", if it was about anything else then the god you happen to already believe in?

 

[miknik5]

Yes, you said that already. I asked you how such a "methodology" established things as being "possible".

Suppose I believe that I can jump from the Empire State building without a parachute and live to tell the story. Is it now "possible" for me to do exactly that, just because I believe it? Or are my beliefs about it rather irrelevant, when it comes to the possibility of surviving a jump from the Empire State building?



You seem to be confusing yourself. We aren't talking about the "possibility" of "pleasing god" here.

Maybe you should try and catch up, before continuing the conversation.

Then you need to get off the merry go round

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then go "learn"

Then go "believe less" and learn more.

 

[Albion]

You either don't comprehend the scenario, or you are deliberatly ignoring the point made...

Or I DO comprehend the scenario but you'd rather not hear it.

Bob is acknowledging his ignorance in the matter. He doesn't understand what is going on and is honest about it by saying that he doesn't know.

...and isn't open minded about hearing possible explanations. That's the point that's been made repeatedly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you need to get off the merry go round

You don't have anything constructive to respond to the points being raised?

 

[miknik5]

Owkay then.

Please, explain to us all how the "hypothesis" of Alice can be independently tested.

Since you say that I'm wrong, you are saying the Alice's model IS testable. So go ahead and explain HOW it is testable. And be precise.



Would you except this "argument", if it was about anything else then the god you happen to already believe in?

What did you think this argument has to do with?

One states matter of fact because of an incident happening it is GOD. The other doesn't quite believe this to be the reason for this thing

After that I don't know what you expect others here to do.

The sides are separated and the line is drawn between the two

It's an ongoing battle between "Alice" and "Bob"

 

[miknik5]

Then go "believe less" and learn more.

now why would I do that when He is Sovereign. All things are seen in Light of Him and that Truth. I hold nothing permanently in my hands but I have EVERYTHING needed and needful because I am in His Hands