The circular argument of God and miracles

[devolved]

You've lost me - what structural variables are missing in the example we considered?

Perhaps this may help?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965095

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You said in your above post that if people believe it long enough it becomes truth...

No, I was asking FireDragon76 if that was what he/she was saying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...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.

OK; forgive me that I can only respond to what you actually said, rather than the elaboration you actually meant.

 

[miknik5]

No, I was asking FireDragon76 if that was what he/she was saying.

Frumious. You don't believe
It is clear that you don't

You asked the question and that question will only be asked by those who don't believe.

If they did and God had revealed The Truth of The Godpel of His Son they would have already known the answer

 

[miknik5]

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 Truth of God

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

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.

 

[devolved]

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

It 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.

 

[miknik5]

It 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.

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

 

[miknik5]

And it isn't the sign of three days in the belly of the whale that HE was referring to

It was the sign that just as the men of Nineveh repented at the words if Jonah One greater than Jonah has come and the world still continues to ask for a sign remaining in unbelief

The men of Nineveh will stand in the judgement and condemn this generation

For we are the generation who benefitted by His coming but we will be the generation who will be judged more harshly for we had all the signs and miracles to come to know Him and we continued to ask for more signs

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frumious. You don't believe
It is clear that you don't

I don't believe in a god or gods, if that's what you mean. You can tell that from my 'Faith:' tag.

You asked the question and that question will only be asked by those who don't believe.

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.

 

[miknik5]

A false Christ is coming who will provide all the visible signs that have kept men from believing the truth because they need to see with physical eyes what can not be seen with physical eyes

It is God who opens the inner spirit part of the man to the Truth of His Word

Just as Christ said. In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled

When that false Christ comes.
Do not go out
Many will and it will be because during a time like none other men will be looking for any type of "savior" who will offer a different type of "healing"

But that healing is temporal and not Eternal

 

[miknik5]

I 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.

Then you are arguing for the sake of arguing

 

[devolved]

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

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you are here to argue that tangible evidence is needed. That a persons word and testimony is not good enough. But it is.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then you are arguing for the sake of arguing

Well, this is the philosophy forum... <winking smiley>

But seriously, I want to discover what other people think about things, and especially why. Socratic argument is a good way to get a clarity of expression and explanation than is often unavailable in simple assertions.

 

[miknik5]

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.

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"
In doing so he in error professes a false sense of his own self righteousness apart from
The Gift of God and foolishly suggests to God that there was "another way"

 

[miknik5]

but I know that it is Gods work alone and that The Gospel must be received the way that it should be received

Not as the words of men but as the Word of God making His Plea through those whom He calls as witnesses to the Truth of His Son to be reconciled to God in His Son. Who alone will present back to His Father, His Bride

What God scattered He is even now gathering up in The Body of His Son

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps this may help?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965095

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).

Interesting article though! vitrification seems particularly complicated, but even the water to ice or ice to water phase change takes some careful thought.

 

[Chriliman]

OK; forgive me that I can only respond to what you actually said, rather than the elaboration you actually meant.

No problem, misunderstandings are expected, what's important is that it gets cleared up.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Information itself cannot misinform, intelligence uses information to misinform, either deliberately or accidentally. Intelligence can also misinterpret information, either deliberately or accidentally.

Intelligence can also use information to convey the truth, thankfully