You can give it a try and describe how God went about this empirical demonstration to you. Sounds interesting.
But, yes, claiming to have been demonstrated something and being able to demonstrate it aren´t quite the same thing.
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.
You can give it a try and describe how God went about this empirical demonstration to you. Sounds interesting.God also empirically demonstrated His existence to me, but I doubt you will accept that.
The foundation of all moral law is the Ten Commandments. If something does not in some way relate to them then it is not moral law. It may be ceremonial or civil law in the OT. But those two categories were ended with the coming of Christ. Homosexual behavior ties into the law against adultery. In ancient Hebrew adultery can mean any sexual behavior outside of marriage. So homosexual behavior is forbidden by "You shall not commit adultery." Fabric laws were under the ceremonial law to symbolize purity.Objective morality is based on God's moral law. It does not change throughout history nor does it change because fringe groups who self-identify as Christians choose to ignore it.
For example, stealing out of greed to increase one's wealth is objectively evil. It has always been and always will be wrong. Even if the majority of so-called "Christian" denominations (anyone Christian or not can identify as Christian) ignored it and condoned it such thefts it would still be wrong.
Wearing mixed fabrics has never been a sin. The laws God gave to the ancient nation of Israel were for them only and no one else. If that law prohibited wearing mixed fabrics and they wore them they'd be guilty of the sin of disobedience and not be guilty of any sin related to wearing fabrics. People in other nations at the time who wore mixed fabrics would not have been guilty of any sin because it doesn't violate God's moral law.
Historical Christian churches (Catholic/Orthodox) believe some of the laws God gave to Israel (such as sodomy - men lying with men) were based upon God's moral law which means they consider them to be sinful for everyone at any time. That's the reason why Christians follow some of the Old Testament laws but not all of them.
No, only with God is there an objective morality based on His objectively existing moral character that exists outside humanity. Without God morality is subjective, ie it is based on the feelings of humans that exist within humanity and therefore cannot be objective.With god, there is only obedience to perceived authority, and no morality.
That sort of makes me sad.God also empirically demonstrated His existence to me, but I doubt you will accept that.
I'll accept an empirical demonstration!Anyone can, if you are willing to accept it.
There is empirical evidence for His existence. It is called the universe.That sort of makes me sad.
Because why do some people get that demonstration while others dont?
There really needs to be something else. Because the universe does not contain an empirical God.There is empirical evidence for His existence. It is called the universe.
No, you misunderstood my statement. The empirically existing universe is the empirical evidence for the existence of God, just as your empirical existence is evidence for the existence of your great grandfather.There really needs to be something else. Because the universe does not contain an empirical God.
The definition of a fact is a claim that is indisputable. A quick look at the real world, and you will see no matter which God you choose, the claims of him are disputed by the vast majority of mankind; thus none of the claims of God are based on fact. Now just because a claim is not based on fact, does not mean it is not true; history shows us there has been many true claims that were disputed.It is not based on empirical fact. Whether it is or isn't a fact isn't something that can be determined empirically. I believe it is a fact, you do not because it isn't empirically demonstrated.
-CryptoLutheran
No, we require a chain of reasoning to get from universe to God. Or we need an internal act of faith.No, you misunderstood my statement. The empirically existing universe is the empirical evidence for the existence of God, just as your empirical existence is evidence for the existence of your great grandfather.
Do you know the definition of "empirical"? If so, how did God do this? Please explain.God also empirically demonstrated His existence to me, but I doubt you will accept that.
If his great grandfather is no longer around thus cannot be tested or analyzed, there is no empirical evidence for his grandfather. There may be plenty of evidence that he at one time exited, but not empirical evidence.No, you misunderstood my statement. The empirically existing universe is the empirical evidence for the existence of God, just as your empirical existence is evidence for the existence of your great grandfather.
The definition of a fact is a claim that is indisputable. A quick look at the real world, and you will see no matter which God you choose, the claims of him are disputed by the vast majority of mankind; thus none of the claims of God are based on fact. Now just because a claim is not based on fact, does not mean it is not true; history shows us there has been many true claims that were disputed.
Again; do you know of any facts that cannot be demonstrated empirically?
Ken
If we go by the definition of "fact" that you provided, each of the examples provided can be empirically verified. Again; do you know of any facts that cannot be empirically verified?"Definition of fact
1 a :something that has actual existence
b :an actual occurrence
- space exploration is now a fact
2 :a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- prove the fact of damage
3 :the quality of being actual :actuality
- These are the hard facts of the case.
4 :a thing done: such as
- a question of fact hinges on evidence
a :crime
b archaic :action
- accessory after the fact
c obsolete :feat
5 archaic :performance, doing"
Definition of FACT
We can use the word "fact" to mean something that is indisputably true; but the basic meaning is simply something that is actually true.
-CryptoLutheran
If we go by the definition of "fact" that you provided, each of the examples provided can be empirically verified. Again; do you know of any facts that cannot be empirically verified?
Ken
Doubt on my part has never stopped you before, why should it now?If I told you, you wouldn't believe me.
Doubt on my part has never stopped you before, why should it now?
K
I asked do you know of any facts that CANNOT be demonstrated empirically.Not any that can be demonstrated empirically.
-CryptoLutheran
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?