What Convinced you God Exists?

[cvanwey]

Well, now I'm not sure what you want proven —existence of First Cause? that First Cause is God? That First Cause is With Intent? That First Cause cannot be mere mechanical fact?

But, I will try to deal with the existence of first cause, though at some point in the line of logic this will probably be called 'mere assertion', but anyhow. Assuming Cause-and-Effect is pervasive, as Science and Philosophy both claim, any chain of cause and effect regresses logically to either First Cause, or infinite regression of causes. Infinite regression is offensive to reason, and a begging of the question with each iteration, not to mention "Turtles all the way down". We are left with First Cause. I will try to deal with objections later, as you raise them.

I already addressed that both conclusions (first cause VS eternal) can be argued to be fallacious. You must at least admit the conclusion of "first cause" raises the topic of special pleading. And yet, one of the two propositions is still likely true.

So, until 'science' sufficiently demonstrates one over the other; the philosophical debate continues perpetually (unsolved)

If I wish to convince you, I must, yes, but if I wish to get you thinking, no. I've argued at length, long long hours, worn out keyboards, and no amount of 'proofs' and logical sequences convinced the opponent of anything. I've run into everything from 'intelligent-donkey' mocking to irrelevant responses to every kind of logical fallacy to repeated assertion of "mere assertion" to every added cog in the machine of logic to dropped threads. I've just about come to the conclusion that I'd do better to get to know the person and their way of thinking, because if they at least admit to some degree of instinctual affirmation of such things as First Cause = God, or First Cause implies intent, or absolute Causation of all things except First Cause, or no Free Will, then the conversation can be off and running. My logical sequences prove nothing.

If 'first cause' was demonstrated, I would still not conclude the God of the Bible; for many reasons -- (feel free to dig here where you like) --- 'divine hiddessness', free will, other other other...

But, we are still so far from proving 'first cause' anyhow... Thus, it's virtually not even worth discussing, at present; as we simply do not know. Philosophical argumentation (apologetics included) is not going to prove this assertion, one way or another, as we already have many many many centuries of repetitive debate. So what will? Continued NEW discovery in the "scientific" arena, maybe, some day???

Yes we are all sinners; none of us deserves grace. Those given grace are not intrinsically better than those not given grace. He doesn't do this to everyone, because the accomplishment of his plans for some (his 'particular people') necessarily includes his justice upon the others.

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?

Yes, I've read all parts, several times straight through, and probably many times I've read just about every part as individual passages. I have found very few inaccurate parts (more in some translations/ paraphrases), though many imprecise parts. As they say, it is not a science textbook. Quite a few parts I don't understand, yet I see the mind of God in probably all of it (that is, I don't recall not seeing the mind of God in any of it). I have run into a lot of confirmation bias on my part in assuming something means something, and later realizing it isn't talking about that at all. Yes, apologetics, but also hermeneutics, internal and external reference work, consultation and discussion...

When you refer to apologetics, do you also look at the counter-apologetics arguments - in regards to contested topics? If so, does the counter-apologetics side always loose?

Sounds pretty subjective to me.

Depends on what exactly you deem 'subjective'

If you wish to mock me further, remark on the circular reasoning that I use in claiming the many eyewitnesses, which are only available in the same 2000 year old text that posits that resurrection.

Like I said before, though, even if I could lay out justification for my beliefs, you would not agree until you are ready. I can't say I blame you.

(Btw, I said 'mocking', and it was, but my feelings are not hurt —it was done in good humor, not as others do it)

Concerning the resurrection, there is the logically necessary nature of First Cause —he is, as the saying goes, "a God of the living, not the dead". (Yes it is a saying, not to be taken the way a skeptic would like to take it, turning the words on themselves.)

I trust you know, by now, that I am not 'mocking' you... Just playful banter

I'll cut to the chase with you... If I too felt I received direct revelation from God (reason #3), and this direct revealing God informed me He was indeed YHWH, I too would be forced to likely rationalize the parts of the Bible which sound far fetched or inconsistent. Again, not mocking you.

 

[cvanwey]

I miswrote: "First Cause does know the thing without also causing that the thing be.." I should have said, "First Cause does NOT know the thing without also causing that the thing be.."

His criteria is "the council of his own will". It has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of any creature.

We know (according to Scripture) that he is making us into a dwelling place. It is not a more virtuous seed that grows into a tree that produces the particular stick of wood I choose to use for the leg of a beautiful piece of furniture. But God made the seed for that particular purpose. (No it's not a particularly fitting analogy).

I'm not saying you are implying belief in 'random chance' is logical, but I get what you are saying, that (perhaps) it may as well be random chance causing what happens, as far as you can tell. Certainly, for most people, naturalism (mere cause-and-effect with no evident first cause) is a more fitting answer for what they see around them, than to suppose that Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God causes things. Indeed many Christians hesitate or decline to attribute all effects to God, saying that only the good (as judged by a human viewpoint) things are caused by God, the rest are directly or indirectly caused by freewilled agents, or are neutral (neither good nor bad).

Yes, because, according to Romans 8:5-8 and other places, the humans' intent is "only ever evil continually", unless God changes their heart. (Actually, the quote is from Genesis 6:5, concerning mankind before the flood, but the principle continues). Even when supposedly well-intentioned, the deeds of man are at the core still full of self-declared independence from God and non-submission to God ('Total Depravity'). So he 'poofs' (as you put it), whomever he chooses (by the council of his own will alone), into believers, without increasing his efforts by their added help.

God does not obtain the permission nor the assistance of the unbeliever, before changing their heart/will by making them born again. He does it by himself.

And so, though all are condemned to begin with, for all have sinned, he chooses who will ultimately be damned, and not just by default, but by purposely creating them for the Romans 9 use of them.

I will defer to what is already addressed in a prior post:

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?

Well, no, frankly. While I may have assumed "God" originally because of several reasons, I invoke/assert First Cause/ God because it is simply logical/reasonable. To me it only makes sense, not because the Bible says so. (You know —cause-and-effect, etc.)

Your response just reaffirms what I've been saying for a while now... Due to your a priori beliefs, (reasons 1, 2, and 3), everything in the Bible will fit --- no matter what. Logic/reason likely has little to do with your beliefs. It's more-so likely tied to emotion. I think you even admitted this prior, many posts back...?

1. No, I meant to word that to show that my reasoning for First Cause was of its own worth, and that the God of the Bible (also a stand-alone proposition as is First Cause) matches First Cause in every way.
2. Lol, I would, of course, word that a bit differently. You say, 'rationalized'. I say 'reasoned'. Regardless, the fact that each side claims the other to be fallacious does not make them both equally valid/invalid.

It seems to me simple reasoning: What we see was caused. Science operates on that same premise. "First Cause" is a simply clinical term. It names nothing except the first link in the chain of causation, though on further consideration it implies much. Thus, it is not special pleading, but the obvious fact. For those who wish to deny 'God', that is another matter —they may even say that infinite regression is the First Cause, though to me that is semantics, sophistry. To me, the fact of first cause only makes sense.

1. Asserting "I am the 'beginning" is nothing very profound, is it? If you were to find an opposing holy book, which also made similar claims, would you also have to place that [bag of assertions] into the running, as authoritative, as well? I doubt it. This is likely due to reason #1. Alternatively, if the Bible never made any attempt to express YHWH's 'first cause', you might simply chalk it up to... "well, the Bible doesn't say."

2. Until you can acknowledge that your position presents special pleading, I certainly can

I seem to also remember there is a saying floating around... "From nothing, nothing comes." Which can also mean, there never existed "nothing". If the [universe] is 'eternal', such a claim is no more or less persuasive than 'first cause'.

As sated prior, I'm not sure that any NEW philosophical arguments will lay forth. moving forward? However, in regards to the topic of 'science', NEW data is found all the time. At present, the philosophical side has not 'proven' 'first cause', has it? If so, please sight the source, and why they have not been awarded accordingly, to place to rest a "God" argument?

I hope you are not offended that the thought comes to me that you don't even know for sure that you are not a believer. The notion may be so ground into you that the question is judged on your early teachings of who God is or what Christianity is or what a 'believer' believes, that you don't realize God working in you as we speak. I too rejected at one point what I had believed, not that God didn't exist however, but that he was very different in many ways from what I had been taught.

The writer of Romans 1 was either right, or he was not. But he is not the only one who talks of such things in the Bible. I don't think he was ignorant enough to not see himself projecting, as you speculate to be the case here. On the other hand, of course, I believe what Paul wrote to be the truth, because it was inspired word for word by God. So, there's that bias on my part.

Please look at the part in bold. This is yet another example of you invoking "intentional agency"/God Where-as I, in this case, am not. You can confidently make this unfalsifiable claim. Further, no harm will likely come to you, if you should happen to actually be wrong. Why? Because you will never know if you are wrong. Hence, no punishment for making such statements, over and over and over. (No harm, no foul)...

And, as it seems to be, you feel you have been contacted by God. Hence, it seems logical that you would then think the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and not just some dude writing stuff

Of course it was not by humility I concluded 'first cause'. But it may be humility is involved in accepting the notion of 'first cause'. It certainly is a humbling proposition. (I suppose some people may be able to separate themselves somewhat from their notions in an attempt at pure intellectual consideration, but I don't think any of them are able to do it completely.)

I agree it takes humility to admit to fallaciousness, but that is only one place for humility. You seem to assume I cannot answer WHY noting can come before YHWH, and how I know YHWH exists, aside from appealing to the Bible. Or when you said they were rhetorical questions, did you mean simply 'as if'? Anyhow, short answer: Nothing can come before YHWH because he is first cause. If he is not first cause, he is not God and I want nothing to do with him nor with considerations concerning him. As first cause, there is more reason he should exist than that anything else should exist.

Again, "first cause" is special pleading. All you need to do is ask, "who made God"? And since you can <also> ask this question eternally, you seem then just as fallacious as the infinite regress claim.

Humility is admitting they both lack "logic". Humility is to acknowledge that we just don't know, until maybe 'science', and possible new discoveries, may finally place an end to this current perpetual philosophical/apologetics debate?

That has been dealt with so many times I can't remember if I told you. Like with Israel, his 'chosen people', who were a 'type', of the New Testament (i.e. current) Church, he has a particular people he created for that special purpose, that goes by several names: Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, God's People, Children of God, God's Dwelling Place etc. The rest of who he created are part of what it takes to produce that end product. It may not feel good to be considered collateral damage, but he has that right over his creation. I comfort myself with the knowledge that such things are judged by all knowledge, by God himself, and not by our concepts. Those who reject God, for whatever reasons, will not be punished beyond the severity of their crimes.

I have to repeat this again:

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?

1. Well, that is what I have been repeating: the huge difference in the definition of 'faith' as given by Hebrews 11:1. As far as I know, no other religion has it, though some may try to approach it with some nebulous notion of being 'transported mentally' in some New-Age-like construct.

2. I have gone so far as to speculate that this faith is not simply the work of the Spirit of God within us, but IS the Spirit of God within us. It is that much HIS doing, generated by him, and full of integrity and fact, instead of being something we produce somehow as an act of will on our untrustworthy part. This is a hard concept for most people, but I think it is integral to understanding the relationship between God and man. I say man is not even a complete being, until he is one with God. The words there are only descriptive, being mine. I don't consider them Gospel, but the idea behind them is the Gospel: as Christ said, "apart from me you can do nothing" —it is not hyperbole, nor is it saying "you need my help", but it is talking about being one with Christ (vs. being separate from Christ).

3. Humans were made for God. Humanity was made for God's purposes.

4. Other religions and philosophies dance all around this matter, some even claiming we become Gods like him, or that we join with the omni, the universe or whatever, dispersed into the ether, or some (even many Christians seem to hold to this one) that we are simply a crowd of happy people at the end, and, as concerning the presence of God, that we come and go as we please.

1. "Uniqueness" equals truth?
2. How can one tell they are not separated from Christ?
3. (Reason #3), Please also recall the story of the puddle. Or the weed, which grows in the crack in an area of concrete. The weed states, that "this crack, where I grow, was designed perfectly for me."
4. Do you judge the truth of an assertion/claim by whether or not you deem it "absurd"? I doubt it. You judge the truth of the claim, based upon the Book from which it came from. In your case, you were indoctrinated in the Bible -- (reason #1).

Now to re-ask some of my questions, which I feel were not really addressed:

A: How can you know you have communicated with God, and you are not mistaken? Is there any empirical way of finding out?
B: Is 'faith' reliable?
C: Can't faith be equally applied to any assertion or claim? If so, how might on go about deciding which claims they apply faith to, and which ones they don't?

Unfalsifiable: Not capable of being proven, false, nor for that matter, true. I.e. not the sort of thing that science can deal with as such, though science well may need them.

To some extent, science 'proves' nothing. 'Validate' is a good word there. But science can do experiments demonstrating transfer of information from one agent to another. "External" agent? Do you mean, external to our normal experience? If you mean communicating with ghosts or with God, probably not, unless there is means to document someone who could not have known something they end up able to relate.

Okay. We have millions/billions who claim to speak with the dead, God, ghosts, spirits, etc... I would imagine a vast majority are earnest in their convictions, just like you. How does one go about validating the real, from the mistaken?.?.?.?.?.?.?????????????

Again, it would have to be the sort of thing that can be documented and verifiable. I personally am very skeptical of any example of 'speaking in tongues' modern day, but I will not say God cannot cause it to happen. Some people I have heard appear to be interpreting the 'tongues', but never have I heard someone speaking, let's say, Spanish, who is documented to know no Spanish prior, and someone else who knew Spanish able to verify that what was 'spoken in tongues' made good sense/ could translate it. Lol, and even then, I would have to say, all that happened would be that the person spoke in some language that they were unfamiliar with, which could have been caused in ways that aren't even supernatural. Or it could have been supernatural, but been demon possession.

Are you starting to see the cognitive dissonance yet? Many of these folks likely feel they really are communicating with God/other. And yet, you and I likely agree they are probably not. How is your situation, in claiming you have been 'regenerated/chosen/other' by God, any more true, verses the next billion claims? If you admit there exists no empirical way to validate such occurrences, and you also admit that not all can be correct, but all could be wrong, what makes your experience real, and apart from the counterfeit?

1 John 4:2,3 "By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." Of course, then we have to take into consideration other qualifiers. The devil is a liar, a pretender. It would be prudent to consider what is meant by the words, and not just hear the words. The word 'confess' means 'to agree with' and not simply, 'to say', nor even, 'to agree with this phrase'. The verse is referring to Messianic prophecy, and to the fact that Jesus is God himself, in human flesh.

Millions already state they speak to YHWH. Surely they cannot all be correct. But they could ALL surely be incorrect. How do you know you are even communicating with anything besides yourself? (i.e.) demons/other included?

In this you continue to ignore (not that it is unexpected, because you don't experience it yourself) the witness of the Spirit of God within. (Lol, kind of funny, I meant to include that in the discussion above, re validating 'tongues'.) While the 'witness of the Spirit' within the believer is taken to be subjective, (and probably is, most the time), there is an objective faith (yes, still not falsifiable), that is not generated by the believer, but by the Spirit of God.

This faith both causes and validates one's continued belief. I believe and continue to believe, not because of bias nor habits from upbringing, nor because of convenience, nor because of results, nor because of intellect and reasoning (though all of those are used by the reason), but because of the Spirit of God as he works in me.

I am a theist by reason. I am a follower of Christ by the Spirit of God. Continually, the end (goal, result) of reason is First Cause, YHWH, affirmed by the witness of the Spirit of God within me. This is an objective witness, as Hebrews 11:1 shows, but my apprehension of it may be more subjective than objective.

Everything here further reaffirms reason #3 for your belief.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I already addressed that both conclusions (first cause VS eternal) can be argued to be fallacious. You must at least admit the conclusion of "first cause" raises the topic of special pleading. And yet, one of the two propositions is still likely true.

So, until 'science' sufficiently demonstrates one over the other; the philosophical debate continues perpetually (unsolved)

This may apply to your personal perspective; if not, it sounds considerably 'attempted authority'. You don't know what the truth is, therefore it can't be known until science deals with it???

As for the special pleading, I dealt with it too. I don't think it is special pleading, though I can see how it can be considered that. Science continually investigates regressively via cause-and-effect, to find what fits into the chain. Special pleading's 'God of the gaps' may not be proveable, not being falsifiable, but it IS logical. It works, in that spot. Begging the question I admit, since theoretical First Cause is merely what can be said to fit there. Often we are accused of describing the shape of the water in the puddle. Nevertheless, there is much that we can know (logical corollaries) about that theoretical beginning of all things. And they happily fit the notion of the Judeo-Christian God.

Science would like to discover God by other means, but that isn't likely to happen, any time soon. But science describes the shape of the water in the puddle all the time, then looks to find that water as described.

If 'first cause' was demonstrated, I would still not conclude the God of the Bible; for many reasons -- (feel free to dig here where you like) --- 'divine hiddessness', free will, other other other...

Well, the shape of the water in the puddle does fit the hole! First Cause, unlike any other thing, is the one thing that IS its attributes, so philosophy says, and I tend to agree. It makes sense, and I certainly can't show why not.

I don't know if you have gone through any of the classical proofs of God, (or at least, First Cause), or, if you have, whether you too easily accepted the denials that they prove God (First Cause). It is interesting reading, and takes less time than you might think.

But, we are still so far from proving 'first cause' anyhow... Thus, it's virtually not even worth discussing, at present; as we simply do not know. Philosophical argumentation (apologetics included) is not going to prove this assertion, one way or another, as we already have many many many centuries of repetitive debate. So what will? Continued NEW discovery in the "scientific" arena, maybe, some day???

But see, "we" who? YOU, maybe. Proving is convincing, not showing all possible alternatives have been explored and proven wrong, nor to follow other routes of investigation and coming to the same conclusion. All those are deniable, and ARE denied on a regular basis.

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?

Yes. Problem?

When you refer to apologetics, do you also look at the counter-apologetics arguments - in regards to contested topics? If so, does the counter-apologetics side always loose?

There are several, maybe many, arguments given in attempted proof or support of the existence of God, that are bad (weak) logically. To discard them doesn't mean I've switched sides, lol. So I agree with the counter-arguments I read, when they apply. So no, not always.

Depends on what exactly you deem 'subjective'

Touché! (Yes, I looked up how to do that just for this time, after how many 60 plus years of talking in Spanish. (I don't know French, so that was a Spanish accent.))

Now you're talking like me!

I trust you know, by now, that I am not 'mocking' you... Just playful banter

Yes, that is what I thought.

I'll cut to the chase with you... If I too felt I received direct revelation from God (reason #3), and this direct revealing God informed me He was indeed YHWH, I too would be forced to likely rationalize the parts of the Bible which sound far fetched or inconsistent. Again, not mocking you.

Brings to mind the prophet Amos, who says, "The lion has roared-- who will not fear? The Sovereign LORD has spoken-- who can but prophesy?" The Lord can speak to us however he wishes, but there are times when there is no denying who it was. (No, I haven't run into that where I can claim it was empirical, i.e. falsifiable.)

I have found out the parts that sound inconsistent on further study almost always have a very good explanation. (I think maybe most often, they are from a poor comprehension of the language difference between English, and the original.) Some I still wonder about, but yes, I do assume there is a good explanation. As for what seems far-fetched, I assume something along the lines of what some call 'figurative' language, or poetic license, or simply incomprehensibility of the writer to understand what he was seeing. ALL of the places I have heard were contradictory (i.e. not places that I found, but the online lists people come up with) are things that I believe anyone could answer, were they so inclined.

There is something I would like to say concerning the Hidden-ness of God: In spite of protests to the contrary, there are times when I can swear to you that he seems both distant and non-existent to me, yet I can't otherwise explain how I came through a situation in which I was fearful of the outcome, maybe even terrified, yet I was certain I was not really alone. It is possible, I suppose, that my mind has become so habitually informed (instructed?) of his being with me, that I just naturally assumed it in that situation; but it has to be more than simple imagination —in THAT situation, I didn't have the time nor inclination to beg up some kind of useful imagination.

I can also tell you the passage that says "Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." is absolutely true. I find myself praying sometimes with a force that is not mine, or almost like being carried along in a current, to ask or say things that I hadn't thought to ask or say, that are way too big for me. That is put poorly, but I don't know how else to put it. God is in charge.

All put together, I must insist God happens to me; I did not make him up. No, I can't prove it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I will defer to what is already addressed in a prior post:

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?



Your response just reaffirms what I've been saying for a while now... Due to your a priori beliefs, (reasons 1, 2, and 3), everything in the Bible will fit --- no matter what. Logic/reason likely has little to do with your beliefs. It's more-so likely tied to emotion. I think you even admitted this prior, many posts back...?



1. Asserting "I am the 'beginning" is nothing very profound, is it? If you were to find an opposing holy book, which also made similar claims, would you also have to place that [bag of assertions] into the running, as authoritative, as well? I doubt it. This is likely due to reason #1. Alternatively, if the Bible never made any attempt to express YHWH's 'first cause', you might simply chalk it up to... "well, the Bible doesn't say."

2. Until you can acknowledge that your position presents special pleading, I certainly can

I seem to also remember there is a saying floating around... "From nothing, nothing comes." Which can also mean, there never existed "nothing". If the [universe] is 'eternal', such a claim is no more or less persuasive than 'first cause'.

As sated prior, I'm not sure that any NEW philosophical arguments will lay forth. moving forward? However, in regards to the topic of 'science', NEW data is found all the time. At present, the philosophical side has not 'proven' 'first cause', has it? If so, please sight the source, and why they have not been awarded accordingly, to place to rest a "God" argument?



Please look at the part in bold. This is yet another example of you invoking "intentional agency"/God Where-as I, in this case, am not. You can confidently make this unfalsifiable claim. Further, no harm will likely come to you, if you should happen to actually be wrong. Why? Because you will never know if you are wrong. Hence, no punishment for making such statements, over and over and over. (No harm, no foul)...

And, as it seems to be, you feel you have been contacted by God. Hence, it seems logical that you would then think the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and not just some dude writing stuff



Again, "first cause" is special pleading. All you need to do is ask, "who made God"? And since you can <also> ask this question eternally, you seem then just as fallacious as the infinite regress claim.

Humility is admitting they both lack "logic". Humility is to acknowledge that we just don't know, until maybe 'science', and possible new discoveries, may finally place an end to this current perpetual philosophical/apologetics debate?



I have to repeat this again:

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?



1. "Uniqueness" equals truth?
2. How can one tell they are not separated from Christ?
3. (Reason #3), Please also recall the story of the puddle. Or the weed, which grows in the crack in an area of concrete. The weed states, that "this crack, where I grow, was designed perfectly for me."
4. Do you judge the truth of an assertion/claim by whether or not you deem it "absurd"? I doubt it. You judge the truth of the claim, based upon the Book from which it came from. In your case, you were indoctrinated in the Bible -- (reason #1).

Now to re-ask some of my questions, which I feel were not really addressed:

A: How can you know you have communicated with God, and you are not mistaken? Is there any empirical way of finding out?
B: Is 'faith' reliable?
C: Can't faith be equally applied to any assertion or claim? If so, how might on go about deciding which claims they apply faith to, and which ones they don't?



Okay. We have millions/billions who claim to speak with the dead, God, ghosts, spirits, etc... I would imagine a vast majority are earnest in their convictions, just like you. How does one go about validating the real, from the mistaken?.?.?.?.?.?.?????????????



Are you starting to see the cognitive dissonance yet? Many of these folks likely feel they really are communicating with God/other. And yet, you and I likely agree they are probably not. How is your situation, in claiming you have been 'regenerated/chosen/other' by God, any more true, verses the next billion claims? If you admit there exists no empirical way to validate such occurrences, and you also admit that not all can be correct, but all could be wrong, what makes your experience real, and apart from the counterfeit?



Millions already state they speak to YHWH. Surely they cannot all be correct. But they could ALL surely be incorrect. How do you know you are even communicating with anything besides yourself? (i.e.) demons/other included?



Everything here further reaffirms reason #3 for your belief.

Have I already answered this one? Seems some of it I have. I don't know.

Certainly seems like I have read before, almost all of what you write here.

 

[cvanwey]

This may apply to your personal perspective; if not, it sounds considerably 'attempted authority'. You don't know what the truth is, therefore it can't be known until science deals with it???

My use of the term "science" is very loose and broad. I, myself, am not likely going to solve the riddle of if the 'universe(s)' had a true beginning or not. At some point, if and when there exists enough NEW evidence to formulate a sound conclusion, then this is when we might know - (minus the outliers). Case/point: "Science" has revealed the earth is not flat, and yet we still have a group of 'flat-earthers' running around claiming otherwise.

To my current knowledge, philosophy does not look to postulate NEW ideas; but are instead rebranded old ones -- by apologists, and the like.... I will give you one of your biggest proponents, as an example --> Meet Dr. Craig

As for the special pleading, I dealt with it too. I don't think it is special pleading, though I can see how it can be considered that.

Easy.

Claim: "God is first cause."
Response: "Okay, what came before him?"
Answer: Nothing, God always was.
Response: "Okay, then the universe always was, just as many scientists propose."
etc etc etc etc.........

It's not like some scientist woke up one day and asserted, "I had a dream last night, and so-and-so revealed to me that the universe has no beginning." It doesn't work this way for 'science', but seems to be perfectly fine in the topic of unfalsifiable God belief(s).

Well, the shape of the water in the puddle does fit the hole! First Cause, unlike any other thing, is the one thing that IS its attributes, so philosophy says, and I tend to agree. It makes sense, and I certainly can't show why not.

I don't know if you have gone through any of the classical proofs of God, (or at least, First Cause), or, if you have, whether you too easily accepted the denials that they prove God (First Cause). It is interesting reading, and takes less time than you might think.

Again, "first cause" does not automatically lead to YHWH. Anyone can assert any god, which is 'first cause.' Regardless of whether one does, many do, or other, really means nothing. The real 'first cause' may have no interest in interacting with humans regardless. Such a 'first cause' has to be demonstrated.

Claims to revelation are a dime a dozen. How might one go about demonstrating true revelation of a 'first cause', from a counterfeit revelation of 'first cause'? You have already alluded to not being able to prove this....

Yes. Problem?

You tell me? If no one deserves it, this includes everyone. No one gets His grace.

Brings to mind the prophet Amos, who says, "The lion has roared-- who will not fear? The Sovereign LORD has spoken-- who can but prophesy?" The Lord can speak to us however he wishes, but there are times when there is no denying who it was. (No, I haven't run into that where I can claim it was empirical, i.e. falsifiable.)

I have found out the parts that sound inconsistent on further study almost always have a very good explanation. (I think maybe most often, they are from a poor comprehension of the language difference between English, and the original.) Some I still wonder about, but yes, I do assume there is a good explanation. As for what seems far-fetched, I assume something along the lines of what some call 'figurative' language, or poetic license, or simply incomprehensibility of the writer to understand what he was seeing. ALL of the places I have heard were contradictory (i.e. not places that I found, but the online lists people come up with) are things that I believe anyone could answer, were they so inclined.

There is something I would like to say concerning the Hidden-ness of God: In spite of protests to the contrary, there are times when I can swear to you that he seems both distant and non-existent to me, yet I can't otherwise explain how I came through a situation in which I was fearful of the outcome, maybe even terrified, yet I was certain I was not really alone. It is possible, I suppose, that my mind has become so habitually informed (instructed?) of his being with me, that I just naturally assumed it in that situation; but it has to be more than simple imagination —in THAT situation, I didn't have the time nor inclination to beg up some kind of useful imagination.

I can also tell you the passage that says "Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." is absolutely true. I find myself praying sometimes with a force that is not mine, or almost like being carried along in a current, to ask or say things that I hadn't thought to ask or say, that are way too big for me. That is put poorly, but I don't know how else to put it. God is in charge.

All put together, I must insist God happens to me; I did not make him up. No, I can't prove it.

 

[cvanwey]

Have I already answered this one? Seems some of it I have. I don't know.

Certainly seems like I have read before, almost all of what you write here.

In regards to post #622, just skip the overlap. There is new stuff in there

 

[Mark Quayle]

My use of the term "science" is very loose and broad. I, myself, am not likely going to solve the riddle of if the 'universe(s)' had a true beginning or not. At some point, if and when there exists enough NEW evidence to formulate a sound conclusion, then this is when we might know - (minus the outliers). Case/point: "Science" has revealed the earth is not flat, and yet we still have a group of 'flat-earthers' running around claiming otherwise.

To my current knowledge, philosophy does not look to postulate NEW ideas; but are instead rebranded old ones -- by apologists, and the like.... I will give you one of your biggest proponents, as an example --> Meet Dr. Craig

I haven't much use for 'new ideas'. I like original thought, but when I though it was mine alone, I found out later it was very old. I very much doubt I'm the first to think of anything that I believe to be true. There may be original ways to come at a thing, but even those, like some of my thoughts, have probably been used before, but not published. I say that to say this —it doesn't need to be new to be good, or true.

As one of my friends says, some of the old classic 'proofs' of the existence of God have yet to be refuted. Yes, there are many 'refutations', but they are like your example you posted a video from, Dr Michael Shermer (Read my last paragraph). Wrong from the beginning of his speech.

New evidence is nice, though. (If it is truly evidence, that is. Too often, 'suggestion', 'indication', 'possibility', gets introduced, then promoted as truth.)

Easy.

Claim: "God is first cause."
Response: "Okay, what came before him?"
Answer: Nothing, God always was.
Response: "Okay, then the universe always was, just as many scientists propose."
etc etc etc etc.........

It's not like some scientist woke up one day and asserted, "I had a dream last night, and so-and-so revealed to me that the universe has no beginning." It doesn't work this way for 'science', but seems to be perfectly fine in the topic of unfalsifiable God belief(s).

Your conversation is not representative. It goes something like this.
Claim: "First Cause is God"
Response: "Okay, what came before him?"
Answer: "What part of "first cause" do you not understand?

or, Response: "Then the universe is first cause."
Answer: "First Cause cannot be mere mechanical fact."


I don't know how you came up with this, "last night so and so revealed to me that universe has no beginning" being equivalent with unfalsifiable God belief. Does not logic concerning the necessary attributes of first cause, vs the necessary characteristics of the universe have nothing to say? Is not infinite regression abhorrent to reason? Haven't we already gone over this —that mechanical fact is dependent on other things, and cannot be self-existent?

One of the necessary characteristics of First Cause is intent. Yes, I'm asserting that. Yes, it can be shown but not by me tonight.

Again, "first cause" does not automatically lead to YHWH. Anyone can assert any god, which is 'first cause.' Regardless of whether one does, many do, or other, really means nothing. The real 'first cause' may have no interest in interacting with humans regardless. Such a 'first cause' has to be demonstrated.

Claims to revelation are a dime a dozen. How might one go about demonstrating true revelation of a 'first cause', from a counterfeit revelation of 'first cause'? You have already alluded to not being able to prove this....

If someone wants to claim their god, (not YHWH), is first cause, I let them have at it. Eventually, it (usually) turns out their god is not quite omnipotent, or otherwise falls short of First Cause's necessary attributes.

I have no wish to prove to you that first cause is God, though I will be proud to tell you that what First Cause can be logically (if not instinctively) known to be like (i.e. his attributes), are in lockstep with the attributes of the God of the Bible. Thus if one's god is not First Cause, I have no interest in him.

I don't know what you are referring to by "revelation of 'first cause'".

You tell me? If no one deserves it, this includes everyone. No one gets His grace.

Bad logic. The fact nobody deserves it doesn't mean nobody gets it. It is, after all, called Grace. It is not given as a result of someone deserving it.

BTW I hope you are skeptical of Dr Michael Shermer, too. My data doesn't come cheap, so I didn't watch the whole thing, but his intro right off the bat poses two alternatives as if they were the only possibles, and exalts chance as causative. He says something along the line of 'tens of billions of people just happened to get it wrong, but you got it right?', then concludes that it is more likely that man created God and religion than the other way around. I hope you can see the obvious flaws in that thinking.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I will defer to what is already addressed in a prior post:

* We are all sinners (check)
* NONE of us deserve grace (check)
* Yet, God offers His grace to some and not others (check)?

I've already answered this, I'm sure. But I may have missed one point. You use the long-time Christianese word, "offer", concerning God's grace. That is not accurate. He does not offer and leave it up to freewill choice whether a person will or will not accept his grace. God regenerates the will of those for whom Christ died. THAT is the grace (no, I'm not saying there aren't other graces, such as common grace that is given to all mankind, for example, the keeping them from going as corrupt as they would without his restraint.) The grace of regeneration is not offered to the lost. Salvation is, but they will not take God up on the offer because they are at enmity with him, and so they cannot, until God regenerates their will. God does not ask for permission to change the will.

Your response just reaffirms what I've been saying for a while now... Due to your a priori beliefs, (reasons 1, 2, and 3), everything in the Bible will fit --- no matter what. Logic/reason likely has little to do with your beliefs. It's more-so likely tied to emotion. I think you even admitted this prior, many posts back...?

Will fit what? Logic /reason has everything to do with my beliefs, anyhow, (but granted, with certain presuppositions that may not (though many may) be empirical/falsifiable.) For example, God can logically be shown to be well-intended toward his creation, but first one must presuppose that God exists as Omnipotent Creator.

1. Asserting "I am the 'beginning" is nothing very profound, is it? If you were to find an opposing holy book, which also made similar claims, would you also have to place that [bag of assertions] into the running, as authoritative, as well? I doubt it. This is likely due to reason #1. Alternatively, if the Bible never made any attempt to express YHWH's 'first cause', you might simply chalk it up to... "well, the Bible doesn't say."

2. Until you can acknowledge that your position presents special pleading, I certainly can

I seem to also remember there is a saying floating around... "From nothing, nothing comes." Which can also mean, there never existed "nothing". If the [universe] is 'eternal', such a claim is no more or less persuasive than 'first cause'.

As sated prior, I'm not sure that any NEW philosophical arguments will lay forth. moving forward? However, in regards to the topic of 'science', NEW data is found all the time. At present, the philosophical side has not 'proven' 'first cause', has it? If so, please sight the source, and why they have not been awarded accordingly, to place to rest a "God" argument?

1. I'm sure I answered this before, but maybe I didn't hit "post thread". Anyhow, no, I need not put books that make similar claims in the running as authoritative, because a. The Bible rejects all other books, b. These other books posit a different God from First Cause.

"Which can also mean" does not equal "does mean". "From nothing, nothing comes" does not mean there never existed "nothing". That would have to be shown other ways. But apparently that discussion is relevant to you concerning the persuasiveness of an Eternal Universe, vs First Cause. How so?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here: "Alternatively, if the Bible never made any attempt to express YHWH's 'first cause', you might simply chalk it up to... "well, the Bible doesn't say."." I can guess you mean, "...if the Bible doesn't show YHWH as first cause, you might..." But the Bible DOES show YHWH as first cause.

Again, "first cause" is special pleading. All you need to do is ask, "who made God"? And since you can <also> ask this question eternally, you seem then just as fallacious as the infinite regress claim.

Humility is admitting they both lack "logic". Humility is to acknowledge that we just don't know, until maybe 'science', and possible new discoveries, may finally place an end to this current perpetual philosophical/apologetics debate?

No, all you need to do is ask, "What part of First Cause do you not understand?" The buck stops here.

Humility is admitting there is more going on than is available empirically, temporally, falsifiably.

Are you starting to see the cognitive dissonance yet? Many of these folks likely feel they really are communicating with God/other. And yet, you and I likely agree they are probably not. How is your situation, in claiming you have been 'regenerated/chosen/other' by God, any more true, verses the next billion claims? If you admit there exists no empirical way to validate such occurrences, and you also admit that not all can be correct, but all could be wrong, what makes your experience real, and apart from the counterfeit?

Empirical to whom? Have you discarded my description of the Faith that is generated by God himself? Your idea here, that the fact that there may be a billion false claims makes my claim no more valid than those, is not only illogical, but empiricism is not the only way a thing is true. As has been said many times in the past, truth is truth. It doesn't need verification in order to be true. So how do I know mine is true and theirs is false? The same way I know my God to be first cause, and theirs is not. Their god does not match first cause.

Meanwhile, you mention validate 'such occurrences'. What are you referring to? What occurrences. Admittedly, I have lost the train of though here, but looking for it has not produced an answer.

Millions already state they speak to YHWH. Surely they cannot all be correct. But they could ALL surely be incorrect. How do you know you are even communicating with anything besides yourself? (i.e.) demons/other included?

Logically, because I could not have made all this up by myself. Besides that, as I have told you, God communicates with me in ways I can't explain except to say assurance, confidence, peace that does not depend on temporal circumstances, and so on, not to mention the ability to do what I cannot do without him.

 

[cvanwey]

I haven't much use for 'new ideas'. I like original thought, but when I though it was mine alone, I found out later it was very old. I very much doubt I'm the first to think of anything that I believe to be true. There may be original ways to come at a thing, but even those, like some of my thoughts, have probably been used before, but not published. I say that to say this —it doesn't need to be new to be good, or true.

As one of my friends says, some of the old classic 'proofs' of the existence of God have yet to be refuted. Yes, there are many 'refutations', but they are like your example you posted a video from, Dr Michael Shermer (Read my last paragraph). Wrong from the beginning of his speech.

New evidence is nice, though. (If it is truly evidence, that is. Too often, 'suggestion', 'indication', 'possibility', gets introduced, then promoted as truth.)

As I've stated prior, some assertions are unfalsifiable. Might I remind you of "Russel's teapot"?

If there exists no new things to come, in the world of philosophical thought, then we can evaluate what has been accomplished. Has God been proven? Or, must such assertions merely remain on the table regardless, because they are unfalsifiable?

Has philosophy demonstrated God coherently? Well, according to you, and in accordance with (reason #4 for your beliefs), it 'has' proven God --- via 'first cause'.

Like I stated prior, HAS the earth been 'proven' not be flat? I would say 'yes'. However, if I were debating a flat-earther, what would the answer be?

Your conversation is not representative. It goes something like this.
Claim: "First Cause is God"
Response: "Okay, what came before him?"
Answer: "What part of "first cause" do you not understand?

or, Response: "Then the universe is first cause."
Answer: "First Cause cannot be mere mechanical fact."

I don't know how you came up with this, "last night so and so revealed to me that universe has no beginning" being equivalent with unfalsifiable God belief. Does not logic concerning the necessary attributes of first cause, vs the necessary characteristics of the universe have nothing to say? Is not infinite regression abhorrent to reason? Haven't we already gone over this —that mechanical fact is dependent on other things, and cannot be self-existent?

One of the necessary characteristics of First Cause is intent. Yes, I'm asserting that. Yes, it can be shown but not by me tonight.

If someone wants to claim their god, (not YHWH), is first cause, I let them have at it. Eventually, it (usually) turns out their god is not quite omnipotent, or otherwise falls short of First Cause's necessary attributes.

I have no wish to prove to you that first cause is God, though I will be proud to tell you that what First Cause can be logically (if not instinctively) known to be like (i.e. his attributes), are in lockstep with the attributes of the God of the Bible. Thus if one's god is not First Cause, I have no interest in him.

I don't know what you are referring to by "revelation of 'first cause'".

Any amateur armchair philosopher can postulate 'first cause'. It's easy. It 'solves' an uncomfortable and currently unknowable situation (between 'a true beginning' and 'eternal states').

What I mean is I assert the Bible is 'man-made' alone. I assert the Bible is not inspired by other forces -- (YHWH or other). No such revelation, via God telling a Biblical author to write down what God says, actually exists. Can I prove this? Of course not. Just like one cannot prove Joseph Smith did not receive the Golden Tablets.

Scientists do not state they reached their conclusions, via revelation from God This is what many God believers do. This would include the pages of the Bible. Hence, to assert 'first cause' exists, because the Bible says so, is to admit you have faith that the one telling you so, received their information from God; and was not instead something they already heard or thought otherwise.

Bad logic. The fact nobody deserves it doesn't mean nobody gets it. It is, after all, called Grace. It is not given as a result of someone deserving it.

I think we need to be careful with our definitions here, in this case.

Grace implies you are undeserving. God apparently deems no one deserving of His grace. But wait, God gives grace anyways, to some. Thus, how does God determine who does and who does not get His grace, if no one deserves grace?

You pick'n up what I'm put'n down?

BTW I hope you are skeptical of Dr Michael Shermer, too. My data doesn't come cheap, so I didn't watch the whole thing, but his intro right off the bat poses two alternatives as if they were the only possibles, and exalts chance as causative. He says something along the line of 'tens of billions of people just happened to get it wrong, but you got it right?', then concludes that it is more likely that man created God and religion than the other way around. I hope you can see the obvious flaws in that thinking.

If I was in a debate, and was told to pick one partner, he would likely be my last choice

However, his content in this one argument session, raises some parallel points to consider.

One of his points is that indoctrination begins early. It's hard to shake. Many don't. I still attest that this is reason #1 for your belief. If you should decide to watch the entire 16 minute video, without a bias that he is automatically wrong in everything; you might just see where some of his points seem to describe both you and I; more than you may want to admit

 

[cvanwey]

I've already answered this, I'm sure. But I may have missed one point. You use the long-time Christianese word, "offer", concerning God's grace. That is not accurate. He does not offer and leave it up to freewill choice whether a person will or will not accept his grace. God regenerates the will of those for whom Christ died. THAT is the grace (no, I'm not saying there aren't other graces, such as common grace that is given to all mankind, for example, the keeping them from going as corrupt as they would without his restraint.) The grace of regeneration is not offered to the lost. Salvation is, but they will not take God up on the offer because they are at enmity with him, and so they cannot, until God regenerates their will. God does not ask for permission to change the will.

If no one deserves His grace, and God also imposes His will upon some and not others, HOW does He decide who 'deserves' it and who does not? This is a rhetorical question --- to bring us right back to the syllogism.

God deems some worthy/deserving of His grace, "by regenerating them". This defies the logic that "God deems no one 'deserving' of His grace". God imposes his will upon some, and not others. This is not random, is it? He has His reason(s) to regenerate some and not others, right? Such reasoning would constitute some are deserving of His 'grace', while others are not, right?

Will fit what? Logic /reason has everything to do with my beliefs, anyhow, (but granted, with certain presuppositions that may not (though many may) be empirical/falsifiable.) For example, God can logically be shown to be well-intended toward his creation, but first one must presuppose that God exists as Omnipotent Creator.

Your presupposition exists, due to reason #1.

Empirical to whom? Have you discarded my description of the Faith that is generated by God himself? Your idea here, that the fact that there may be a billion false claims makes my claim no more valid than those, is not only illogical, but empiricism is not the only way a thing is true. As has been said many times in the past, truth is truth. It doesn't need verification in order to be true. So how do I know mine is true and theirs is false? The same way I know my God to be first cause, and theirs is not. Their god does not match first cause.

Meanwhile, you mention validate 'such occurrences'. What are you referring to? What occurrences. Admittedly, I have lost the train of though here, but looking for it has not produced an answer.

You claim you communicate with God, on some level. So do many others. Prior, you seem to be in agreement with me, that many of these ones, "speaking in tongues", may be mistaken in their convictions. You look to use sound reasoning and logical thought to conclude that it is more highly probably they are mistaken/other, verses actually being true. And yet, I bet many of these folks truly believe they are speaking to God.

BUT, when I ask you how you know your experiences are different, I see a disconnect. Sorry. This is cognitive dissonance.

Let's get back on track....

Does there exist 'empirical methods' to validate you are speaking to God? YOU seem to do a pretty good job, in demonstrating many, who "speak in tongues", are likely not. What makes your anecdotal cases more credible than theirs? Is there a way for an outsider to validate such claims? Or, do I take your claims, with the same grain of salt I take all others?

Logically, because I could not have made all this up by myself. Besides that, as I have told you, God communicates with me in ways I can't explain except to say assurance, confidence, peace that does not depend on temporal circumstances, and so on, not to mention the ability to do what I cannot do without him.

This is exactly why I ask you again... Is there a way for an outsider to validate such claims? Or, do I take your claims, with the same grain of salt I take all others? Please read what you wrote, directly above, and tell me how a Hindu could not give me the exact same testimonial as yours?

 

[Mark Quayle]

As I've stated prior, some assertions are unfalsifiable. Might I remind you of "Russel's teapot"?

If there exists no new things to come, in the world of philosophical thought, then we can evaluate what has been accomplished. Has God been proven? Or, must such assertions merely remain on the table regardless, because they are unfalsifiable?

Has philosophy demonstrated God coherently? Well, according to you, and in accordance with (reason #4 for your beliefs), it 'has' proven God --- via 'first cause'.

Like I stated prior, HAS the earth been 'proven' not be flat? I would say 'yes'. However, if I were debating a flat-earther, what would the answer be?

Of course some assertions are unfalsifiable. And 'Russel's Teapot' is only fair, and reasonable. I don't ask you to prove what is unfalsifiable wrong. By the same token, though, you should not ask me to prove true what is unfalsifiable, using 'Scientifically acceptable' norms that you would accept.

Actually, Philosophy has proven God's existence via many routes, not that long chain cause-and-effect is the least of them, but the protests to that one are so often noisy and virulent, I'm starting to think it may be the best of them. (I am a bit curious why you ask if God has been proven "coherently". What is incoherent proof?)

Anyhow, the claims to the contrary concerning the classic proofs I have read don't seem to me to quite hold water, though I confess, I'm not always able to figure out what they are even saying.

Any amateur armchair philosopher can postulate 'first cause'. It's easy. It 'solves' an uncomfortable and currently unknowable situation (between 'a true beginning' and 'eternal states').

What I mean is I assert the Bible is 'man-made' alone. I assert the Bible is not inspired by other forces -- (YHWH or other). No such revelation, via God telling a Biblical author to write down what God says, actually exists. Can I prove this? Of course not. Just like one cannot prove Joseph Smith did not receive the Golden Tablets.

Scientists do not state they reached their conclusions, via revelation from God This is what many God believers do. This would include the pages of the Bible. Hence, to assert 'first cause' exists, because the Bible says so, is to admit you have faith that the one telling you so, received their information from God; and was not instead something they already heard or thought otherwise.

It is not because of special revelation from God that 'First Cause' is considered reasonable. I didn't 'get there' by special revelation, as far as I know. But just in case you are not familiar with the term, 'general revelation' is what Science is based on, including use of empirical evidence and governing principles, both falsifiable and unfalsifiable. Cause-and-effect is a principle drawn from general revelation. General revelation is how I arrive at the notion of first cause, by means of very simple logic. Cause-and-effect necessarily implies (i.e. demands) a cause for every effect. All alternatives to first cause that I have heard are (yes, to me) simply silly. Therefore, at least to me, first cause stands.

I think we need to be careful with our definitions here, in this case.

Grace implies you are undeserving. God apparently deems no one deserving of His grace. But wait, God gives grace anyways, to some. Thus, how does God determine who does and who does not get His grace, if no one deserves grace?

You pick'n up what I'm put'n down?

Of course. God had a reason for making the universe, and humanity in particular. Within humanity he had a particular reason to create those he chose to 'get his grace'. The Biblical notion referred to by 'chose' or 'elect' doesn't imply he picked them out of a pool of possibles, but that they were those he is particular about, more than anyone else. They, like everyone else, are specifically created for the purpose to which he puts them, but in their case it is to be members of the Bride of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God. That's how he 'determines', and thank you for using that word, lol.

If I was in a debate, and was told to pick one partner, he would likely be my last choice

However, his content in this one argument session, raises some parallel points to consider.

One of his points is that indoctrination begins early. It's hard to shake. Many don't. I still attest that this is reason #1 for your belief. If you should decide to watch the entire 16 minute video, without a bias that he is automatically wrong in everything; you might just see where some of his points seem to describe both you and I; more than you may want to admit

He is good at making his point plain —i.e. he is easy to follow, and his manner is engaging. I don't think I began listening to him biased against him, although granted, I was skeptical, as I am of pretty much everything I haven't heard before. I was genuinely curious. I don't remember having heard of him before.

If his points that you take to describe you and me are logically derived from his presuppositions, then I don't see watching the rest of the video.

I am curious though —if you consider my indoctrination [which began early] to be my main reason for believing, do you consider my belief in first cause to be a result mainly of my [early] indoctrination? How so?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If no one deserves His grace, and God also imposes His will upon some and not others, HOW does He decide who 'deserves' it and who does not? This is a rhetorical question --- to bring us right back to the syllogism.

I just posted an answer to this, in #631

 

[Mark Quayle]

God deems some worthy/deserving of His grace, "by regenerating them". This defies the logic that "God deems no one 'deserving' of His grace". God imposes his will upon some, and not others. This is not random, is it? He has His reason(s) to regenerate some and not others, right? Such reasoning would constitute some are deserving of His 'grace', while others are not, right?

No. He does not deem them worthy by regenerating them. Even regenerating them does not make them worthy. They are still not worthy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You claim you communicate with God, on some level. So do many others. Prior, you seem to be in agreement with me, that many of these ones, "speaking in tongues", may be mistaken in their convictions. You look to use sound reasoning and logical thought to conclude that it is more highly probably they are mistaken/other, verses actually being true. And yet, I bet many of these folks truly believe they are speaking to God.

BUT, when I ask you how you know your experiences are different, I see a disconnect. Sorry. This is cognitive dissonance.

Sure they think so. (They must, to avoid appearing silly). I also can't speak for them, but it seems to me their emotionality is fabricated, as well as their 'sign gifts'. Not referring to 'living like the devil all week', their life in church also, for many of them, is that of a different person from the one who lives during the week. During the week you can't tell them from anyone else, but suddenly at the worship service, they do as their neighbor does and begin making noises, quite in contrast to how they behave during the week. Granted, others of them are more consistent, and don't seem to feel the need to even speak in tongues every Sunday.

My experiences, for the most part anyway, are not constructed to happen. I don't set out to have a meaningful prayer session, but it comes on me anyway. I'm here writing something and the reminder hits me that it is I who will be measured by my standard, and I break down and beg him for strength.

Let's get back on track....

Does there exist 'empirical methods' to validate you are speaking to God? YOU seem to do a pretty good job, in demonstrating many, who "speak in tongues", are likely not. What makes your anecdotal cases more credible than theirs? Is there a way for an outsider to validate such claims? Or, do I take your claims, with the same grain of salt I take all others?

This is exactly why I ask you again... Is there a way for an outsider to validate such claims? Or, do I take your claims, with the same grain of salt I take all others? Please read what you wrote, directly above, and tell me how a Hindu could not give me the exact same testimonial as yours?

 

[cvanwey]

Of course some assertions are unfalsifiable. And 'Russel's Teapot' is only fair, and reasonable. I don't ask you to prove what is unfalsifiable wrong. By the same token, though, you should not ask me to prove true what is unfalsifiable, using 'Scientifically acceptable' norms that you would accept.

I should not ask you if your unfalsifiable assertions can be proven? Why?

Actually, Philosophy has proven God's existence via many routes,

Give me the source of the 'best' one, which proves the existence of God? And how/why did I miss THE answer? Inquiring minds want to know?

It is not because of special revelation from God that 'First Cause' is considered reasonable. I didn't 'get there' by special revelation, as far as I know. But just in case you are not familiar with the term, 'general revelation' is what Science is based on, including use of empirical evidence and governing principles, both falsifiable and unfalsifiable. Cause-and-effect is a principle drawn from general revelation. General revelation is how I arrive at the notion of first cause, by means of very simple logic. Cause-and-effect necessarily implies (i.e. demands) a cause for every effect. All alternatives to first cause that I have heard are (yes, to me) simply silly. Therefore, at least to me, first cause stands.

You currently prefer the conclusion of first cause over an eternal state. You then state, "well, the Book I believe in, which is filled with 'special revelations' from God BTW, also states He is 'first cause', so there you go."

Of course. God had a reason for making the universe, and humanity in particular. Within humanity he had a particular reason to create those he chose to 'get his grace'. The Biblical notion referred to by 'chose' or 'elect' doesn't imply he picked them out of a pool of possibles, but that they were those he is particular about, more than anyone else. They, like everyone else, are specifically created for the purpose to which he puts them, but in their case it is to be members of the Bride of Christ, the Dwelling Place of God. That's how he 'determines', and thank you for using that word, lol.

Hence, 'particular about, more than anyone else', means these folks are deserving if His grace, where-as others are not. And yet, this defies the former syllogism

And BTW, about this point, I sincerely doubt you actually know what God thinks and how He operates

He is good at making his point plain —i.e. he is easy to follow, and his manner is engaging. I don't think I began listening to him biased against him, although granted, I was skeptical, as I am of pretty much everything I haven't heard before. I was genuinely curious. I don't remember having heard of him before.

If his points that you take to describe you and me are logically derived from his presuppositions, then I don't see watching the rest of the video.

I am curious though —if you consider my indoctrination [which began early] to be my main reason for believing, do you consider my belief in first cause to be a result mainly of my [early] indoctrination? How so?

I would suggest you watch it, as you will see it hits points of our discussion, as a sort of recap...

He speaks about type 1 and type 2 errors, indoctrination, how evolution has weeded out all the ones who less-so invoke agency, etc etc etc....

And yes, I again assert that you never really shook your a priori indoctrination. "First cause", is again like a republican watching Fox for all their news. If you watch it long enough, it must be the answer. Same goes with a democrat watching MSNBC.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I should not ask you if your unfalsifiable assertions can be proven? Why?

Haha! That's not what I said. I said you should not ask me to prove unfalsifiable assertions. Of course I can't prove unfalsifiable assertions! (Good thing I didn't see this last night while my mind was asleep. Might've sat and stared at your response a half hour trying to figure out what was wrong with it before I gave up!)

Give me the source of the 'best' one, which proves the existence of God? And how/why did I miss THE answer? Inquiring minds want to know?

THE answer? What are you talking about? Haven't I said you won't believe until God changes your mind?

A quick google search ("proof of God") brings up, in this order:

God - Cause and Effect
(I'm not Bahai; this just was the first to pop up and it starts well enough...)

https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0102.pdf
(This one is pretty good, though it suggests a few things that to me appear circular in reasoning; but at least those are not necessary to the argument)

Descartes' Causal Argument for the Existence of God on JSTOR
(I'm not too keen on this one, as it seems to presuppose things of which I am not convinced, such as "Ideas have an objective reality, corresponding to the formal reality of those things of which they are an idea.")

The First And Primary Cause
(This is probably the quickest reference to my way of thinking, though it is not a complete treatise, (it's a devotional).)

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments
(Thomas Aquinas' "five ways"; (notice the use, (at the end of the proofs), of such as "and this [first cause] everyone names God.")) (and yes, I am aware that there are many (and loud) protests against all of the '5 ways'.)

You may also appreciate this short paragraph on epistemology, as it relates to some of what we have been talking about.
Thomas Aquinas - Wikipedia

You currently prefer the conclusion of first cause over an eternal state. You then state, "well, the Book I believe in, which is filled with 'special revelations' from God BTW, also states He is 'first cause', so there you go."

(Haha!, your misstatement of what I said, I don't really mind, for once, since it is also misapplied! (One thing I appreciate about you is the fact that we can dig at each other without harm done.)) I only do that to demonstrate reason for my equating 'God' with 'First Cause'. Hence, as above Aquinas', "this everyone understands to be God".

Hence, 'particular about, more than anyone else', means these folks are deserving if His grace, where-as others are not. And yet, this defies the former syllogism

And BTW, about this point, I sincerely doubt you actually know what God thinks and how He operates

I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how God having particular (and more worthy) purpose for some and not that same purpose for others, makes the objects of that purpose more worthy, apart from his purpose for them. When (in the end of this temporal existence) they are no longer mere recipients of his grace but have been transformed completely (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) they have only then become worthy. Yet even then, it is only because of having become one with God, and not because of the individual members [of the result: The Bride of Christ] in and of themselves.

I would suggest you watch it, as you will see it hits points of our discussion, as a sort of recap...

He speaks about type 1 and type 2 errors, indoctrination, how evolution has weeded out all the ones who less-so invoke agency, etc etc etc....

And yes, I again assert that you never really shook your a priori indoctrination. "First cause", is again like a republican watching Fox for all their news. If you watch it long enough, it must be the answer. Same goes with a democrat watching MSNBC.

Ok, I will watch it, hopefully some time today, since I suggest you look up proofs of God. Fair's fair.

"Never shook" my early indoctrination, as you think of it here, seems to imply the rational need to do so —that each conclusion needs to of its own derivation be considered with its derivation as a whole, not as simply the conclusion in itself. Well, I'm not that smart, to be able to hold all that in mind by the use of a single word or phrase. But as I tried to say in my last(?) post responding to you, my early indoctrination did not concentrate much on the subject of first cause, though I admit, it seemed wholly rational to me even in my teens that God should be the cause of all other things, (though I had not followed that to some of its logical ends, that, for example, it implies that God even caused that evil should be.)

I'm not sure I accept your analogy of 'first cause' being like a republican watching FOX for its news (and that, not because I agree that FOX is conservative; I don't think it is conservative—just less liberal (but then, so are Republicans, haha!) The cosmological argument is compelling of its own derivation, and not by a priori indoctrination or bias.

 

[cvanwey]

No. He does not deem them worthy by regenerating them. Even regenerating them does not make them worthy. They are still not worthy.

I'm going to re-apply the syllogism, with one tweak:

1. We are all sinners (check)
2. NONE of us deserve grace (check)
3. Yet, God applies His grace to some and not others (check)?

Follow-up...

Does God 'regenerate' individuals willy-nilly style, or, is there a method to His madness?

If it is the former --> (head scratch)
If it is the later --> (then He somehow deems some worthy of His grace, while others are not)

If it is the former, line 3. of the syllogism above merits the (?)
If it is the later, line 3. does not coherently follow from line 2.; and also merits a (?)

 

[cvanwey]

Sure they think so. (They must, to avoid appearing silly). I also can't speak for them, but it seems to me their emotionality is fabricated, as well as their 'sign gifts'. Not referring to 'living like the devil all week', their life in church also, for many of them, is that of a different person from the one who lives during the week. During the week you can't tell them from anyone else, but suddenly at the worship service, they do as their neighbor does and begin making noises, quite in contrast to how they behave during the week. Granted, others of them are more consistent, and don't seem to feel the need to even speak in tongues every Sunday.

My experiences, for the most part anyway, are not constructed to happen. I don't set out to have a meaningful prayer session, but it comes on me anyway. I'm here writing something and the reminder hits me that it is I who will be measured by my standard, and I break down and beg him for strength.

I would agree with you, that theirs are suspect, at best... Great logic you gave there... Are you saying God does not answer, when called upon from one of His devout followers?

You feel yours are more validated to be real, because they are not scheduled? You feel yours are more validated and real because they are uncontrolled? In any of these exchanges, does this perceived God communication reveal anything truly enlightening? Anything for which you could not of manufactured yourself? If so, care to share?

EVEN IF something comes over you, how are you in a position to know such a 'force' is YHWH, verses ANYTHING else? I assert it is much more highly probable it is you, and nothing external at all. Please re-reference E.W.S., as I pointed out many posts ago.

 

[cvanwey]

THE answer? What are you talking about?

As you stated, "the truth does not need to be validated, truth is truth. I'm quite curious to know the truth, as I have been seeking for decades.

Haven't I said you won't believe until God changes your mind?

If God merely imposes His will upon me, then nothing I do here, including reading any of these links, is going to help. So why do you send them? Isn't apologetics to rationally defend your position? If your position is rationally sound, then I would have no choice but to accept it, right?

A quick google search ("proof of God") brings up, in this order:

Remember what I informed you about, a few posts back? I asked if we were going to need to explore Aquinas. I find it quite interesting how so many God believers reference him, time and time again.

Point me to the most compelling piece, from among these links, and we can dig in if you like...

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm going to re-apply the syllogism, with one tweak:

1. We are all sinners (check)
2. NONE of us deserve grace (check)
3. Yet, God applies His grace to some and not others (check)?

Follow-up...

Does God 'regenerate' individuals willy-nilly style, or, is there a method to His madness?

If it is the former --> (head scratch)
If it is the later --> (then He somehow deems some worthy of His grace, while others are not)

If it is the former, line 3. of the syllogism above merits the (?)
If it is the later, line 3. does not coherently follow from line 2.; and also merits a (?)

No, it is not willy-nilly. It is not a random choice. There is no pool of possibles, and no substitutes. He made everyone specific for the purpose to which he plans for them.

You seem to have missed what God has in mind. He is making those 'some' to whom he has chosen to show grace, who are no more worthy than anyone else, (after all, that is to the definition of Grace), those created for the the purpose he has in mind, the elect, to whom he chose to show mercy, changed (a process during this temporal life, completed in the next) into the members of the body he has in mind. Let me say that without the parentheses: He is making those to whom he chose to give this particular grace, into the people he planned for them to be in Heaven. They are not more worthy than anyone else. It is ALL his doing.